Anda di halaman 1dari 69

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

RESEARCH PROJ ECT

Report No.
SSRP13/14 Exper imental evaluation of the seismic
r esponse of a r oof-top mounted cooling
tower

by

Rodrigo Astroza
Elide Pantoli
Francesco Selva
Jos I. Restrepo
Tara C. Hutchinson
Joel P. Conte

Draft

Department of Structural Engineering


November 2013
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093-0085
University of California, San Diego
Department of Structural Engineering
Structural Systems Research Project

Report No. SSRP-13/14

Exper imental evaluation of the seismic r esponse of a r oof-top mounted cooling


tower
by

Rodrigo Astroza
Graduate Student

Elide Pantoli
Graduate Student
Francesco Selva
Visiting Graduate Student
Jos I. Restrepo
Professor of Structural Engineering
Tara C. Hutshinson
Professor of Structural Engineering
Joel P. Conte
Professor of Structural Engineering

Department of Structural Engineering


University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093-0085

November 2013
DISCLAIMER

The opinions, recommendations and conclusions contained within this report are solely
those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the project sponsors.
This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was a collaboration between four academic institutions: The University of
California at San Diego, San Diego State University, Howard University, and Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, four major funding sources: The National Science Foundation, Englekirk
Advisory Board, Charles Pankow Foundation, and the California Seismic Safety Commission,
and over 40 industry partners. Additional details may be found at bncs.ucsd.edu. Through the
NSF-NEESR program, a portion of funding was provided by grant number CMMI-0936505 with
Dr. Joy Pauschke as program manager. Support was also provided by NEES@UCSD and
NEES@UCLA staff, Robert Bachman, Dr. Robert Englekirk, and Mahmoud Faghihi. This work
would not have been possible without the many hours of dedicated graduate student
contributions, in particular, Consuelo Aranda, Michelle Chen, Giovanni De Francesco, Hamed
Ebrahimian, Elias Espino, Steve Mintz, and Xiang Wang. Specific to the cooling tower system
discussed in this report, support was provided by Mason Industries Inc., Baltimore Aircoil
Company, University Mechanical & Engineering Contractors, Hilti Corporation, and
NEES@Buffalo. Opinions and findings in this study are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.

ii
ABSTRACT

Cooling towers are important mechanical equipment needed to maintain continuity of


operations in a building after an earthquake. However, roof-top mounted cooling towers have
suffered significant damage during past earthquakes, particularly at their attachment points. This
besides the fact that only a limited number of experimental studies have been conducted to date.
This report examines the seismic response of a cooling tower supported on four isolation /
restraint (I/R) mounts. The tower was mounted on the roof of a five-story reinforced concrete
building built at full-scale and tested on the large outdoor unidirectional shake table at the
University of California, San Diego. The purpose of the test program was to study the seismic
response of the structure and the nonstructural components (NSCs) and their dynamic interaction
at different levels of seismic excitation (Chen et al. 2013, Pantoli et al. 2013). The building was
tested in two phases: (i) base-isolated, and (ii) fixed-base. In each phase, the building was
subjected to six earthquake input ground motions reproduced by the shake table. In this report,
the measured response data of the cooling tower and its supporting system are analyzed and
compared to current code provisions.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER.................................................................................................................................. i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii

NOTATION ................................................................................................................................. viii

1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1

2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................3


2.1 ASCE 7-10 Code .............................................................................................................. 3
2.2 AC 156 qualification standard ......................................................................................... 5

3 TEST PROGRAM ...................................................................................................................6


3.1 Building test ..................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Cooling tower ................................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Supporting structure ......................................................................................................... 8
3.4 Pipes ............................................................................................................................... 10
3.5 Instrumentation layout.................................................................................................... 10
3.6 Dynamic tests ................................................................................................................. 11

4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ...............................................................................................14


4.1 Building response ........................................................................................................... 14
4.2 Dynamic properties ........................................................................................................ 17
4.3 Cooling tower response .................................................................................................. 20
4.4 Supporting system response ........................................................................................... 23

5 DAMAGE STATE OBSERVATIONS AND WATER LOSS FROM COOLING TOWER.27

6 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................29

REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................32

APPENDIX A. Manufacturers information ...................................................................................35

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Required Response Spectrum (RRS) defined by AC156 (ICC 2012a). ........................ 5

Figure 3.1 Test specimen: (a) completed building (south east corner), (b) schematic elevation
view along shaking direction, (c) schematic plan views. (Dimensions in m). ............................... 6

Figure 3.2 Cooling tower. (Dimensions in m). ............................................................................... 8

Figure 3.3 Sketch of the supporting system: (a) general view, (b) isolator spring, (c) snubber
restraint. .......................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 3.4 Photos of the cooling tower: (a) general view, (b) I/R support. .................................... 9

Figure 3.5 Acceleration time histories and elastic displacement and pseudo-acceleration response
spectra (=5%) of achieved earthquake motions for: (a) base-isolated building, and (b) fixed-
base building. ................................................................................................................................ 12

Figure 4.1 Acceleration amplification factor at the roof level vs. PGApl. .................................... 15

Figure 4.2 Component amplification factor (=5%) at the roof level: (a) seismic motions applied
on base-isolated structure, (b) seismic motions applied on fixed-base structure. ........................ 16

Figure 4.3 Comparison of the Test Response Spectra measured at the roof level (TRRS) and the
Required Response Spectra of the AC156 (SDS=1.40g) for =5%: (a) horizontal component
(TRRSH), (b) vertical component (TRRSV). ................................................................................... 17

Figure 4.4 Identified translational modes of the cooling tower system (EW is the primary shake
table loading direction). ................................................................................................................ 18

Figure 4.5 Acceleration time history recorded at the NW top corner of the cooling tower during
the FB testing phase: (a) spectrogram and (b) power spectrum estimate. (P: pulse, WN: white
noise; Amb: ambient vibration) .................................................................................................... 19

Figure 4.6 Peak acceleration amplification factors (PAAFs) defined as the ratio of peak
acceleration recorded on top of the cooling tower to recorded building peak roof acceleration: (a)
Base-isolated building, (b) Fixed-base building (open circles: SE corner; filled circle: NW
corner). Note that x and y-axis limits vary for each plot. ............................................................. 21

Figure 4.7 Relative displacement between the base of the cooling tower and the roof slab in the
East-West direction recorded during the (a) BI7-ICA140 and (b) FB5-DEN67 seismic tests. .... 22

Figure 4.8 Maximum relative displacement of the base of the cooling tower in the East-West
direction for: (a) base-isolated building, and (b) fixed-base building. ......................................... 22

v
Figure 4.9 Displacement of top and base of the cooling tower (NW corner) relative to roof slab
and deformation of isolator: (a) base-isolated building, and (b) fixed-base building. ................. 23

Figure 4.10 Axial vertical forces at the four supported corners of the cooling tower: (a)
comparison of the axial forces at the SE and SW corners of the tower during FB4-ICA100, (b)
time history of the axial force at the SE corner of the tower during FB5-DEN67 compared to the
design value, (c) maximum peak axial forces recorded under base-isolated condition, (d)
maximum peak axial forces recorded under fixed-base condition and comparison with design
force. ............................................................................................................................................. 25

Figure 4.11 Shear forces in the EW direction at the four supported corners of the cooling tower:
(a) comparison of the shear forces at the SE and NW corners of the tower during FB4-ICA100,
(b) time history of the shear force at the NW corner during FB5-DEN67 compared to the design
value, (c) peak shear forces recorded under BI condition (N.A.: data not available), and (d)
maximum peak shear forces recorded under FB condition and comparison with design force. .. 26

Figure 5.1 Volume of water loss under base-isolated and fixed-base conditions......................... 28

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Seismic coefficients for cooling tower systems in ASCE 7-10 (ASCE/SEI 2010) ........ 4

Table 3.1 Dynamic tests used in this study. .................................................................................. 13

Table 4.1 Natural periods/frequencies of the first three longitudinal (L) modes of the building
isolated and fixed (Astroza et al. 2013a) at its base obtained using white noise base excitation. 14

Table 4.2 Identified natural periods/frequencies and equivalent damping ratios of the cooling
tower system. ................................................................................................................................ 18

vii
NOTATION

Acr onyms
AHU Air handling unit
AM Actual earthquake motion
BI Base-isolated building
DAQ Data Acquisition
FB Fixed-base building
FFT Fast Fourier Transform
I/R Isolation/restraint
ICU Intensive care unit
MCE Maximum considered earthquake
NCS Nonstructural components and systems
NEES Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
PS Power spectrum
RC Reinforced concrete
RMS Root-mean-square
SM Spectrum-matched earthquake motion

Var iables
ai Acceleration at level i obtained from the modal analysis
ap Component amplification factor
Ax Torsional amplification factor
Fp Horizontal seismic design force
H Average roof height of the building with respect to the base
Ip Component importance factor
PAAF Peak acceleration amplification factors
PFA Peak floor acceleration
PGA Peak ground acceleration
PGApl Peak ground acceleration measured at the shake table platen

viii
PRA Peak roof acceleration
Rp Component response modification factor
RRS Required Response Spectrum
SDS Spectral acceleration at short periods for 5% damping
Tp Component fundamental period
TRRS Test Roof Response Spectra
Wp Component operating weight
z Height in the structure of the point of attachment of the component with respect
to the building base

ix
1 INTRODUCTION
Mechanical equipment such as boilers, air handling units (AHUs) and cooling towers
represent an important subsystem of nonstructural components (NCSs) needed to maintain
continuity of operations of buildings after earthquakes, particularly for critical facilities such as
hospitals. For energy consumption reasons, cooling towers are commonly mounted on the roof of
buildings. In addition, because of the vibration and noise arising from their operation, cooling
towers are usually supported on vibration isolators to reduce the vibrations transferred to the
supporting structure. It is worth noting that an earthquake ground motion is filtered by the
structure before it reaches roof mounted equipment. The performance of roof-mounted
equipment supported by isolators has not been satisfactory during earthquakes (e.g., Ayres et al.
1973, Ayres and Sun 1973, Reitherman and Sabol 1995, Gates and McGavin 1998, Filiatrault et
al. 2002). This is due in part to the tendency of the isolation system to shift the response of the
cooling tower closer to one of the significantly excited modes of the building.

Few experimental studies on the seismic behavior of isolated mechanical equipment have
been conducted to date. Fathali and Filiatrault (2008) performed shake table tests, using input
motions derived from the ICC-ES acceptance criteria document AC156 (ICC 2012a), on a 118
kN liquid centrifugal chiller supported on four isolation/restraint (I/R) systems
(spring+elastomeric snubber). They found that the snubber gap dimension was the most
influential parameter on the response. For low to moderate amplitude input motions, larger gaps
induced lower forces because the snubbers were not activated, while for high amplitude input
motions, higher forces were produced as the gap size increased. Lin et al. (2011) performed
shake table tests, also using input motions derived from the AC156 document, on a 49 kN diesel
generator supported on either (i) four spring isolators, and (ii) four I/R supports. They found that
both types of support resulted in amplification factors higher than those calculated from design
codes, and noted the high vertical acceleration response of the generator recorded during the
tests. Both studies point out the necessity of improving the design requirements for spring
isolated mechanical equipment.

Although these and other prior shake table tests utilized motions and procedures
contained in AC156, field conditions differ from those required by that document. For example,

1
the interaction between the supporting structure and the equipment cannot be captured when the
equipment is directly mounted on the shake table, and mechanical equipment is typically
connected to pipe ducts, conduit, etc., which influence the boundary conditions, and
consequently, the response. To overcome these shortcomings, this report discusses the seismic
behavior of a cooling tower supported on four I/R mounts. In this case, the tower was mounted,
with its required piping and connections, on the roof of a five-story reinforced concrete (RC)
building built at full-scale and tested on the unidirectional NEES-UCSD shake table (Chen et al.
2013, Pantoli et al. 2013), which is part of the UCSD site of the George E. Brown, Jr. Network
for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES). Since the building was tested while base-
isolated (BI) and fixed-base (FB) conditions, the response of the cooling tower system can be
compared for both cases, representing a unique opportunity to better understand the seismic
response of a roof-top mounted cooling tower under realistic conditions.

2
2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Two documents deal with the seismic design of cooling tower systems in the United States.
The first is ASCE 7 (ASCE/SEI 2010), which establishes loads and displacements for use in the
design of NCSs and their supports (Chapter 13). The second is AC156 "Acceptance Criteria for
Seismic Certification by Shake-table Testing of Nonstructural Components" (ICC 2012a).
AC156 establishes the minimum requirements for the seismic certification of NCSs with
fundamental frequencies greater than or equal to 1.3 Hz tested on a shake table in accordance
with the 2012 IBC code (ICC 2012b). AC156 was used by the manufacturer of the tested cooling
tower to seismically qualify the equipment.

2.1 ASCE 7-10 Code

Seismic analysis procedures for NCSs were first introduced in the 1961 UBC edition by
providing a seismic force analysis approach. Later, the Alaska 1964 and San Fernando 1971
earthquakes demonstrated the impact of the damage of NCSs, in terms of economic losses and
disruption of building operation (Lagorio 1990). Building upon these early observations, several
authors have proposed procedures to take into account the seismic actions on NCSs. Most of
these efforts proposed simplified methods consistent with field measurements from instrumented
buildings. The current ASCE 7-10 Standard (ASCE/SEI 2010) provides a basic formula (Eq. 1)
with upper and lower bounds (Eq. 2) to determine the seismic design force F p for acceleration-
sensitive NCSs. These equations are intended to provide a simple and conservative estimate of
the design forces for NCSs installed on any type of building (BSSC 2009). If the dynamic
properties of the building are known, Eq. 3 can be used instead of Eq. 1 to determine F p.

0.4 a p S DS W p z
0.3 S DS I P=
WP Fp 1 + 2 1.6 S DS I P WP , (1)
Rp H

Ip
0.3 S DS I P WP Fp 1.6 S DS I P WP , (2)

ai a p W p
Fp = Ax , (3)
Rp

Ip

3
F p is the horizontal seismic design force, SDS is the spectral acceleration at short periods for 5%
damping, a p is the component amplification factor, which varies between 1.0 and 2.5 for rigid
and flexible components, respectively, Ip is the component importance factor that varies from 1.0
to 1.5, Wp is the component operating weight, Rp is the component response modification factor
ranging between 1.0 and 12.0, z is the height in the structure of the point of attachment of the
component with respect to the building base, H is the average roof height of the building with
respect to the base, a i is the acceleration at level i obtained from the modal analysis, and Ax is the
torsional amplification factor. Additionally, the component needs to be designed for a
simultaneous vertical force 0.2 SDS WP.
Eq. 1 is founded on three basic assumptions. First, the peak floor acceleration (PFA) varies
linearly over the building height (with seismic coefficient PGA=0.4 SDS at the base level, where
PGA denotes the peak ground acceleration and SDS is the spectral acceleration at short periods
for 5% damping); second, F p is independent of the building dynamic properties; and third, the
component amplification factor (a p) includes the effect of component flexibility. ASCE 7-10
classifies a component as rigid or flexible according to its dynamic properties. Rigid components
are those having a fundamental period of vibration less than or equal to 0.06 sec (16.7 Hz). For
cooling tower systems, the ASCE 7-10 code prescribes different seismic coefficients depending
on the supporting condition or bracing system (Table 2.1). However, as pointed out by
Villaverde and Portillo (2004), values of a p were defined by means of simplified empirical
formulas.

Table 2.1 Seismic coefficients for cooling tower systems in ASCE 7-10 (ASCE/SEI 2010)

Amplification factor Response modification


Type of cooling tower
(a p ) factor (Rp)
Roof-mounted laterally braced below their center of mass 2.5 3.0
Roof-mounted laterally braced above their center of mass 1.0 2.5
Isolated using neoprene elements with elastomeric snubbing
2.5 2.5
devices or resilient perimeter stops
Spring isolated and closely restrained using elastomeric
2.5 2.0
snubbing devices or resilient perimeter stops

4
2.2 AC 156 qualification standar d
This document describes the procedures, requirements and considerations to perform shake
table tests needed to qualify equipment for use in seismic regions. In particular, it provides a
Required Response Spectrum (RRS), corresponding to a piecewise linear pseudo-acceleration
response spectrum for linear response and 5% damping (ICC 2012a). This spectrum is to be
matched by each set of tri-axial acceleration histories for use in shake table tests. Figure 2.1
shows the normalized horizontal and vertical RRS defined by AC156.

Figure 2.1 Required Response Spectrum (RRS) defined by AC156 (ICC 2012a).

5
3 TEST PROGRAM

3.1 Building test

The test structure was a full-scale 5-story cast-in-place RC building. The building had two
bays in the longitudinal direction (direction of shaking) and one bay in the transverse direction,
with plan dimensions of 6.6 by 11.0 m. The building had a floor-to-floor height of 4.27 m, a total
height (measured from the top of the foundation to the top of the roof slab) of 21.34 m and an
estimated total weight of 3010 kN for the bare structure and 4420 kN for the structure with all
the NCSs (both excluding the foundation, which weighed 1870 kN). The seismic resisting
system was provided by two identical one-bay special RC moment resisting frames. The frames
were oriented east-west (direction of shaking). Figure 3.1 shows the test specimen and schematic
elevation and plan views. The building was designed for a location in Southern California where
site-specific ground motions were available. The available site-specific maximum considered
earthquake (MCE) ground motion spectrum was developed for a Site Class D (stiff) soil
conditions and had a short-period spectral acceleration SMS = 2.1g and a one-second spectral
acceleration SM1 = 1.4g. Performance targets of 2.5% peak interstory drift ratio (PIDR) and
maximum peak floor acceleration (PFA) between 0.7g - 0.8g were selected during this
conceptual design phase. The building was first tested isolated (mounted on four high damping
rubber isolators) and then fixed at its base.

(a) (b) (c)


Figure 3.1 Test specimen: (a) completed building (south east corner), (b) schematic elevation view
along shaking direction, (c) schematic plan views. (Dimensions in m).

6
Each level of the structure was equipped with different nonstructural components and
contents to support different occupancies. The first floor was designated as a utility floor, while
the second floor was modeled as a home office and a laboratory environment area, including
anchored and unanchored components for comparison purposes. The third floor had two
computer servers that represent important electronic equipments commonly damaged during
earthquakes. Levels four and five were designated as hospital floors: the fourth floor was
configured as an intensive care unit (ICU) and the fifth floor represented a surgery suite. Partial
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing subsystems were installed in the building at each floor. An
electrical distribution system was required to support operation of the medical equipment,
elevator, and lighting. Additional services included a plumbing system to support storm drain
service, fire sprinklers and a partial (non-operable) heating-ventilation-air conditioning system.
A fully-operational passenger elevator, metal stairs, a ceiling subsystem and gypsum board
partition walls were also installed in the building. The faade consisted of light gauge metal stud
balloon framing overlaid with synthetic stucco spanning from levels one to three and precast
concrete panels on levels four and five. Anchored to the roof were a penthouse, an air handling
unit and a large water-filled cooling tower. Further information about the structural system,
nonstructural components and their design considerations can be found in Chen et al. (2013).

3.2 Cooling tower

The roof-top mounted cooling tower consisted of a heat transfer module, a water collection
module, an air handling module, a fan motor, and a fan. The dimensions of the cooling tower
were 2.73 by 2.14 m in plan and 3.25 m height (Figure 3.2). The tower was mounted on a steel
base frame and four isolation/restraint (I/R) supports. The total weight of the cooling tower for
empty and operational (filled with water) conditions was 15.6 kN and 27.9 kN, respectively. The
installation procedure of the tower on the roof consisted of the following steps:

The steel frame, isolators and load cells were assembled on the ground.
The assembled frame was lifted with the crane and held in place while the anchors were
installed. In addition, hydrostone was poured underneath the load cells to ensure the cooling
tower was leveled.

7
The cooling tower was lifted to the building roof with the crane and connected to the steel
frame.
The height of the isolator springs was adjusted lifting the cooling tower with hydraulic
jacks.

Figure 3.2 Cooling tower. (Dimensions in m).

The cooling process starts when hot water enters the tower through the water-in pipe. The
hot water is then distributed over the heat transfer module through a spray system. At the same
time, the fan circulates air from the bottom to the top of the tower, mixing the hot water and cold
air in the heat transfer module. This produces evaporation of part of the water and removes the
heat from the remaining water. A basin (water collection module) collects the cooled water,
which is extracted via the water-out pipe.

3.3 Suppor ting str uctur e

A W8 18 steel base frame with a total weight of 2.5 kN provided the connection interface
between the cooling tower and the I/R supports (Figure 3.3a). Each I/R support was 350 mm
high and 410 by 530 mm in plan. The isolation system consisted of a pair of single coil springs
connected to two parallel rectangular steel plates (Figure 3.3b). Each spring had an axial
stiffness of 87.6 kN/m, which resulted in a static deflection (due to mounting of the empty
cooling tower) of 22 mm. The horizontal stiffness of each spring was estimated as 96.3 kN/m
and 92.0 kN/m for empty and filled conditions of the cooling tower, respectively. The restraint
mechanics of the I/R support consisted of single snubbers (Figure 3.3c). The snubbers worked in
both the horizontal and vertical directions and consisted of two concentric cylindrical pipes with

8
a 6.35 mm gap in between. The contact surface of the snubber was constructed of 12.7 mm thick
neoprene with a 60-durometer hardness. Figure 3.4 shows photographs of the cooling tower and
details of the supporting system including the steel base rail, the springs, and the snubber.

(b)

(a) (c)
Figure 3.3 Sketch of the supporting system: (a) general view, (b) isolator spring, (c) snubber
restraint.

(a) (b)
Figure 3.4 Photos of the cooling tower: (a) general view, (b) I/R support.

9
3.4 Pipes

The cooling tower was connected to a hot water inlet pipe and to an air temperature water
outlet pipe (Figure 3.2). The location and geometry of both pipes are shown in Figure 3.4. The
pipes were made of ASTM A53 Carbon Steel and were 152 mm in diameter. Each of the two
pipes was provided with an expansion joint, whose positions are circled in red in Figure 3.4. For
the inlet pipe, the joint was installed directly between the tower and the first section of the pipe.
In the case of the outlet pipe, the expansion joint was installed after an elbow rigidly connected
to the tower. The expansion joints allowed for 32 mm compression, 19 mm elongation, and 19
mm translation. Each pipe was connected to the roof with three spring mounts, whose positions
are circled in blue in Figure 3.4 (two of the mounts were installed just before the beginning of
testing and therefore are not present in this picture, but their position is circled). During the
seismic tests, the outlet pipe was filled with water and capped at its end whereas the inlet pipe
was left empty.

3.5 Instr umentation layout

For the seismic tests, two tri-axial accelerometers were installed at the North-West (NW) and
South-East (SE) top corners of the cooling tower (Figure 3.2), and one tri-axial accelerometer
was installed on the roof slab at the middle of the West side of the cooling tower (Figure 3.1).
One string potentiometer was located at the North-West corner to measure the displacement at
the base of the tower (above the I/R supports) relative to the roof slab in the East-West direction
(Figure 3.4b). Load cells recording the moment and shear forces in two horizontal directions and
the axial force were installed at the four supports of the tower, see Figure 3.3a and Figure 3.4b. It
is noted that these load cells were non-operative during some of the earthquake motions..

The accelerometers installed on the cooling tower were force-balance Episensors, with a full-
scale range of 4g, frequency bandwidth DC500 Hz, and wide dynamic range of 155dB. The
data acquisition system was a Kinemetrics Granite digitizer. The signals from the accelerometers
were sampled at 500 Hz and for analysis purposes, the acceleration time series were detrended
and filtered using a band-pass IIR Butterworth filter of order 4 with cut-off frequencies at 0.15
and 25 Hz, range covering all the frequencies having a significant participation in the response of

10
the system. The string potentiometer monitoring the base of the tower had a stroke of 250 mm.
The load cells deployed had 5 channels for measuring axial force, shear in the East-West (EW)
and North-South (NS) directions and moment about the EW and NS directions. Theoretically,
the load cell sensors could measure 445 kN for the axial force, 89 kN for the shear force, and
25 kNm for the moment. The signals from the string potentiometer and the load cells were
sampled at 240 Hz.

On April 5, 2012, a temporary accelerometer array was deployed on the cooling tower to
measure the free response of the system during pull-back tests, which were used to identify the
modal properties of the cooling tower. The layout consisted of three vertical sensors on the steel
frame and three sensors at the top of the tower, two in the EW and one in the NS direction. The
accelerometers were 10g MEMS Measurement Specialties model 4000A, with a frequency
range DC350 Hz, and dynamic range 76 dB. The data acquisition system for this temporary
array consisted of a 16-bit National Instruments PXI chassis (model SCXI 1520).

3.6 Dynamic tests

The seismic input motions were defined to cover a wide range of characteristics, selected
based on global and local performance criteria, and applied in order to progressively increase the
seismic demand on the structure and NCSs. With the purpose of comparing the response and
behavior of the structure and NCSs, some of the seismic motions were applied to both the base-
isolated and fixed-base building configurations.

Two service level spectrally-matched motions, Canoga Park and LA City Terrace, both from
the 1994 Ms=6.7 Northridge earthquake, and one actual motion, ICA from the 2007 Mw=8.0
Pisco-Peru earthquake at amplitude-scale 50% and 100% were applied to both configurations of
the structure (base-isolated and fixed-base). For the BI building, the actual San Pedro motion at
100% scale from the 2010 Mw=8.8 Maule-Chile earthquake, and the ICA motion at 140% scale
were also used. For the fixed-base building, two spectrally-matched motions, one scaled to attain
the target design performance (PIDR ~ 2.5%) in the building under its fixed-based configuration,
and another representing the maximum considered earthquake (MCE), for a high seismic zone in
Southern California with site class D were also applied. These input motions were seeded on the

11
ground motion recorded at the TAPS Pump Station #9 during the 2002 Mw=7.9 Denali
earthquake, and amplitude scaled to 67% and 100%, respectively. Figure 3.5 shows the
acceleration time histories together with their displacement and pseudo-acceleration elastic
response spectra for a damping ratio of 5%. Table 3.1 summarizes the seismic test protocol and
the recorded data used in this study. The results corresponding to BI3-LAC100 were omitted in
the analysis, since they were very similar to the results of BI2-LAC100, with differences less
than 7% for all variables analyzed.

(a)

(b)
Figure 3.5 Acceleration time histories and elastic displacement and pseudo-acceleration response
spectra (=5%) of achieved earthquake motions for: (a) base-isolated building, and (b) fixed-base
building.

12
Table 3.1 Dynamic tests used in this study.
a
Date Description Name Type Target
April 5, 2012 Pull-back tests PB - -
Canoga Park (1994 Northridge eq.) BI1-CNP100 SM SLE
Base-Isolated bldg.

April 16, 2012


LA City Terrace (1994 Northridge eq.) BI2-LAC100 SM SLE
LA City Terrace (1994 Northridge eq.) BI3-LAC100 SM SLE
April 17, 2012
SP 100% (2010 Maule-Chile eq.) BI4-SP100 AM -
April 26, 2012 ICA 50% (2007 Pisco-Peru eq.) BI5-ICA50 AM -
ICA 100% (2007 Pisco-Peru eq.) BI6-ICA100 AM -
April 27, 2012
ICA 140% (2007 Pisco-Peru eq.) BI7-ICA140 AM -
May 7, 2012 Canoga Park (1994 Northridge eq.) FB1-CNP100 SM SLE
Fixed-Base bldg.

LA City Terrace (1994 Northridge eq.) FB2-LAC100 SM SLE


May 9, 2012
ICA 50% (2007 Pisco-Peru eq.) FB3-ICA50 AM -
May 11, 2012 ICA 100% (2007 Pisco-Peru eq.) FB4-ICA100 AM -
TAPS Pump Station 67% (2002 Denali eq.) FB5-DEN67 SM DE
May 15, 2012
TAPS Pump Station 100% (2002 Denali eq.) FB6-DEN100 SM MCE
a: These test motions were spectrally matched to the reported performance targets (SLE=service level earthquake,
DE: design earthquake, and MCE: maximum considered earthquake), assuming properties of the test structure at
the time of conceptual design.
SM: spectrum-matched motion. AM: actual motion

13
4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

4.1 Building r esponse

The periods of the first three longitudinal modes of the fixed-base (Astroza et al. 2013a) and
base-isolated building using white noise base excitation with a root-mean-square (RMS)
amplitude of 1.5%g are summarized in Table 4.1. It is worth noting that these periods were
calculated assuming a linear time invariant system and that the mode shapes of the BI and FB
building are completely different due to the influence of the building isolation system.

Table 4.1 Natur al per iods/fr equencies of the fir st thr ee longitudinal (L) modes of the building
isolated and fixed (Astr oza et al. 2013a) at its base obtained using white noise base excitation.
Base-isolated building Fixed-base building
Period (sec) / Frequency (Hz) Period (sec) / Frequency (Hz)
Mode Before After After Mode Before After After
BI1 BI4 BI6 FB1 FB4 FB5
1-L 1.54 / 0.65 1.54 / 0.65 1.58 / 0.61 1-L 0.74 / 1.35 1.19 / 0.84 1.56 / 0.64
2-L 0.39 / 2.54 0.40 / 2.50 0.41 / 2.44 2-L 0.17 / 5.79 0.23 / 4.41 0.31 / 3.19
3-L 0.12 / 8.51 0.12 / 8.38 0.12 / 8.70 3-L 0.10 / 10.40 0.12 / 8.60 0.16 / 6.39

Figure 4.1 shows the measured peak roof acceleration (PRA), taken as the average of the four
corners of the building, normalized by the peak ground acceleration measured at the shake table
platen (PGApl) as a function of the PGApl. It is noted that the variation between the PRA
measured at the four corners during each motion was very small, with a coefficient of variation
less than 5%. For the base-isolated building, the PRAs were attenuated by approximately 50%
for all of the motions, except BI4-SP100 with an attenuation of 75%. In contrast, for the fixed-
base building, the PRAs were amplified, ranging from 1.2 to 2.7 times the PGApl. It is noted that
for all motions, the amplification factors are less than 3.0, which is a value implied by the
ASCE7-10 (Eq. 1) for roof-mounted equipment. Moreover, for the more severe input motions
(FB5-DEN67 and FB-DEN100), the amplification ratios are much lower than those derived from
the code provisions, suggesting important effects of the nonlinear response of the structure on
the peak roof accelerations. These effects have been previously identified through numerical
simulations (e.g. Rodriguez et al. 2002, Ray Chaudhuri and Villaverde 2008, Ray Chaudhuri and
Hutchinson 2011).

14
Figure 4.1 Acceleration amplification factor at the roof level vs. PGApl.

The effects of the dynamic properties and inelastic response of the supporting structure on
the component amplification factor (ap), which is defined here as the ratio between the Test
Roof Response Spectra (TRRS) and the Peak Roof Acceleration (PRA), are clearly observed
(Figure 4.2). For the BI building (Figure 4.2a), components with a damping ratio of 5% and
periods lower than 1.5 sec generally have an amplification factor within the range of the values
prescribed by ASCE7-10, i.e. [1.0-2.5]. However, for components with smaller damping, ap can
exceed the value prescribed for flexible components (ap=2.5). Furthermore, the influence of the
higher modes of the supporting structure is evidenced by peaks in that range of periods (Tp<1.5
sec, where Tp is the component fundamental period). For components with a damping ratio of
5% and periods greater than 1.5 sec, the amplification factor consistently exceeds, by as much as
a factor of two, the upper limit of the ASCE7-10 (ap=2.5). It is worth noting that most NCSs
have a fundamental period of vibration less than 1.0 sec (e.g. Watkins et al. 2009), however,
some such as hanging lamps and chandeliers, can have periods well in excess of 1.0 sec. The
peak values are associated with the predominant period of the supporting structure, which
increases with the intensity of the seismic base excitation. For the FB building (Figure 4.2b),
similar patterns are observed. For periods lower than 0.7 sec, ap slightly exceeds the value 2.5 at
specific peaks associated with the higher modes of the supporting structure. For higher periods,
the amplification factor significantly increases, with the peaks shifting to higher periods with
increasing intensity of the excitation. However, for the more severe motions (FB5-DEN67 and
FB6-DEN100), and due to the highly nonlinear response of the building structure, the peak
values of ap reduce to a value of about 3.2. This occurs at about twice the initial fundamental

15
period of the FB building (2.0 sec). Similar observations, based on nonlinear finite element
models, were noted by Medina et al. (2006).

(a) (b)
Figure 4.2 Component amplification factor (=5%) at the roof level: (a) seismic motions applied on
base-isolated structure, (b) seismic motions applied on fixed-base structure.

The roof pseudo-acceleration response spectra in the horizontal direction of shaking and
vertical direction during these tests, which correspond to the Test Roof Response Spectra
(TRRS), are compared to the RRS (previously defined in Figure 2.1) from AC156 for SDS=1.40g
(target short period spectral acceleration used for design) in Figure 4.3. As expected, the TRRSV
calculated from the recorded vertical accelerations, for the BI and FB conditions of the building,
are much lower than the RRSV (Figure 4.3b), because the shake table was limited to movement in
the longitudinal direction. The TRRSH derived from the recorded longitudinal accelerations for
the BI building is, in average, about 10 times lower than the RRSH, showing the efficacy of the
isolation system in reducing the roof accelerations at frequencies higher than 0.5 Hz. In contrast,
for the FB building, the TRRSH is about 60 to 100% of the RRSH over approximately the 1.3-10
Hz frequency range for the motions FB5-DEN67 and FB6-DEN100 (Figure 4.3a). However, for
the seismic tests FB3-ICA50, FB4-ICA100, FB5-DEN67, and FB6-DEN100, the RRSH is
exceeded by the TRRSH around the predominant frequency (period) of the building, 0.87 Hz
(1.15 sec), by approximately 85%, 80%, 100%, and 45%, respectively. It is noted that the
horizontal component in the transverse direction of the building is omitted, since the roof
spectral accelerations in this direction are very small, about 1% and 5% that of the demand
defined by the RRS, and therefore their effects are negligible.

16
(a) (b)
Figure 4.3 Comparison of the Test Response Spectra measured at the roof level (TRRS) and the
Required Response Spectra of the AC156 (SDS=1.40g) for =5%: (a) horizontal component
(TRRSH), (b) vertical component (TRRSV).

4.2 Dynamic pr oper ties

On April 5, 2012 a series of pull-back tests were conducted on the cooling tower, considering
both the empty and full water-filled conditions. Moreover, ambient vibration data were recorded
under the same conditions. Using the Eigensystem Realization Algorithm (Juang and Pappa
1985) and the Data-Driven Stochastic-Subspace Identification method (Van Overschee and De
Moor 1996), the modal parameters of the cooling tower system were identified from the free and
ambient vibration data, respectively.

Table 4.2 reports the identified natural frequencies (average values) and equivalent damping
ratios of the system. The identified modes are mostly rigid body modes of the cooling tower
above the I/R supports, with the first three being mostly translations (although all of them
include some rocking component) in the vertical, transverse and longitudinal directions,
respectively (Figure 4.4). It is noted that the transverse direction corresponds to the axis of
primary loading imposed by the shake table on the building. The fourth corresponds to the
torsional mode and the fifth and sixth correspond to the rocking modes. The natural frequencies
for the water-filled condition are slightly lower than their counterparts for the empty condition of

17
the tower, which is due to the added mass contributed by the water. The damping ratios range
between 2.0 and 5.0%, and are practically unchanged when the water is added to the tower.

Table 4.2 Identified natur al per iods/fr equencies and equivalent damping r atios of the cooling tower
system.

Empty Tower Water-filled Tower


Mode Direction
Period (sec) / Damping ratio Period (sec) / Damping ratio
Frequency (Hz) (% ) Frequency (Hz) (% )

1 Vertical (UD) 0.21 / 4.87 3.5 - 4.5 0.22 / 4.65 3.5 - 4.5

2 Transverse (EW) 0.18 / 5.64 3.0 - 4.0 0.19 / 5.26 3.0 - 4.0

Longitudinal
3 0.15 / 6.70 2.5 - 3.5 0.15 / 6.52 2.5 - 3.5
(NS)

4 Torsion 0.12 / 8.48 4.0 - 5.0 0.12 / 8.28 4.5 - 5.5

Rocking around
5 0.10 / 10.31 4.0 - 5.0 0.10 / 9.84 4.0 - 5.0
transverse axis
Rocking around
6 0.07 / 14.03 2.0 - 3.0 0.07 / 14.02 2.0 - 3.0
longitudinal axis

Figure 4.4 Identified translational modes of the cooling tower system (EW is the primary shake
table loading direction).

Figure 4.5a shows the spectrogram, which plots the short-time Fourier transform obtained
using a Hamming window applied to 30 sec long data segments with 50% overlap,
corresponding to about 40 minutes (see top of Figure 4.5a) of the acceleration time history
recorded in the EW direction at the NW top corner of the cooling tower with the building fixed
at its base. The temporal evolution of the frequencies contributing the most to the response is

18
observed. The predominant frequency near 1.0 Hz corresponds to the first longitudinal mode of
the building under ambient vibrations (Astroza et al. 2013a), whereas the frequency at around
5.0 Hz corresponds to the transverse mode of the cooling tower system, which decreases after the
seismic test FB5-DEN67 because of the water loss during this test and the damage induced in the
I/R system. The first longitudinal mode frequency of the building decreased during the test FB5-
DEN67 due to additional damage suffered by the structure during this test. Figure 4.5b shows the
periodogram estimate of the power spectrum (PS) of the EW, NS, and UD (vertical) components
of the acceleration recorded at the top NW corner of the tower during the seismic tests FB1-
CNP100 and FB5-DEN67. The multiple peaks of the PS in the range [4-7] Hz are related to the
horizontal translational modes of the cooling tower and capture the shifts of the associated
natural frequencies due to the loss of water and the nonlinear response behavior of the
supporting system.

(a) (b)

Figure 4.5 Acceleration time history recorded at the NW top corner of the cooling tower during the
FB testing phase: (a) spectrogram and (b) power spectrum estimate. (P: pulse, WN: white noise;
Amb: ambient vibration)

19
4.3 Cooling tower r esponse

The peak acceleration amplification factors (PAAFs) defined as the ratio of the peak
accelerations recorded on the cooling tower roof to the corresponding peak input acceleration
recorded at the building roof slab are shown in Figure 4.6. It is noted that these peak
accelerations are absolute value terms which are not expected to occur at the same time. For the
BI building (Figure 4.6a), the PAAFs in the direction of the seismic excitation (EW) varies
within a narrow range of 1.1 to 1.3, indicating a low amplification. This is likely because the
response of the structure was concentrated in a frequency range lower than the modal
frequencies of the cooling tower (see Figure 4.2a, Table 4.1 and Table 4.2). In addition, as the
peak input acceleration at the roof increased, the PAAFs decreased. In the other two directions,
vertical and NS, the PAAFs varies between 2.0 and 11.0, however the corresponding peak input
accelerations at the roof are very low, less than 0.02g. For the vertical direction, similar to the
EW direction, the PAAFs decreased as the peak input acceleration increased. For the FB building
(Figure 4.6b), the PAAFs in the EW direction ranges between 1.5 and 2.6, with the largest
acceleration recorded at the top of the tower (approximately 2.6g) during the FB5-DEN67
seismic test. It is noted that motion FB5-DEN67 was scaled to attain the target design
performance (PIDR ~ 2.5%) in the building under its fixed-based configuration, assuming an
initial inertial weight distribution of 645 kN per floor. The actual inertial weights per floor were
between 680 - 1050 kN per floor, the largest addition attributed to the late addition of a precast
concrete facade at the upper two floors of the test building The seismic tests resulting in the
highest peak input accelerations at the roof experienced the highest PAAFs as well, which is
attributed to the engagement of the restraining system and the corresponding impact. In addition,
from Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 it is noted that the period of the second longitudinal mode of the
building before FB1-CNP100 (T=0.17 sec) is close to the translational periods of the cooling
tower (T=0.19 sec and T=0.15 sec), which results in high values of PAAFs for FB1 and FB2. For
the vertical and NS directions, the PAAFs falls in the range [1.7-7.2] and [5.6-12.1], respectively,
while the corresponding maximum acceleration recorded at the top of the cooling tower reaches
0.72g and 0.74g, respectively. It is noted that the vertical accelerations induced on the tower
while the building is FB are more than 10 fold those observed when the building is BI. In
addition, for both configurations of the building, the difference between the PAAFs in the

20
vertical direction measured at the NW and SE corners of the cooling tower decreased as the PRA
increased.

(a) Base-isolated building

(b) Fixed-base building


Figure 4.6 Peak acceleration amplification factors (PAAFs) defined as the ratio of peak acceleration
recorded on top of the cooling tower to recorded building peak roof acceleration: (a) Base-isolated
building, (b) Fixed-base building (open circles: SE corner; filled circle: NW corner). Note that x
and y-axis limits vary for each plot.

The relative displacement in the EW direction between the base of the tower (i.e., top of the
support frame above the I/R system) and the roof slab was recorded at the North-West corner
using a string potentiometer. As an illustration, Figure 4.7a and Figure 4.7b shows the time
history of this relative displacement recorded during the BI7-ICA140 and FB5-DEN67 seismic
tests, respectively. For FB5-DEN67, the relative displacement was larger than the nominal gap
size by about 50%. Figure 4.8 summarizes the maximum relative displacement of the base of the
cooling tower in the East-West direction recorded during all the seismic tests under base-isolated
and fixed-base configurations of the building. These results indicate that for the last four tests of
the FB building, the maximum relative displacement exceeded the gap of the snubber specified
by the manufacturer, while in the BI building, the maximum relative displacement for the
sequence of tests was reached during the BI7-ICA140 test with a value of about one third of the

21
gap size. It is noted that during FB6-DEN100, the string potentiometer malfunctioned in the last
20 seconds of the test and thus that part of the time history was removed from the analysis.

(a) (b)
Figure 4.7 Relative displacement between the base of the cooling tower and the roof slab in the
East-West direction recorded during the (a) BI7-ICA140 and (b) FB5-DEN67 seismic tests.

(a) (b)
Figure 4.8 Maximum relative displacement of the base of the cooling tower in the East-West
direction for: (a) base-isolated building, and (b) fixed-base building.

The total displacement at the top of the tower with respect to the roof slab for the NW corner
was obtained through double integration of the corresponding measured acceleration time
history. By subtracting the displacement of the cooling tower base (above isolators) measured by
the string potentiometer from the total displacement at the top NW corner, the portions of total
displacement in the EW direction contributed by the rocking at the base of the tower and the
deformation of the tower itself are obtained. It was found that the effect of rocking at the base of
the tower accounts for approximately 90% of the relative displacement between top and bottom
(above isolators) of the tower. The peak values of each of these three displacement time histories

22
are shown in Figure 4.9. It is observed that most of the total displacement in the EW direction
was due to the rocking of the tower. Moreover, while the deformation of the isolators does not
increase significantly after motion FB3 due to the closing of the snubber gap, the deflection of
the tower itself continues to increase, reaching a maximum of nearly 30 mm. By comparing the
displacement responses from the FB and BI tests, for the same input motions, it is observed that
the deformations of the springs and the tower and the total displacement at the top of the cooling
tower were, on average, about five times larger for the FB than for the BI configuration. It is
important to note, however, that the achieved input motions in the FB and BI configurations
differed somewhat because of different dynamic interaction between the shake table and the test
building. Similarly, the vertical displacement at the top of the tower relative to the roof slab was
also obtained by double integrating the corresponding acceleration time histories. These relative
vertical displacements were small, with peak values less than 0.6 mm for all the seismic tests.

(a) (b)
Figure 4.9 Displacement of top and base of the cooling tower (NW corner) relative to roof slab and
deformation of isolator: (a) base-isolated building, and (b) fixed-base building.

4.4 Suppor ting system r esponse

The design axial and shear forces were calculated using ASCE 7-10 (Eqs. 1, 2, and 3) and
considering the motion only in the East-West direction and SDS=1.40g. The values of factors ap
and Rp were taken as 2.5 and 2.0, respectively (values prescribed for a spring isolated and closely
restrained using elastomeric snubbing devices or resilient perimeter stops, see Table 2.1). The

23
load cells were zeroed after installation of the cooling tower and therefore recorded only the
added dynamic component of forces.

Key aspects of the axial vertical forces recorded at the corners of the tower are presented in
Figure 4.10. Figure 4.10a shows an overlay plot of the time histories of the axial forces at the SE
and SW corners recorded during FB4-ICA100 and indicates the rocking behavior of the tower in
the EW direction. Figure 4.10b presents the time history of the axial force recorded at the SE
corner of the tower during test FB5-DEN67. The recorded dynamic forces were roughly half the
design seismic forces computed using Eqs. 1 and 3 (whose values differ by 5% approximately),
in both tension and compression. It is noted that the modal analysis for Eq. 3 was carried out for
the event FB5, using the identified natural periods before FB1 reported in Table 4.1. Figure 4.10c
and Figure 4.10d show the maximum peak (over all four corner supports) axial forces in tension
and compression recorded during the seismic tests for the BI and FB configurations, respectively.
The maximum peak axial forces in tension and compression for the BI configuration were found
to be very similar and of small amplitude (less than 15% of the design value). During the FB
tests, the maximum peak axial forces in compression were larger than those in tension, roughly
half the design forces computed using Eqs. 1 and 3.

Figure 4.11 shows important aspects of the isolator shear force behavior recorded at the
base of the tower. The comparison of shear forces recorded during FB4-ICA100 at two opposite
corners (NW and SE) is shown in Figure 4.11a. This plot shows that the two force time histories
are similar in amplitude and synchronized in time as expected. Figure 4.11b shows the time
history of the shear force in the EW direction recorded at the NW corner during the design level
earthquake FB5-DEN67. Similar to the axial forces, the shear forces were also much lower than
the design values computed using Eqs. 1 and 3 (roughly two-thirds in the easterly direction and
one-half in the westerly direction). The maximum peak (over all four corners) shear forces
recorded during the seismic tests under FB and BI conditions are shown in Figure 4.11c and d.
The maximum peak forces were below 5% of the design value for the first four seismic tests
under BI condition (channels measuring shear in the EW direction malfunctioned during BI6-
ICA100 and BI7-ICA140). For the tests during the FB configuration, the maximum peak shear
force was recorded during the test FB5-DEN67, and reached about two-thirds of the design value

24
obtained by using Eqs. 1 and 3. Peak shear forces were smaller during FB6-DEN100, when the
structure became highly non-linear and the PRA was smaller to that measured during FB5-
DEN67 (Figure 4.1).

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figur e 4.10 Axial ver tical for ces at the four suppor ted cor ner s of the cooling tower : (a) compar ison
of the axial for ces at the SE and SW cor ner s of the tower dur ing FB4-ICA100, (b) time histor y of
the axial for ce at the SE cor ner of the tower dur ing FB5-DEN67 compar ed to the design value, (c)
maximum peak axial for ces r ecor ded under base-isolated condition, (d) maximum peak axial for ces
r ecor ded under fixed-base condition and compar ison with design for ce.

25
(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figur e 4.11 Shear for ces in the EW dir ection at the four suppor ted cor ner s of the cooling tower : (a)
compar ison of the shear for ces at the SE and NW cor ner s of the tower dur ing FB4-ICA100, (b)
time histor y of the shear for ce at the NW cor ner dur ing FB5-DEN67 compar ed to the design value,
(c) peak shear for ces r ecor ded under BI condition (N.A.: data not available), and (d) maximum
peak shear for ces r ecor ded under FB condition and compar ison with design for ce.

26
5 DAMAGE STATE OBSERVATIONS AND WATER LOSS FROM
COOLING TOWER

The tower was carefully inspected after each seismic test. The inspection consisted of: (1) a
visual inspection of the entire cooling tower and its support elements, (2) a detailed check of the
integrity of the system, isolators, connections, and anchorages, (3) measurement of the level of
water in the tower basin, (4) a functionality check of the motorized fan within the cooling tower.

Visible damage was not observed in the cooling tower system during the tests performed for
the BI configuration. When the building was fixed at its base, the snubbers began to engage
during the FB3-ICA50 motion, however, no physical damage was observed in the cooling tower
and its supporting system after the seismic tests. The cooling tower remained mechanically
functional following all seismic tests and the pipes and their supports did not experience any
visible damage.

Before each test, the tower was filled with water to its operational level as indicated by the
manufacturer. After each seismic test, the water level was measured and the water loss due to
splashing was computed. It is noted that due to time constraints in the test protocol, the tower
was not filled before the tests BI4-SP100 and FB6-DEN100; therefore, the water loss during
these tests could not be computed. The phenomenon of the water splashing from the cooling
tower basin due to sloshing was observed during all seismic tests, in both isolated and fixed base
configurations of the building. Figure 5.1 shows the volume of water loss during each test. It is
observed that the maximum water loss occurred during FB5-DEN67, reaching 30%. In addition,
it is observed that the water loss for the base-isolated building is higher than for the fixed-base
building when subjected to the same seismic excitation at the base of the building (CNP100,
LAC100, ICA50, and ICA100) despite the fact that the PRA is significantly lower for the base-
isolated condition. The most likely reason is that the impulsive portion of the liquid (i.e. the
lower portion of the water, which moves in unison with the tower basin) is lower for the BI
building because of the higher content in low frequencies in the response of the structure at the
roof level; consequently, the convective portion (Veletsos 1984) of the liquid (upper part of the
water subjected to sloshing) is larger for the BI condition with more water lost due to sloshing
effects.

27
Figur e 5.1 Volume of water loss under base-isolated and fixed-base conditions.

Water sloshing did not represent a hazard and it did not appear to render the unit inoperable.
It is noted that the cooling tower internal control system to automatically refill the tower basin
was not hydraulically connected and not electrically wired.

28
6 CONCLUSIONS

This report investigates the seismic response of a cooling tower system supported on four
isolation/restraint (I/R) systems (one at each corner) and mounted on the roof of a full-scale five-
story reinforced concrete building tested on the unidirectional NEES-UCSD shake table during
both base-isolated and fixed-base configurations (Chen et al. 2013, Pantoli et al. 2013). Results
obtained from the analysis of the experimental data lead to the following observations and
conclusions:

The acceleration amplification factors at the roof PRA/PGApl (ratio of peak roof
acceleration to peak ground acceleration measured at the shake table platen) varied from
1.3 to 2.7 and, for all seismic tests, were lower than the value of 3.0 prescribed by ASCE
7-10. However, component amplification factors ap (ratio of roof pseudo-acceleration
response spectrum values for 5% damping over peak roof acceleration) greatly exceeded
those in the standard.
The effect of the nonlinear response of the supporting structure on PRA/PGApl and ap at
the roof level was observed. For the test FB5-DEN67 and FB6-DEN100, the building
exhibited a highly nonlinear response, reducing both PRA/PGApl and ap significantly.
This finding supports the intent of the upper limit of the ASCE 7 equations for design
forces (Eqs. 1 and 3), the intent of which is to account for nonlinear building response.
The base isolation system of the building effectively attenuated the acceleration demands
at the roof of the building. While the building was isolated at its base, the seismic
demand in terms of spectral acceleration in the direction of excitation (EW) at the roof
was about 20% of the value obtained from AC156.
While in a fixed-base building configuration, the spectral acceleration demands in the
shaking direction at the roof of the building for tests FB5-DEN67 and FB6-DEN100 were
between 60 and 100% of the AC156 value over a frequency range 1.3-10 Hz (i.e. period
range 0.1-0.77 sec). However, for tests FB3-ICA50, FB4-ICA100, FB5-DEN67, and FB6-
DEN100, the required response spectrum (RRSH) defined by AC156 was exceeded by
the test roof response spectra (TRRSH) near the predominant frequency of the building
by approximately 85%, 80%, 100%, and 45% respectively. This suggests that for

29
elastically responding nonstructural components, or those with limited ductility, having a
fundamental period close to the predominant period of the supporting building, the
AC156 may underestimate the seismic demand. However, it is recognized that AC-156 is
intended to provide a generic demand floor spectra, which could be exceeded in a
specific building for a specific ground motion at a specific period.
Using pull-back and ambient vibration data, the modal properties of the cooling tower
system were identified, as consisting of six mode shapes corresponding primarily to the
six rigid body modes of the tower above the isolation layer and their associated natural
frequencies and damping ratios. Moreover, the effect of the presence of water in the
tower basin on the modal properties was detected, as a slight decrease (5%
approximately) of the identified natural frequencies when the basin was filled with water.
For the base-isolated configuration of the building, the PAAFs (ratio of peak
accelerations recorded at the roof of the cooling tower to the peak roof slab acceleration)
decreased as the PRA increased. For the fixed-base configuration of the building, the
PAAFs increased for high PRA, largely due to the engagement of the restraint system.
The displacements of the base of the cooling tower relative to the roof slab (i.e., isolator
deformation) were much lower for the base-isolated than for the fixed-base configuration
of the building. During the tests on the BI-configured building, the manufacturer-
specified gap of the snubber system was never exceed, while during the last four tests on
the FB-configured building the restraint system was engaged.
The dynamic components of the forces obtained while the building was in the FB
configuration, both axial (vertical) and shear forces, at the four corner supports of the
cooling tower were lower (about 50-60%) than the values prescribed by using Eqs. 13.3-1
and 13.3-4 of ASCE 7-10. It is noteworthy that Eqs. 13.3-1 to 13.3-4 are intended to
provide a simple and conservative estimation of the design forces for NCSs installed on
any type of building.
Water loss due to sloshing was greater for the BI configuration than for the FB
configuration, despite the fact that the PRA is significantly lower for the BI
configuration. A likely reason is that the impulsive portion of the liquid is lower for the
BI configuration due to the higher content in low frequencies of the response of the

30
structure at the roof level; consequently, the convective portion of the liquid is larger for
the BI configuration leading to more water loss through sloshing action.
The cooling tower system did not suffer any physical damage during the seismic tests and
remained mechanically functional after the tests.

31
REFERENCES
ASCE/SEI (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, SEI/ASCE 7-10, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. ISBN: 9780784410851.

Astroza, R., Ebrahimian, H., Conte, J.P., Restrepo, J.I., and Hutchinson, T.C. (2013a). Modal
identification of 5-story RC building tested on NEES-UCSD shake table, Proc. 31st International
Modal Analysis Conference (IMAC XXXI), Garden Grove, CA.

Ayres, J. M., and Sun, T. Y. (1973) Nonstructural damage, in San Fernando, California, Earthquake of
February 9, 1971, US Department of Commerce, National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration,
Vol. 1(B), pp. 735776.

Ayres, J. M., Sun, T. Y., and Brown, F. R. (1973). Nonstructural damage to buildings, in The Great
Alaska Earthquake of 1964: Engineering, Division of Earth Sciences, National Research Council,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 346456.

Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) (2009). NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New
Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA P-750), Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C.

Chen, M., Pantoli, E., Astroza, R., Ebrahimian, H., Mintz, S., Wang, X., Hutchinson, T.C., Conte, J.P.,
Restrepo, J.I., Meacham, B., Kim, J-K., and Park, H. (2013). Full-scale structural and nonstructural
building system performance during earthquakes and post-earthquake fire: Specimen design,
construction and test protocol. Structural Systems Research Project Report, SSRP 13-09. University
of California San Diego, San Diego, CA.

Fathali, S. and Filiatrault, A. (2008). Effect of Elastomeric Snubber Properties on Seismic Response of
Vibration-Isolated Mechanical Equipment: An Experimental Study. Earthquake Spectra 24, 387-
403.

Filiatrault, A., Christopoulos, C., and Stearns, C. (2002). Guidelines, Specifications, and Seismic
Performance Characterization of Nonstructural Building Components and Equipment. PEER Report
2002/05, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.

Gates, W.E., and McGavin, G. 1998. Lessons Learned from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake on the
Vulnerability of Nonstructural Systems, Proceedings of the Seminar on Seismic Design, Retrofit, and
Performance of Nonstructural Components, ATC 29-1, San Francisco, CA, 93-106.

International Code Council (ICC) (2012a) Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Qualification by Shake-table
Testing of Nonstructural Components and Systems - AC156, ICC Evaluation Service inc, Whittier,
California.

32
International Code Council (ICC) (2012b). International Building Code (IBC). Whittier, CA. ISBN:
1609830407.

Juang, J.N., and Pappa, R. S. (1985). An Eigensystem Realization Algorithm for Modal Parameter
Identification and Model Reduction, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 8, 620-627.

Lagorio, H.J. (1990). Earthquakes, An Architects Guide to Nonstructural Seismic Hazards, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.

Lin, F-R., Cheng, C-W., Chen, M-F., Wang, S-J., Hwang, J.S., and Chang, K.C. (2011). Full-Scale
Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of Vibration Isolated Mechanical/Electrical Equipment,
Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 14-16 April, 2011,
Auckland, New Zealand.

Medina, R.A., Sankaranarayanan R., and Kingston, K.M. (2006). Floor Response Spectra for Light
Components Mounted on Regular Moment-resisting frame structures, Engineering Structures, 28,
1927-1940.

Pantoli, E., Chen, M., Astroza, R., Ebrahimian, H., Mintz, S., Wang, X., Hutchinson, T.C., Conte, J.P.,
Restrepo, J.I., Meacham, B., Kim, J-K., and Park, H. (2013). Full-scale structural and nonstructural
building system performance during earthquakes and post-earthquake fire: Test results. Structural
Systems Research Project Report, SSRP 13-10. University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA.

Ray Chaudhuri, S., and Hutchinson, T. C. (2011). Effect of Nonlinearity of Frame Buildings on Peak
Horizontal Floor Acceleration, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15, 124142.

Ray Chaudhuri, S., and Villaverde, R., 2008. Effect of Building Nonlinearity on Seismic Response of
Non-structural Components: A Parametric Study, Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 134,
661-670.

Reitherman, R., and Sabol, T. (1995). Nonstructural Damage in John Hall, Editor, Northridge
Earthquake of January 17, 1994 Reconnaissance Report, Supplement C to Earthquake Spectra Vol.
11, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.

Rodriguez, M.E., Restrepo, J.I., and Carr, A.J. (2002). Earthquake-induced Floor horizontal
Accelerations in Buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31, 693-718.

Van Overschee P. and De Moor B. (1996). Subspace Identification for Linear Systems, Theory,
Implementation, Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Veletsos, A. S. (1984). Seismic Response and Design of Liquid Storage Tanks. Guidelines for the
seismic design of oil and gas pipeline systems. Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake
Engineering, ASCE, New York, 255370.

33
Villaverde, R., and Portillo M. (2004). Problems associated with current overly prescriptive seismic
codes. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.

Watkins, D., Chui, L., Hutchinson, T.C., and Hoehler, M.S. (2009). Survey and characterization of floor
and wall mounted mechanical and electrical equipment in buildings. Structural Systems Research
Project Report. SSRP 09/11. Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San
Diego. La Jolla, CA.

34
APPENDIX A. Manufactur er s infor mation

35
Submittal Data Form
2011-06-10

BALTIMORE AIRCOIL COMPANY Project: NEES BNCS PROJECT


P O BOX 7322 Purchase Order No: RD1074
Sold To :
Baltimore, MD 21227 Engineer:
BAC Order # U111493201
United States
Representative:

All Information is per Unit

Quantity: 1 Model PT2-0709A-1H1/S COOLING TOWER

Certified Capacity: 351.00 USGPM of water from 95.00F to 85.00F at 78.00F entering air wet bulb and 5.00 PSIG of total (static lift + spray) pump head
from the unit base.

Fan Motor(s): One (1) 5 HP fan motor(s): Totally Enclosed, Fan Cooled (TEFC),
1 Speed/1 Winding - Premium Efficiency (Inverter Duty), suitable for 460 volt, 3 phase,
60 hertz electrical service. Drives are based on 0 inches ESP.

NOTE: Inverter Duty fan motors, furnished in accordance with NEMA Standard Mg.1 -- Part 31, are required for applications using variable frequency
drives for fan motor control.

Submittal Information Equipment Summary


BAC Terms and Conditions of Sale Induced Draft, Counterflow Cooling Tower
Mechanical Specifications Quality Assurance - ISO 9001 Certified
Submittal Drawings/Diagrams Unit Energy Efficiency per ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004
Certificate Of Wind And Seismic Load capacity CTI Certified Thermal Performance
UP-U111493201 Unit Print - RH Steel Panels and Structural Elements are Constructed of Heavy Gauge Galvanized Steel
SS-U111493201 Unit Support Standard Fan Driven by the BALTIDRIVE Power Train
Galvanized Steel Fan Guard
PVC Film Wet Deck Material & Drift Eliminators
Upgraded Structure Designed in accordance with the 2009 IBC
Standard End or Side Inlet
End Outlet Pump Suction Connection
Mechanical Float Valve Assembly

THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!


Rigging and Installation Instructions, as well as Operating and Maintenance Instructions are available at www.baltimoreaircoil.com

2009 Baltimore Aircoil Company


Corporate Headquarters: P.O. Box 7322, Baltimore, MD 21227 Tele: (410) 799-6200 / Fax: (410) 799-6416
Terms and Conditions of Sale
Pricing: Prices set forth in Seller's quotation shall remain firm for thirty (30) days. Within such period, the quotation shall convert into an order provided that
all of the following have occurred: (1) Buyer submits either a purchase order or a copy of Seller's quotation displaying an authorized signature of Buyer
within that thirty (30)-day period; (2) Buyer provides a release for fabrication; and (3) Buyer requests a shipment date that is no later than twelve (12) weeks
from the date of Buyer's submission of a purchase order or signed quotation. In the event Buyer's requested shipment date is later than twelve (12) weeks
beyond such submission date, Seller's price in effect twelve (12) weeks prior to such shipment date shall apply. In the event that Buyer requests for its
convenience that Seller delay delivery of products subject to an order beyond the scheduled shipment date, pricing shall be subject to the same
adjustment.

Payments: Terms of payment shall be net cash in thirty (30) days from date of invoice, subject to Seller's prior credit approval. If the Buyer shall fail to
make any payments in accordance with the terms and conditions of sale, the Seller, in addition to its other rights and remedies but not in limitation thereof,
may, at its option, without prior notice, cancel this order as to any undelivered products or defer shipments or deliveries hereunder, or under any other
agreement between Buyer and Seller, except upon Seller's receipt of cash before shipment or such security as Seller considers satisfactory. Seller
reserves the right to impose an interest charge (not exceeding the lawful maximum) on the balance of each invoice not paid on its due date for the period
from the due date to the date of receipt of payment by Seller. In the event Buyer's failure to make timely payments to Seller results in Seller incurring
additional costs, including but not limited to collection expenses and attorneys' fees, said costs shall be added to the amount due Seller from Buyer. Buyer
shall have no right to any discount or retainage and shall not withhold payment as a set-off on Seller's invoice in any amount.

Taxes: Unless listed on the front (reverse) side of this document, prices do not include any federal, state or local sales, use or value-added taxes payable
in connection with this order. All such taxes shall be paid by Buyer. Buyer shall indemnify Seller from and against such taxes, plus interest and penalties
thereon, including, but not limited to, tax, interest and penalties resulting from a failure to collect such taxes because of Seller's reliance upon an invalid
exemption certificate provided to Seller.

Allocation of Risk: Deliveries shall be considered made when the products subject to this order are loaded on the carrier. At such time, title to the goods
and all risk of loss, damage or shortage shall pass to Buyer, and any claims based thereon must be filed by Buyer with the carrier.

Force Majeure: Seller shall under no circumstances be liable for any loss or damage resulting from delay or failure in the performance of its obligations
under this contract to the extent that such performance is delayed or prevented by: fires, floods, war, terrorist activities, riots, strikes, freight embargoes or
transportation delays, shortage of labor, inability to secure fuel, material, supplies or power at current prices, or on account of shortages thereof; acts of
God or of the public enemy; any existing or future laws or acts of the federal, state or local government (including specifically, but not exclusively, any
orders, rules or regulations issued by any official or agency of any such government) affecting the conduct of Seller's business with which Seller in its
judgment and discretion deems it advisable to comply as a legal or patriotic duty, or to any case beyond the Seller's reasonable control.

Warranties: Seller warrants that the equipment sold under this contract shall be free from defects in material and workmanship for a period of twelve (12)
months from the date of equipment startup or eighteen (18) months from the date of shipment, whichever occurs first. The following original equipment
components only are warranted against defects in materials and workmanship for a period of five (5) years from date of shipment: fans, fan shafts, fan
motors, bearings, sheaves, gearboxes, driveshafts, couplings, and mechanical equipment support. Details of option-specific warranties follow:

JE Premier Series Construction is warranted to be free from defects in material and workmanship for a period of five (5) years from date of
shipment.
EVERTOUGH Construction is warranted to be free from defects in material and workmanship for a period of five (5) years from date of
shipment excluding heat transfer coils which are warranted to be free from defects in material and workmanship for a period of twelve (12) months
from the date of equipment startup or eighteen (18) months from the date of shipment, whichever occurs first.
TriArmor Corrosion Protection System Cold Water Basins are warranted against leaks and corrosion for a period of five (5) years from date of
shipment. For the purposes of this warranty, corrosion means red rust formation on the interior of the cold water basin panels due to a failure of
the TriArmor Corrosion Protection System. The leak or corrosion must be caused by a defect in the application of the TriArmor Corrosion
Protection System. This warranty does not apply to cold water basin field connections, field installed options or modifications by others.
Welded 304 Stainless Steel Cold Water Basins are warranted against leaks for a period of five (5) years from date of shipment. Only leaks from
the factory seams of the cold water basin are covered; this warranty does not apply to cold water basin field connections, field installed options or
modifications by others.
Replacement Parts provided by Seller under its original equipment warranty obligations are warranted against defects in materials and
workmanship for a period of twelve (12) months from date of shipment or until expiration of their original warranty, whichever occurs first. Parts
purchased after expiration of the original equipment warranty are warranted against defects in materials and workmanship for a period of twelve
(12) months from date of shipment.

Corporate Headquarters: P.O. Box 7322, Baltimore, MD 21227 Tele: (410) 799-6200 / Fax: (410) 799-6416
Written notice of any defect shall be given to Seller immediately upon discovery by Buyer, and shall fully describe the claimed defect. Defective parts shall
be repaired or replaced F.O.B. point of shipment, provided that inspection by Seller verifies the claimed defect(s). This shall be Buyer's exclusive remedy.
This warranty does not cover the costs of removing, shipping or reinstalling the equipment. Repairs made without the prior written approval of
Seller shall void all warranties covering material and workmanship. Any descriptions of the product(s) in the contract are for the sole purpose of
identification and do not constitute a warranty. In the interest of product improvement, Seller reserves the right to change specifications and product design
without incurring any liability therefore. The foregoing express warranties or those set forth elsewhere on this document are the only warranties of Seller
applicable to the product(s) sold under this contract. All other warranties, whether verbal or written, and all warranties implied by law, including any
warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, are hereby excluded. Failure on the part of Buyer or of other parties to
properly maintain the product(s) sold under this contract, or the operation of such product(s), by Buyer and/or other parties under conditions
more severe than those for which such product(s) were designed, shall void all warranties covering materials and workmanship. Seller's
warranties do not apply to defects in product(s) for which payment in full has not been received by Seller, and said warranties do not cover
normal wear and tear or the erosion, corrosion and/or deterioration of the product(s) from unusual causes. No warranties by Seller shall apply
to accessories manufactured by others, inasmuch as they are warranted separately by their respective manufacturers, except as stated above. Buyer
assumes liability for and shall bear the costs of compliance with all laws, regulations, codes standards or ordinances applicable to the location, operation
and maintenance of the product(s) sold under this contract, including those requirements pertaining to the distances between such product(s) and
air-conditioning system duct intakes. No representative or agent of Seller is authorized to enlarge upon the express warranties of Seller.

Cancellation/Changes/Returns: Cancellation of or changes in any order by Buyer shall not be effective without Buyer's notice thereof received, agreed
to, and confirmed in writing by Seller. If Seller, in its absolute discretion, approves Buyer's cancellation of an order, Buyer agrees to pay a reasonable
cancellation charge. Seller's prior written consent must be obtained before Buyer returns any products, and when so returned will be subject to a handling
charge and transportation costs payable by Buyer.

Liability/Indemnification: Seller shall not be liable for any damages caused by delay in delivery of the products. Buyer shall hold harmless and indemnify
Seller from and against all liability, claims, losses, damages, and expenses (including attorneys' fees) for personal injury and property damage arising out
of Buyer's improper unloading, handling, or use of the products subject to this order, and for Buyer's infringement of another's property rights. The Seller's
maximum liability from any causes whatsoever, whether in breach of contract, tort (including negligence), strict liability, or otherwise, shall not exceed the
contract price. Neither Buyer nor Seller shall in any event be liable to the other, whether such liability arises out of breach of contract, tort (including
negligence), strict liability or any other cause or form of action, for any consequential, special, indirect or incidental damages, including but not limited to
loss of actual or anticipated profits or loss of use arising out of this contract, other than such damages resulting from the willful misconduct of Buyer or
Seller.

Storage: In the event that Buyer is unable to accept delivery of goods and the Seller is required to hold goods beyond two (2) working days from fabrication
completion, a storage fee equal to the greater of $200/day or 0.20% of the total order value/day will be assessed by Seller for every day beyond two (2)
working days from fabrication date which it is required to store goods on behalf of Buyer. Storage will be assessed monthly and will need to be paid in full
prior to a new shipment date being scheduled.

Government Contracts: If Buyer's purchase order is for products to be used in the performance of a U.S. Government contract, those clauses of
applicable procurement regulations mandatorily required by federal law to be included in U.S. Government subcontracts shall be incorporated herein by
reference.

Export Transactions: Buyer shall comply with all applicable export laws and regulations of the U.S. Government, and shall hold harmless and indemnify
Seller from and against all liability, damages, and expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred by Seller as a result of Buyer's violation of any U.S.
Government export and/or international antiboycott laws or regulations.

Agreement of Sale: Buyer's order is accepted on the terms and conditions stated herein and Seller's acceptance of Buyer's order is expressly made
conditional upon Buyer's assent to such terms and conditions, including any of Seller's terms and conditions which may be additional to or different from
those contained in Buyer's purchase order or otherwise. Such assent shall be deemed to have been given unless written notice of objection to any such
terms and conditions (including inconsistencies between Buyer's purchase order and this acceptance) is given by Buyer to Seller promptly upon receipt of
this acknowledgment. Any agreement or understanding, oral or written, which modifies or waives the terms and conditions herein (whether contained in
Buyer's purchase order or other documentation) shall be deemed material and shall be rejected unless hereafter agreed to in writing and signed by Seller's
authorized officer. Waiver by Seller of any breach or default hereunder shall not be deemed a waiver by Seller of any other or subsequent breach or default
which may thereafter occur. Neither the rights nor the obligations of either Buyer or Seller are assignable without the prior written consent of the other party.
This agreement of sale and all rights and obligations of Buyer and Seller shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Maryland.

Electronic copy of the latest version is available online at http://baltimoreaircoil.com/english/terms. (Revised 05/20/2010)

Corporate Headquarters: P.O. Box 7322, Baltimore, MD 21227 Tele: (410) 799-6200 / Fax: (410) 799-6416
Mechanical Specifications
2011-06-10

Project: NEES BNCS PROJECT


Customer: BALTIMORE AIRCOIL COMPANY
Purchase Order No: RD1074
Engineer:
BAC Order # U111493201

All Information is per Unit

Quantity: 1 Model PT2-0709A-1H1/S COOLING TOWER

Unit Type:

Factory fabricated, induced draft, counterflow cooling tower with vertical discharge.

Quality Assurance:

Each unit is manufactured under closely-controlled conditions using standardized parts to ensure each unit is built precisely to the same
high-quality design and construction standards. The design, manufacture, and business processes of Baltimore Aircoil Company are ISO
9001:2000 certified.

Unit Efficiency:

The unit(s) complies with the energy efficiency requirements established by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004.

CTI Certification:

The thermal performance is certified by the Cooling Technology Institute in accordance with CTI Certification Standard STD-201.

Materials of Construction:

All structural steel components are constructed from G-235 (Z700 metric) hot-dip galvanized steel. The edges of the hot-dip galvanized steel
components are given a protective coat of zinc-rich compound. Cold water basin includes a depressed section with drain/clean-out connection
and the area under the fill sections is sloped toward the depressed section for easy cleaning.

Hot water distribution system is pressurized and constructed of Schedule 40 PVC. Polypropylene metering orifices are provided to assure even
distribution of water over the fill.

Fan & Drive System:

Fan(s) are driven by a one-piece multi-groove, neoprene/polyester belt designed specifically for evaporative cooling equipment service. Motor is
mounted on an adjustable motor base. Fan and motor sheaves are non-corrosive cast aluminum. Extended lubrication lines are standard. The
BALTIDRIVE Power Train fan drive system, including fan motors, is warranted against defects in materials and workmanship for five (5) years
from date of shipment.

Fan(s) and steel fan shaft(s) are supported by heavy-duty, self-aligning, grease-packed, relubricatable ball bearings with special seals for
protection against dust and moisture. All bearings are designed for a minimum L10 life of 80,000 hours and are provided with extended lubrication
lines.

Corporate Headquarters: P.O. Box 7322, Baltimore, MD 21227 Tele: (410) 799-6200 / Fax: (410) 799-6416
Fan Guard(s):

A heavy gauge, G-235 (Z700 metric) hot-dip galvanized steel wire fan guard is provided over each fan cylinder. The fan guard is shipped loose for
field installation.

Wet Deck Material:

The wet deck surface is formed from self-extinguishing (per ASTM D-568) polyvinyl chloride (PVC), having a flame spread rating of 5 per ASTM
Standard E84-77a, and are impervious to rot, decay, and fungus or biological attack. The wet deck surface is elevated above the cold water basin
floor to facilitate cleaning. This wet deck is suitable for a maximum entering water temperature of 140F (60C). The eliminators are designed to
effectively strip entrained moisture from the leaving airstream.

Equipment Structure:

The upgraded structure of this unit has been designed, tested and independently certified in accordance with the wind and seismic load
requirements of the 2009 International Building Code (IBC) and ASCE/SEI 7-05. Seismic qualification is based on tri-axial shake-table testing
conducted at an independent test laboratory in accordance with the ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria AC 156, "Acceptance Criteria for Seismic
Qualification By Shake-Table Testing of Nonstructural Components and Systems." For more information and specific wind and seismic load
capacity ratings, please see the Certificate of Wind and Seismic Load Capacity.

Water Inlet(s):

Water enters the unit though a single inlet connection on the end or side of the unit.

Water Outlet(s):

A pipe stub connection(s) of a metal compatible with the cold water basin material and appropriately sized for design flow is provided. Please see
the submittal package for the connection type, size and location. Also included is a large area, lift out strainer which matches the cold water basin
material of construction and has perforated openings sized smaller than the water distribution nozzle orifices. Strainer includes anti-vortexing
baffle to prevent air entrainment.

Basin Water Level Control:

A make-up valve with unsinkable polystyrene filled plastic float arranged for easy adjustment. The corrosion resistant make-up valve is suitable
for water supply pressures between 15 psig (103 kPa) and 50 psig (345 kPa).

Corporate Headquarters: P.O. Box 7322, Baltimore, MD 21227 Tele: (410) 799-6200 / Fax: (410) 799-6416
Certificate of Wind and
Seismic Load Capacity
2006 and 2009 International Building Codes (IBC)
Product Line: PT2 Open Cooling Tower
Model Number: PT2-0709A-1H1/S
Ref. Number: U1114932
Project: NEES BNCS PROJECT
Date: 6/10/2011

The Baltimore Aircoil Company evaporative cooling product referenced in this certificate has been
designed, analyzed, and tested in accordance with the wind and seismic load requirements of the 2006
IBC, 2009 IBC, and ASCE/SEI 7-05. Seismic qualification is based on full-scale, tri-axial, shake-table
testing conducted in accordance with ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria AC156 (2007), Acceptance Criteria
for Seismic Qualification By Shake-Table Testing of Nonstructural Components and Systems.

Wind and seismic load capacities for the referenced unit are provided below. It is the responsibility of the
purchaser to determine the suitability of this unit for the specific application and to design the anchorage
and support system for the project wind and seismic loads. Field modifications to the unit may void this
certificate.

Wind Load Capacity


Design Wind Pressure (psf): p = 130.00
Installation Restrictions: None
Seismic Load Capacity
1
Design Spectral Acceleration (g) : S DS = 2.93 on grade (z/h = 0.0)
S DS = 1.83 on rooftop (z/h = 1.0)
2
Certification Response Spectra : see page 2
3
Component Importance Factor : Ip = 1.5
Installation Restrictions: Outdoor

1
For generic building applications.

2
For unique building applications. The seismic demand spectra at the base of the unit (determined by
others) must be below the Certification Response Spectra.

3
The factory wiring and terminal box option is not included in the certification when Ip = 1.5.

g 1 of 2
Page
Certification Response Spectra
(5% damping)

10.00
Spectral Acceleration (g)

2.93 2.93
2.20

1.95 1.95
1.00 1.47

0.10
1.0 10.0 100.0
Horizontal Vertical Frequency (Hz)

[Ref. ICC-ES, AC156(2007), Figure 1]

Tested By Reviewed and Approved By Preapproved By


Clark Dynamic Test William E. Gundy, P.E. California Office of Statewide
Laboratory, Inc. W. E. Gundy & Associates, Inc. Health Planning and
1801 Route 51 South P.O. Box 2900 Development (OSHPD)
Jefferson Hills, PA 15025 Hailey, ID 83333 OSP-0001-10
Effective Date: 06/29/2009
February, 2007 June, 2007 Expiration Date: 12/31/2012

Page 2 of 2
597
598
~
08" [0203 mm)

04" [0102 mm)


8" [203 mm)
6" [152 mm)

6" [152 mm) 01~" [030 mm)


8" [20 mm]

~"[022mm)

a. plan view
...----------- ...."

.L--
11" [44 mm]
4 - I
I Ii" [32 mm]
1 I
1'-1" [330 mm) 3" [76 mm)

.I I
I Ii" [32 mm]
1~"[44 mm) I

8" [203 mm]


i::'
J3"[76mm]

4" [10ynm)

b. elevation
Figure A.2 Schematic of five-channel load cell.

228

599
MASON INDUSTRIES, Inc.
Manufacturers of Vibration Control Products
350 Rabro Drive 2101 W. Crescent Ave., Suite D
ALL DIRECTIONAL
ANCHORS and VERTICAL
SLIDING GUIDES for
ADA
Hauppauge, NY 11788
631/348-0282
FAX 631/348-0279
Info@Mason-Ind.com
www.Mason-Ind.com
Anaheim, CA 92801
714/535-2727
FAX 714/535-5738
Info@MasonAnaheim.com
www.MasonAnaheim.com
RISERS with STRAIGHT
PIPE, OFFSETS or
EXPANSION JOINTS DATA SHEET DS-510-3
& VSG
TH A Square TYPE ADA and ADAH RATINGS
ADA TAPPED HOLE Top & Bottom Anchoring
All Directional Anchors Weld or Bolt Pipe Capacity Rated
Change designation to Clamp or Bracket per Pair Defl
ADAH when base plate to ADA Anchor Type Size (Ibs) (kg) (in) (mm)
with bolt holes is 75 1,000 453 0.1 2.5
required. Heavy Duty Neoprene &
Weld Duck or Neoprene Isolation ADA- 200 6,000 2722 0.1 2.5
Base to (min. thickness 1/2 13mm) 350 24,000 10886 0.1 2.5
Support ADAH- 600 60,000 27216 0.1 2.5
HH Steel 800 100,000 45359 0.1 2.5
ADAH
Baseplate Each pair of ADA(H) all directional anchors provides
H for Bolting high frequency noise and vibration isolation for those
locations where movement must be controlled.
When the anchors are attached to piping as shown
in the illustrations below, all expansion will be direct-
HC L ed from this point.
T
Anchors are always used in pairs.
A
RBD
RBD-Required Bolt Dia.
TYPE ADA and ADAH DIMENSIONS (inches and mm) for Max. Loading
Type Size A H L T HC HH RBD TH
75 3 41/2 6 1/4 5 43/4 3/8 1/2-13UNC
76 114 152 6 127 121 10
ADA- 200 4 7 11 3/8 81/2 73/8 5/8 5/8-11UNC
102 178 279 10 216 187 16 Mason Bracket
Pipe Clamp
350 71/4 12 1/2 91/2 73/4 3/4 None (by others) Welded to Pipe
* 184 305 13 241 197 19 (custom designed
Welded to
ADAH- 600 9 11 141/2 3/4 12 113/4 11/4 None Pipe for wide or irregular
229 279 368 19 305 298 32 structural support spacing)
800 11 131/2 171/2 1 141/2 141/2 11/2 None *Size 350
279 343 445 25 368 368 38 Top is 5 127mm x 5 127mm, Bottom is 6 152mm x 6 152mm.

TYPE VSG and VSGH RATINGS


VSG B Square Bolt or Weld
Pipe Clamp or Horizontal Possible For use
Vertical Sliding Guide Bracket to Capacity Horizontal with
Change designation to VSG Guide per Pair Deflection Pipe Sizes
VSGH when base plate Type Size (Ibs) (kg) (in) (mm) (in) (mm)
with bolt holes TH TAPPED 75 1,000 453 0.1 2.5 thru 5 125
HOLE VSG-
200 8,000 3629 0.1 2.5 6 150 thru 12 300
VSGH- 350 11,300 5126 0.1 2.5 14 350 thru 24 600
Heavy Duty Neoprene
RBD Isolation (minimum Each pair of VSG guides provides high frequency noise and
Required thickness 1/2 13mm) vibration isolation for those locations where movement must be
Bolt Dia. for guided in the axial direction.
Max. Horiz. SET SCREW
UHH Capacity Standard VSG Guides can be set to accommodate:
VSGH a) 0 Upward Movement and 31/4 83mm Downward Movement.
Baseplate b) 31/4 83mm Upward Movement and 0 Downward Movement.
for Bolting c) 15/8 41mm Upward or Downward Movement.
UH d) Special settings as required and certified.
A Guides are always used in pairs.
T When pairs of VSG Guides are used as shown in the illustra-
HC tions below right, radial motion is controlled while axial motion is
A guided.
31/4 83mm L
MH 31/4 83mm
UPWARD DOWNWARD
MOVEMENT MHH MOVEMENT
DH SETTING
SETTING
DHH
15/8 41mm
UPWARD or
DOWNWARD
TYPE VSG and VSGH DIMENSIONS (inches and mm) MOVEMENT SETTING
Pipe Clamp
31/4 83mm 31/4 83mm 15/8 41mm (by others)
Downward Upward Up or Down Welded to
Movement Movement Movement Pipe
Type Size
A B L T HC RBD TH DH DHH UH UHH MH MHH
753 3 61/4 1/4 5 3/8 1/2-13UNC 101/4 101/2 7 71/4 85/8 87/8
76 76 159 6 127 10 260 267 178 184 219 225
VSG- 200 41/2 4 93/4 3/8 8 5/8 7/8-9UNC 101/2 107/8 71/4 75/8 87/8 91/4 Mason Bracket
114 102 248 6 203 16 267 276 184 194 225 235 Welded to Pipe
VSGH- 350 6 5 11 1/2 9 3/4 1-8UNC 103/4 111/4 71/2 8 91/8 95/8 (custom designed
152 127 280 13 229 19 273 286 191 203 232 244 for wide or irregular
structural support spacing)
ADA & VSG MASON INDUSTRIES

RECOMMENDED ANCHOR SIZE SELECTIONS & MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED VERTICAL GUIDE SPACING
SIZE SELECTIONS TO PREVENT PIPE BUCKLING
Straight Offset
GUIDE SIZES Solid Riser Solid Risers Having Expansion Joints
Pair of Riser
Anchors A Pairs of Stainless Steel Neoprene C Balance of
Used to Anchors One Guide One Anchor Guides
Resist Used to Each End Each End One Anchor One Anchor Distance
Expansion Resist and and Each End Each End Between Joint
Joint Thrust Offset Maximum Maximum of Pipeline of Pipeline and Anchor
Illustration 1 Thrust Theoretical Distance Distance D
Illustration 1 Non-Supportive Between Between B B
Operating Directional Guides Guides Distance Distance Distance Operating
Pressures Guides D D Joint First Joint to Pressures
Pipe Up to 151- Illustration 2 to to First Guide up to 151-
Size 150 psi 300 psi First Second Second not 150 psi 300 psi
(in) 10kg/cm 20kg/cm2 Offset
2
Guide Guide Required 1 10kg/cm 20kg/cm2
2

(mm) Size Size (ft) (m) Size Size 2 (ft) (m) 1 (ft) (m) D 1 D D (ft) (m) (ft) (m)
1 7.4 40 24 8 2-0 8 12 1 12
25 ADA-75 ADA-75 2.26 ADA-75 VSG-75 12 7 .20 0.61 0.20 3.66 3.66
11/4 ADA-75 ADA-75 8.2 ADA-75 40 24 8 2-0 8 12 12
VSG-75
35 2.5 12 7 .20 0.61 0.20 3.66 3.66
11/2 ADA-75 ADA-75 9.0 ADA-75 40 D 24 D 10 3-0 10 12 12 D
VSG-75
40 2.7 12 7 .25 0.91 0.25 3.66 3.66
2 9.8 2 40 2 24 10 2 3-0 10 2 12 2 12
ADA-75 ADA-75 3.0 ADA-75 VSG-75
50 12 7 .25 0.91 0.25 3.66 3.66
21/2 ADA-200 11.0 40 30 12 3-6 12 12 12
ADA-75 3.4 ADA-75 VSG-75
65 12 9 .31 1.07 0.31 3.66 3.66
3 12.3 40 36 12 3-6 12 17 14
ADA-75 ADA-200 3.7 ADA-75 VSG-75
80 12 11 .31 1.07 0.31 5.18 4.27
4 40 D 36 D
ADA-200 13.9 1-4 4-8 D 1-4 25 19
ADA-75 4.2 ADA-75 VSG-75
100 12 11 .41 1.42 0.41 7.62 5.80
5 15.0 2 50 2 36 2-0 2 7-0 2-0 2 30 2 23
ADA-75 ADA-200 4.6 ADA-75 VSG-75
125 15 11 .61 2.134 0.61 9.14 7.01
6 ADA-350 16.8 50 36 2-0 7-0 2-0 37 27
ADA-200 5.1 ADA-200 VSG-200 D .61 D 0.61
150 15 11 2.134 11.28 8.23
8 18.8 50 50 2-6 9-4 2-6 45 33
ADA-200 ADA-350 5.7 ADA-200 VSG-200
200 15 15 .76 2.85 0.76 13.72 10.06
10 ADA-350 21.3 60 D 60 3-4 11-8 3-4 58 42
ADA-200 6.5 ADA-200 VSG-200
250 18 18 1.0 3.56 1.07 17.68 12.80
12 23.0 72 72 2 D 4-0 2 14-0 D 4-0 2 60 2 48
ADA-350 ADA-600 7.0 ADA-350 VSG-200 2
300 22 22 4.0 4.27 0.41 18.29 14.63
14 ADA-350 ADA-600 24.0 85 85 4-8 16-4 4-8 71 51
7.3 ADA-350 VSG-200
350 26 26 1.4 4.98 1.43 21.64 15.55
16 25.8 85 85 5-4 18-8 5-4 78 56
ADA-350 ADA-600 7.9 ADA-350 VSG-200
400 26 26 1.6 5.69 1.63 23.75 17.07
18 ADA-600 ADA-800 27.5 85 D D 85 6-0 21-0 D 6-0 85 61
8.4 ADA-350 VSG-200
450 26 26 1.8 6.40 1.83 25.91 18.95
20 29.0 2 120 120 2 6-8 23-4 6-8 91 2 65
ADA-600 ADA-800 8.8 ADA-350 VSG-200
500 37 37 2.0 2 7.11 2.03 2 27.74 19.81
24 ADA-600 120 120 8-0 28-0 8-0 103 75
ADA-800 VSG-350
600 37 37 2.4 8.53 2.44 31.40 22.86
26 Special ADA-600 120 120 10-0 35-0 10-0 118 85
ADA-800 Designs
650 37 37 3.0 10.67 3.05 35.97 25.91
28 as ADA-600 Special Designs 120 D D 120 10-0 35-0 10-0 118 85 D
ADA-800 Required As Required
700 37 37 3.05 10.67 3.05 35.97 25.91
30 ADA-600 2 120 120 1 10-0 1 35-0 10-0 1 118 1 85
ADA-800
750 37 37 3.05 10.67 3.05 35.97 25.91
A
Reference forces calculated on standard reference for 1 25mm movement at pipe stress of 15000 psi 1050 kgcm2.
B
If the anchor is next to the joint on one side, no guide is needed on that side.
C
Guides beyond the anchor may be spaced as in a straight solid run since there is no thrust force.
Illustration 1 Illustration 2
ADA ANCHOR VSG SLIDING GUIDE

Pipe Clamp Mason Bracket Pipe Clamp


Welded to Mason Bracket
Welded to Pipe Welded to Welded to Pipe
Pipe (custom designed Pipe (custom designed
for wide or irregular for wide or irregular
structural support spacing) structural support spacing)

To more clearly define and control riser load shifts caused by pipe expansion and contraction, strategically
placed spring supports may be incorporated. See Hanger Bulletin H-610 (page 13) for a detailed
description of this method using type SLFH Steel Spring Mounts or type HES Pipe Expansion Hangers.
MASON INDUSTRIES, Inc. TYPE

SLF
Manufacturers of Vibration Control Products
FREE STANDING
350 Rabro Drive 2101 W. Crescent Ave., Suite D SPRING MOUNTS and
Hauppauge, NY 11788 Anaheim, CA 92801
631/348-0282 714/535-2727 HEIGHT SAVING
FAX 631/348-0279 FAX 714/535-5738
Info@Mason-Ind.com Info@MasonAnaheim.com BRACKETS
www.Mason-Ind.com www.MasonAnaheim.com SLF-200-6 BULLETIN

The Type SLF spring design evolved after many years of experience using In an effort to develop a foolproof simple isolator
springs within guided housing as the primary isolator. Since the old housing using these sophisticated springs, we have merely
acted telescopically, the internal springs were designed for vertical stiffness added a neoprene friction pad on the bottom to help
and deflection only. Early attempts to use these tall slender springs out of prevent the passage of noise and a spring loading
their housing failed as the springs showed immediate instability or they fell and adjustment bolt at the top with a locking cap
over when subjected to minor horizontal forces. screw. You will find that these adjustment bolts are
very substantial because they must be made rigid
It was important to eliminate the housing as they had a tendency to bind enough to maintain the alignment of the top of the
whenever they were cocked and to transmit vibration in the horizontal direc- spring with the base plate, and the head of the bolt
tions. We knew that if the springs were unhampered they would not only is actually the equipment supporting surface. The
do better vertically, but do an equally fine job in isolating the horizontal bolts are tapped to receive the locking cap screw as
disturbances. this methods makes it easy to remove the isolator
Our research showed that springs could be designed with horizontal stiff- for servicing. The 5 (127mm) deflection springs are
nesses as high, or even higher than the vertical by carefully adhering to the sometimes furnished with three adjustment bolts in a
ratios of the springs compressed height to the mean coil diameter, and the tripod arrangement to maintain the top plate stability.
static deflection to the compressed height as shown in the graph. Other stabilizing methods use single oversized bolts
or pull-down brackets. In some cases SLF mount-
STIFFNESS = kx
ky

ings with smaller deflections are similarly designed


2.0
when there are large horizontal forces such as in the
AXIAL STIFFNESS

st = STATIC DEFLECTION
isolation of a horizontal compressor. There is no
1.5
hs COMPRESSED HEIGHT need to bolt this mounting down in most cases
because of the friction pad and the spring's reduc-
RATIO LATERAL

1.0
tion of the horizontal forces before they get down to
the base plate.
0.5
0.0 SLF mountings of the proper deflection are recom-
st / hs = 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
mended for all vibration control applications where it
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
is not necessary to cope with weight removal or
COMPRESSED HEIGHT = hs
SINGLE SPRING RATIO MEAN COIL DIAMETER D seismic and wind load problems. Excessive dis-
1" (25mm) Deflection charge pressures can be dealt with by adding mass
SLF MOUNT Starting with the 1 (25mm) deflection series, we
through the use of floating inertia bases or where
paid great attention to these design factors and our
mass is not a practical solution, by the addition of
springs became short stable columns. When we had
horizontal thrust restraints.
tested and were completely satisfied with the 1
(25mm) designs, we moved on the 2 (51mm), 3
(76mm), 4 (102mm) and 5 (127mm) deflection
series. Every spring table now includes data on the
ratio of the spring diameter to the compressed SINGLE SPRING
height, and the ratio of the horizontal to the vertical 2 (51mm),
3 (76mm),
spring constants. Our specifications suggest a mini- 4 (102mm) and
mum ratio of 0.75 between the spring diameter and 5 (127mm)
Deflection
the compressed height as a good working rule, SLF MOUNT
although some of our designs exceed this number.
SINGLE SPRING
1" (25mm) Deflection All of these springs are designed so as not to
SLFH MOUNT Steel Holders
exceed the elastic limit when the coils are closed up
(Top & Bottom)
and the springs are compressed solid. This prevents are used when
damage when the springs are overloaded and spring O.D.
exceeds 734
assures a return to the springs free height. The (197mm)
rated loads and deflections allow for 50% additional
travel to solid to accommodate weight distribution
errors and to keep the springs operating in a low
stress range. In our Nominal 1 (25mm) Deflection A, The SLFH series of mounts are identical to the
B, and C Spring series the smallest rated deflection style SLF except for having two or four holes in the
is 1 (25mm) although some of the lighter springs base to allow for bolting to the structure. Since it is
can deflect as much as 2 (51mm). The springs are expensive to bolt mountings down, and any bolting
used individually or in clusters to develop greater procedure tends to bypass the acoustical action of
capacity. Some of our B2 and C2 springs only meet the neoprene pad on the bottom of the mounting, it
MULTIPLE SPRING
1" (25mm) Deflection competitive criteria and do not have 50% additional is strongly recommended that you use the Type
SLF MOUNT travel. This is clearly noted in our catalog Data SLF unless the SLFH must be used because of
Sheet DS-208. elevated installations on steel beams, etc.
SLF SPRING MOUNTS MASON INDUSTRIES

BELT DRIVEN CENTRIFUGAL FAN and MOTOR

SLF springs are used to isolate all kinds of fan equipment.


Deflections are determined by fan speed, size, motor horse-
power and equipment location as discussed in the VCS-l00
Engineering Specification and Selection Guide. Bases may be
made of structural steel or concrete. The sketch shows a
centrifugal fan on a type WFSL base with 3 (76mm)
deflection springs.

UTILITY SET

Utility sets are normally direct mounted on 1" (25mm)


deflection SLF springs as illustrated. ICS rails are used in
conjunction with the springs when higher deflections are
required or there is an unsupported fan scroll that causes over
balancing. KSL concrete filled bases are recommended for
outdoor locations because of the need for wind resistance.

FACTORY ASSEMBLED AIR HANDLING EQUlPMENT

Factory assembled air handling equipment may be direct


mounted as shown or placed on ICS rails when higher
deflections are called for. It is important to study the
equipment base or legs to determine whether rails are
needed for structural reinforcement.

FAN HEAD

A fan head develops high horizontal thrust because of the


negative pressure on the very large inlet area. The SLF springs
cannot handle this thrust without Horizontal Thrust Restraints
as sketched or massive concrete filled bases to increase the
resistive weight and spring constants.

END SUCTION PUMP or DOUBLE SUCTION PUMP

SLF spring mountings of the proper deflection are


recommended for all pump isolation problems. While steel
bases may be used, concrete is preferred for greater rigidity
and the possibility of grouting in the pump base. Bases should
be made large enough to support the suction and discharge
elbows whenever possible. Thus, Double Suction bases become
wide and End Suction bases long.

SLF applications are by no means limited to these


sketches. We have merely tried to illustrate the
many modes of application and some of the design
considerations.

2
MASON INDUSTRIES SPRING MOUNTS SLF
VERTICAL PUMPS

Vertical pump bases using SLF mountings should be made large


enough for stability and extended as required to support the
piping before attachment to the pump flanges. This piping support
reduces the strain on the pump casing.

CLOSE COUPLED PUMP

Close coupled pumps are generally unstable when mounted directly


on SLF mountings because they are small in configuration and
have a severe overhang on the pump end. A concrete base makes
them less sensitive to external forces so the installation becomes
much more workmanlike and practical. SLF deflections depend on
location and pump size.

DIRECTLY DRIVEN REFRIGERATION COMPRESSOR UNIT

1" (25mm) deflection SLF mountings can be directly attached to


the isolated equipment. Mountings of different capacities would
be used at the two ends to compensate for the uneven weight
distribution and provide reasonably uniform deflection. This use
of springs of different capacity but the same potential deflection
applies to all isolator selections.

BELT DRIVEN AIR COMPRESSOR

When 2 (51mm) or higher deflection SLF mountings are used


we normally recommend ICS rails to minimize elevations. In this
particular case the rails project beyond the flywheel to compensate
for the overhang. The higher deflections are used to increase
efficiency at the low operating speed.

VERTICAL TANK TYPE AIR COMPRESSOR

It is important to exercise caution when applying spring mountings


to tall machines with small base dimensions. The use of a
concrete filled type K base with SLF mountings lowers the center
of gravity in addition to enlarging the base dimensions. Thus, the
installation becomes much more stable.

SLOW SPEED VERTICAL or HORIZONTAL COMPRESSOR


or VACUUM PUMP

Slow speed, large bore and stroke reciprocating compressors or


vacuum pumps have large residual unbalanced forces that make
direct mounting impossible because of excessive motion. The
concrete inertia block mass is calculated from unbalanced force
data supplied by the manufacturer. It is often as much as seven
times the equipment weight. Vertical compressors are located
over the combined vertical center of gravity. The springs under
horizontal compressors are elevated to the horizontal CG. Three
adjustment bolts are most important to maintain horizontal SLF
stiffness.

3
SPRING MOUNTS MASON INDUSTRIES

1(25mm) Deflection Change designation to SLFH when


SLF SINGLE SPRING MOUNTS base plate with bolt holes is required.

MASON HEIGHT
SLF W
M L CS LOCKING
SLFH SAVING
BRACKET is
CAP SCREW designed for
secures Height attachment to a
FREE & Saving Bracket (or
OPER. flat face across
Equipment Base) to the full width of
HEIGHT BH Tapped Concentric
BE the bracket.
Hole in Mounting
Adjustment Bolt
2-HOLE
AB ADJUSTMENT BOLT MOLDED
Turn Counterclockwise to NON-SKID
load spring and maintain NEOPRENE
Free and Operating Height. COVERED
BASEPLATE
APPROX.
1"(25mm) FERROUS CUP
OPERATING
CLEARANCE
NON-SKID NEOPRENE E
EQUIPMENT A C
BASE ACOUSTICAL CUP G

H MAX. BOLT
DIAMETER
J
Matching Height Saving Bracket BH- Bracket Height BE- Bracket Elevation
Type Size L M W BE BH
(in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) All springs have additional travel to solid equal to
2/ 64 2 51 3 76 2/ 70 2/ 64 50% of the rated deflection.
X
SLF- A-45 A-400 2/ 64 2 51 3 76 3/ 83 2/ 64 Solid Spring Height = Free Height minus 1.5 times
SLFH- A-510 A-625 2/ 64 2 51 3 76 3fi/ 92 2/ 64 Rated Deflection.
B&C 4 102 2/ 70 3 76 5 127 4 102

Ratings & Dimensions for 1(25mm) Deflection Single Spring Mounts (inches millimeters)
Max. Adjust- Locking
Spring Only Free &
Rated Rated Spring Bolt ment Cap
Capacity Defl. Constant Spring Spring Free Oper Dia. Bolt Screw
Type Size (lbs) (kg) (in) (mm) (lbs/in)(kg/mm) Color OD Height Ht A C E G H J AB CS
X-23 23 10 1.50 38 18 0.260 Brown
X-33 33 15 1.30 33 30 0.450 Red
X-54 54 24 1.40 36 45 0.670 White
X-76 76 34 1.22 31 73 1.100 Black 1/ 2/ 3/ 2 / x 2/ / x 1
X-113 113 51 1.20 30 113 1.700 Yellow 38 64 95 51 x 64 x 25
X-130 130 59 1.20 30 130 1.970 Purple
X-175 175 79 1.20 30 175 2.630 Silver
X-210 210 95 1.20 30 210 3.170 Blue
A-45 45 20 1.60 41 28 0.490 Blue
A-75 75 34 1.50 38 50 0.890 Orange
A-125 125 57 1.33 34 94 1.680 Brown 1/ 3 4/ 2/ 2/ 3 3/ / / fi/ x 2/ / x 1
A-200 200 91 1.15 29 174 3.140 Black 44 76 108 54 57 76 95 6 10 x 64 x 25
A-310 310 141 1.00 25 310 5.640 Yellow
SLF- A-400 400 181 1.00 25 400 7.240 Green

510 9.240 1/ 3/
A-510 510 231 1.00 25 Red
SLFH- 44 79 4fi/ 2/ 2/ 3 3/ / / fi/ x 2/ / x 1
1/ 3/ 117 54 57 76 95 6 10 x 64 x 25
A-625 625 283 1.00 25 625 11.32 White
44 86
B-65 65 29 2.10 53 31 0.550 Brown
B-85 85 39 2.10 53 40 0.740 White
B-115 115 52 2.00 51 57 1.020 Silver
/ / / x 4/ / x 1/
Orange 2/ 4 6 2/ 2/ 4/ 5/
B-150 150 68 2.00 51 75 1.330
60 102 152 70 73 105 137 13 10 x 108 x 32
B-280 280 127 1.60 41 174 3.100 Green
B-450 450 204 1.31 33 344 6.180 Red
B-750 750 340 1.12 28 670 12.14 White
B-1000 1000 454 1.00 25 1000 18.16 Blue
C-1000 1000 454 1.00 25 1000 18.16 Black
C-1350 1350 612 1.00 25 1350 24.48 Yellow
C-1750 1750 794 1.00 25 1750 31.76 Black*
/ / / x 4/ / x 1/
Yellow* 2/ 4/ 6 3/ 3/ 4/ 6/
C-2100 2100 953 1.00 25 2100 38.12
Yellow** 73 105 152 83 86 121 156 13 10 x 108 x 32
C-2385 2385 1082 1.00 25 2385 43.28
C-2650 2650 1202 1.00 25 2650 48.08 Red*
C-2935 2935 1331 1.00 25 2935 53.24 Red**
4
SLFH not available
with BLACK stripe *with RED inner spring **with GREEN inner spring
MASON INDUSTRIES SPRING MOUNTS SLF
1(25mm) Deflection All springs have additional travel to solid equal to 50% of the rated deflection.
SLF MULTIPLE SPRING MOUNTS Solid Spring Height = Free Height minus 1.5 times Rated Deflection.
Change designation to SLFH when Multiple spring mounts have C size springs. SLF-2, SLF-3, SLF-4, SLF-6,
base plate with bolt holes is required. SLF-9, SLF-12 & SLF-16 have 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12 & 16 springs respectively.

"CS" LOCKING MASON HEIGHT


SLF L CAP SCREW
secures Height
SLFH SAVING
W M BRACKET is
Saving Bracket (or designed for
Equipment Base) to attachment to a
Tapped Concentric flat face across
Hole in Mounting the full width of
FREE & Adjustment Bolt the bracket.
OPER. BH
HEIGHT AB ADJUSTMENT BOLT "K" MAX.
Turn Counter-clockwise to BOLT DIA.
BE
load spring and maintain
Free and Operating Height. "H" MAX.
BOLT DIA.

FERROUS CUP
APPROX.
1"(25mm)
OPERATING NON-SKID
CLEARANCE B E
NEOPRENE F
ACOUSTICAL G
EQUIPMENT A ISOLATION PAD D
BASE C

3/
(79mm)
J

BH- Bracket Height


Matching Height Saving Bracket BE- Bracket Elevation
SLFH-3 SLFH-4 SLFH-6
Type Size L M W BE BH
(in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) 6
Adjustment Locking (152mm)
2 4 102 2/ 64 6 152 5 127 4 102 Bolt Cap Screw
3 4 102 2/ 64 7 178 5 127 4 102 Type Size AB CS
4 6 152 4 102 8/ 216 5 127 6 152
SLF- 6 7 178 5 127 11/ 298 5 127 7 178 / x 4/ / x 1/
SLF- 212
SLFH- 9 8 203 5/ 140 11/ 298 5/ 133 7 178 x 108 x 32
12 Mounts have 2 adjustment bolts SLFH- 16 1/ x 3/ fi/ x 1/
16 and special brackets are required. x 89 x 32
SLFH-9

Ratings & Dimensions for 1(25mm) Deflection Single Spring Mounts (inches millimeters)
Hole Slot
Free Max. Max.
Rated Rated Spring Spring Spring Only & Bolt Bolt
Capacity Defl. Constant Color/ Spring Free Oper Dia. Dia.
Type Size (lbs) (kg) (in) (mm) (lbs/in)(kg/mm) Stripe OD Height Ht A B C D E F G H J K
2-2700 2700 1225 1.00 25 2700 49.006 Yellow
fi/ / /
3500 63.526 Black* 2/ 4/ 6 3/ 7/ 3/ 1/ 8/ 8/ 10
2-3500 3500 1588 1.00 25
4200 76.206 Yellow* 73 105 152 83 197 83 44 210 216 254 8 13 10
2-4200 4200 1905 1.00 25
3-5250 5250 2381 1.00 25 5250 95.246 Black*
3-6300 6300 2858 1.00 25 6300 114.32 Yellow* 2/ 4/ 6 3/ 9/ 3/ 1/ 10 10/ 11/ fi/ / /
3-7155 7155 3245 1.00 25 7155 129.80 Yellow** 73 105 152 86 241 86 44 254 260 298 8 13 10
SLF-
3-7950 7950 3606 1.00 25 7950 144.24 Red*
4-5400 5400 2449 1.00 25 5400 97.966 Yellow
/ / /
7000 127.00 Black* 2/ 4/ 6 6/ 6/ 6/ 2/ 7/ 7/ 9/
4-7000 7000 3175 1.00 25
8400 152.40 Yellow* 73 105 152 159 159 159 57 191 191 238 13 13 13
4-8400 8400 3810 1.00 25
SLFH- 6-12600 12600 5715 1.00 25 12600 228.60 Yellow*
6-14310 14310 6491 1.00 25 14310 259.64 Yellow** 2/ 4/ 6 6/ 9/ 6/ 2/ 10/ 10/ 12fi/ / / /
6-15900 15900 7212 1.00 25 15900 288.48 Red* 73 105 152 161 241 161 57 273 273 321 13 13 13
6-17610 17610 7988 1.00 25 17610 319.52 Red**
9-18900 18900 8573 1.00 25 18900 342.92 Yellow*
2/ 4/ 7 9 9 9 6 11 12/ / /
9-21465 21465 9736 1.00 25 21465 389.44 Yellow**
73 105 178 229 229 229 152 279 318 13 13
9-23850 23850 10818 1.00 25 23850 432.72 Red*
12-25200 25200 11431 1.00 25 25200 457.24 Yellow*
15/ / /
28620 519.28 Yellow** 2/ 4/ 7 9 12 9 6 14
12-28620 28620 12982 1.00 25
73 105 178 229 305 229 152 356 394 13 13
12-31800 31800 14424 1.00 25 31800 576.96 Red*
16-33600 33600 15241 1.00 25 33600 609.64 Yellow* 2/ 4/ 8 12 13 12 6 15 16/ / /
16-38160 38160 17309 1.00 25 38160 692.36 Yellow** 73 105 203 305 330 305 152 381 419 13 13

*with RED inner spring **with GREEN inner spring Mounts in gray area have steel holders top and bottom. 5
SLF SPRING MOUNTS MASON INDUSTRIES

2(51mm), 3(78mm), 4(102mm) & 5(127mm) Deflection 100 Series


SLF SPRING MOUNTS
Change designation to SLFH when
base plate with bolt holes is required.
Matching Height
"CS" LOCKING Saving Bracket BE- Bracket Elevation
MASON HEIGHT EQUIPMENT CAP SCREW
SAVING BRACKET BASE secures Height Type Size L M W BH
is designed for Saving Bracket (or (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm)
attachment to a Equipment Base) to
Tapped Concentric 101- 6 152 5 127 3 76 9 229
flat face 107
across the W Hole in Mounting 2 / / /
L Adjustment Bolt 108 7 191 6 165 3 76 10 260
full width 51mm 109 7/ 191 6/ 165 3 76 10/ 273
of the Defl. 110 8 / 210 7 / 184 4 102 11 / 298
bracket. 111 8/ 210 7/ 184 4 102 11/ 298
SLF- 112 8/ 210 7/ 184 4 102 12/ 311
113 12 305 10/ 267 6 152 14/ 375
SLFH- 114 12 305 10/ 267 6 152 16/ 416
BH "AB" ADJUSTMENT 115 12 305 10/ 267 6 152 16/ 416
BOLT - Turn Counter- 116 12/ 318 11 279 6 152 17/ 445
clockwise to load spring 117 Mounts have special adjustment
and maintain Free and 118 bolts and brackets as required.
APPROX. Operating Height.
1(25mm) 126- 7/ 191 6/ 165 3 76 10/ 260
OPERATING FERROUS CUP 130
CLEARANCE 3 131 7/ 191 6/ 165 3 76 10/ 273
SLF Mounts have no 76mm 132 8/ 210 7/ 184 4 102 11/ 298
holes in the baseplates. Defl. 133-
8/ 222 7/ 197 4 102 14 356
4 holes for 1/2(13mm) 137
diameter bolts are pro- SLF- 138-
12/ 318 11 279 6 152 17/ 445
vided for the SLFH only. 139
SLFH- 140 13 330 11 / 292 6/ 152 21/ 546
12(13mm)
141- Mounts have special adjustment
143 bolts and brackets as required.
150- 7 178 6 152 4 102 11/ 289
153
4 154- 8/ 210 7/ 184 3 76 12/ 318
14(6mm) 102mm 155
14(6mm)
Defl. 156-
8/ 210 7/ 184 3 76 13/ 333
D 158
E SLF- 159 8/ 210 7/ 184 3 76 14/ 359
FREE AND A
OPERATING G 160- 11 279 9/ 241 4 102 17/ 441
HEIGHT SLFH- 162
163- 14 356 12/ 318 6 152 21/ 543
165-
NON-SKID NEOPRENE 166- 14/ 368 13 330 6/165 24/ 616
ACOUSTICAL ISOLATION PAD 167
168- Alternate brackets as required.
169 (See page 8)
5 174- Matching Height Saving Bracket as shown in
All springs have additional travel to solid 127mm 198 illustration on page 6. Pulldown Brackets or
equal to 50% of the rated deflection. Defl. three Adjustment Bolts are designed for each
Solid Spring Height = Free Height minus SLF- special application as required. (See page 8)
1.5 times Rated Deflection. SLFH-

Ratings & Dimensions for 2(51mm) Deflection 100 Series Spring Mounts (inches mm)
Adjust- Locking
Spring Only
Rated Rated Mount Spring Free & ment Cap
Capacity Defl. Constant Color/ Spring Free Oper Bolt Screw
Type Size (lbs) (kg) (in) (mm) (lbs/in)(kg/mm) Stripe OD Height Ht A D E G AB CS
101 125 57 2.50 64 50 0.89 Purple 3/ 95 5/ 146
102 200 91 2.50 64 80 1.42 Brown 3/ 95 5/ 146
2 103 310 141 2.50 64 125 2.20 Pink 3/ 95 5/ 146
51mm 104 500 227 2.50 64 200 3.55 Green 3/ 95 5/ 146 7/ 184 4/ 108 3/ 83 4/ 102 4/ 120 / x 5/ / x 1/
Defl. 105 740 336 2.40 61 310 5.51 Red 3/ 95 5/ 146 x 146 x 34
106 1050 476 2.10 53 500 8.98 White 3/ 95 5/ 149
107 1400 635 2.00 51 700 12.45 Blue 3/ 95 5/ 149
108 1660 753 2.05 52 810 14.48 Silver 4/ 114 6/ 171 8/ 203 5/ 127 4/ 102 4/ 108 5/ 133
SLF- 109 2250 1021 2.00 51 1125 20.02 Orange 4/ 114 7/ 191 9/ 229 5/ 127 4/ 102 4/ 108 5/ 133 / x 5/ / x 1/
110 3000 1361 2.00 51 1500 26.69 Gray 5/ 127 7/ 191 9/ 229 5/ 140 4/ 108 5/ 133 6/ 165 x 146 x 34
111 4000 1814 2.00 51 2000 35.57 Tan 5/ 127 7/ 191 9/ 229 5/ 140 4/ 108 5/ 133 6/ 165
SLFH- 112 5300 2404 2.00 51 2665 47.14 Black 5/ 140 8/ 216 10/ 254 6/ 152 4/ 121 5/ 146 7/ 178
113 7100 3221 2.00 51 3550 63.16 Yellow 6/ 152 8/ 222 10/ 267 6fi/ 168 5/ 133 6/ 152 7/ 191 1x6 / x 1/
114 9300 4218 2.00 51 4650 82.71 Blue/Orng 6/ 171 10/ 254 12/ 305 7/ 191 6/ 159 6/ 159 7/ 191 x 152 x 34
115 12600 5715 2.00 51 6300 112.06 Blue/Red 6/ 171 10/ 254 12/ 305 7/ 191 6/ 159 6/ 159 7/ 191
116 16800 7620 2.00 51 8400 149.41 Blue/White 7/ 197 10/ 257 13/ 330 8/ 216 7/ 184 7/ 184 8/ 216 1/x8 fi/ x 1/
117 28500 12927 2.55 65 11175 198.88 Blue/Silver 8/ 222 13/ 333 16/ 406 9/ 241 8/ 216 8/ 216 9/ 241 1/x8 x 38
118 40000 18144 2.10 53 19000 342.34 Blue/Gray 9/ 238 13/ 333 16/ 406 10/ 267 9/ 241 9/ 241 10/ 267i 1/x8 x 20338
Mounts in gray area have steel holders top and bottom.
6
MASON INDUSTRIES SPRING MOUNTS SLF
Ratings & Dimensions for 3(76mm), 4(102mm) & 5(127mm) Deflection 100 Series Spring Mounts (inches mm)
Adjust- Locking
Spring Only
Rated Rated Mount Spring Free & ment Cap
Capacity Defl. Constant Color/ Spring Free Oper Bolt Screw
Type Size (lbs) (kg) (in) (mm) (lbs/in)(kg/mm) Stripe OD Height Ht A D E G AB CS
126 195 88 3.25 83 60 1.06 Purple 3/ 95 6/ 162 8/ 203 4/ 108 3/ 83 4/ 102 4/ 121
127 280 127 3.25 83 85 1.53 Brown 3/ 95 6/ 165 8/ 203 4/ 108 3/ 83 4/ 102 4/ 121
128 390 177 3.25 83 120 2.13 Orange 4/ 102 6/ 165 8/ 203 4/ 114 3fi/ 92 4/ 108 5/ 127 /x5/ /x1/
129 520 236 3.25 83 160 2.84 Green 4/ 102 7/ 178 8/ 216 4/ 114 3fi/ 92 4/ 108 5/ 127 x 146 x 32
3 130 710 322 3.25 83 220 3.88 Red 4/ 114 7/ 184 8/ 216 5/ 127 4/ 102 4/ 108 5/ 133
76mm 131 940 426 3.25 83 290 5.13 White 4/ 114 7/ 191 9/ 229 5/ 127 4/ 102 4/ 108 5/ 133
Defl. 132 1280 581 3.25 83 395 7.00 Blue 5/ 127 7/ 200 9/ 241 5/ 140 4/ 108 5/ 133 6/ 165
133 1770 803 3.25 83 545 9.67 Black 5/ 140 9/ 235 11/ 279 6/ 152 4/ 121 5/ 146 7/ 178
SLF- 134 2490 1129 3.25 83 765 13.60 Yellow 5/ 140 9/ 235 11/ 279 6/ 152 4/ 121 5/ 146 7/ 178 1x6 /x1/
135 3300 1497 3.25 83 1000 18.04 Gray 6/ 152 9/ 241 11/ 279 6fi/ 168 5/ 133 6/ 152 7/ 191 x 152 x 32
SLFH- 136 4500 2041 3.25 83 1370 24.59 Blue/Brown 6/ 171 9/ 235 11/ 298 7/ 191 6/ 159 6/ 159 7/ 191
137 6200 2818 3.25 83 1900 33.88 Blue/Orng 7/ 197 10/ 276 13/ 337 8/ 216 7/ 184 7/ 184 8/ 216
138 8300 3765 3.25 83 2560 45.36 Blue/Red 7/ 197 11/ 279 13/ 337 8/ 216 7/ 184 7/ 184 8/ 216 1/ x 8 fi/ x 1/
139 11400 5171 3.25 83 3500 62.30 Blue/White 7/ 197 12/ 311 13/ 337 8/ 216 7/ 184 7/ 184 8/ 216 x 203 x 38
140 15200 6895 3.25 83 4685 83.07 Blue/Silver 8/ 222 12/ 324 16/ 419 9/ 241 8/ 216 8/ 216 9/ 241
141 20300 9208 3.25 83 6245 110.94Blue/Gray 9/ 241 13/ 343 16/ 419 10/ 267 9/ 241 9/ 241 10/ 267 1/x 8 x 203
142 28400 12882 3.25 83 8750 155.20Blue/Green 10/ 260 15/ 381 18/ 457 11/ 279 10/ 254 10/ 254 11/ 279 1/x 8 x 203
143 39000 17690 3.25 83 12000 213.13Blue/Yellow 11/ 279 16/ 410 19/ 483 12/ 305 11/ 279 11/ 279 12/ 305 1/x 8 x 203
150 240 109 4.38 121 55 0.98 Purple 5/ 127 8/ 213
151 330 150 4.38 121 75 1.35 Brown 5/ 127 8/ 213 10/ 254 5/ 140 4/ 108 5/ 133 6/ 165 / x 8 /x1/
152 420 191 4.38 121 95 1.72 Orange 5/ 127 8/ 213 x 203 x 32
153 530 240 4.38 121 120 2.16 Green 5/ 127 8/ 213
4 154 680 308 4.38 121 155 2.77 Red 6/ 152 8/ 225 10/ 273 6fi/ 168 5/ 133 6/ 152 7/ 191
102mm 155 880 399 4.38 121 200 3.59 White 6/ 152 9/ 232 10/ 273 6fi/ 168 5/ 133 6/ 152 7/ 191 1x8 /x1/
Defl. 156 1120 508 4.38 121 255 4.58 Blue 6/ 152 9/ 251 12/ 305 6fi/ 168 5/ 133 6/ 152 7/ 191 x 203 x 32
157 1420 644 4.38 121 325 5.80 Black 6/ 152 10/ 254 12/ 305 6fi/ 168 5/ 133 6/ 152 7/ 191
SLF- 158 1840 835 4.38 121 420 7.52 Yellow 6/ 171 10/ 264 12/ 305 7/ 191 6/ 159 6/ 159 7/ 191 1x8 fi/x1/
159 2370 1075 4.38 121 540 9.68 Gray 6/ 171 11/ 283 13/ 330 7/ 191 6/ 159 6/ 159 7/ 191 x 203 x 38
SLFH- 160 3000 1361 4.38 121 695 12.26 Blue/Brwn 7/ 197 10/ 276 14/ 356 8/ 216 7/ 184 7/ 184 8/ 216 1/ x 8 fi/x1/
161 3900 1769 4.38 121 895 15.94 Blue/Red 7/ 197 11/ 289 14/ 356 8/ 216 7/ 184 7/ 184 8/ 216 x 203 x 38
162 5100 2313 4.38 121 1155 20.84 Blue/Orng 8/ 222 11/ 292 14/ 356 9/ 241 8/ 216 8/ 216 9/ 241 1/ x 8 / x 2
163 6500 2948 4.38 121 1485 26.56 Blue/White 8/ 222 13/ 337 17/ 432 9/ 241 8/ 216 8/ 216 9/ 241
4.38 121 1910 34.32 Blue/Silver 8/ 222 13/ 340 17/ 432 9/ 241 8/ 216 8/ 216 9/ 241 x 203 x 51
164 8400 3810
165 10800 4899 4.38 121 2455 44.14 Blue/Gray 9/ 238 14/ 359 17/ 432 10/ 267 9/ 241 9/ 241 10/ 267 1/ x 8 / x 2
166 13800 6260 4.38 121 3160 56.40 Blue/Green 10/ 254 15/ 391 19/ 483 11/ 279 10/ 254 10/ 254 11/ 279 x 203 x 51
167 17800 8074 4.38 121 4065 72.74 Blue/Yellow 11/ 279 15/ 403 19/ 483 12/ 305 11/ 279 11/ 279 12/ 305 2/ x 8 1/ x 3
168 22900 10387 4.38 121 5235 93.58 Blue/Pink 11/ 279 17/ 432 20/ 508 12/ 305 11/ 279 11/ 279 12/ 305 x 203 x 76
169 30000 13608 4.38 121 6730 122.59 Blue/Tan 11fi/ 295 18/ 457 21/ 533 13/ 330 12/ 305 12/ 305 13/ 330
174 70 122 5.31 135 50 0.90 Purple 6/ 152 9/ 251
175 320 145 5.31 135 60 1.07 Brown 6/ 152 10/ 256 12/ 305 6fi/ 168 6/ 159 6/ 159 7/ 191 1x9 /x1/
176 370 168 5.31 135 70 1.24 Orange 6/ 152 10/ 254 x 229 x 32
177 460 209 5.38 137 85 1.53 Green 6/ 152 10/ 267
178 560 254 5.38 137 105 1.85 Red 6/ 152 10/ 273 13/ 343 6fi/ 168 6/ 159 6/ 159 7/ 191
179 670 304 5.38 137 125 2.22 White 6/ 171 11/ 281 1 x 10 /x1/
5 180 830 376 5.38 137 155 2.74 Blue 6/ 171 11/ 289 13/ 343 7/ 191 7/ 184 7/ 184 7/ 191 x 254 x 32
127mm 181 1000 454 5.38 137 185 3.31 Black 6/ 171 11/ 283
Defl. 182 1240 562 5.37 136 230 4.13 Yellow 6/ 171 11/ 289
183 1500 680 5.37 136 280 5.00 Gray 7/ 197 12/ 316
SLF- 184 1830 830 5.37 136 340 6.10 Pink 7/ 197 11/ 302 15/ 381 8/ 216 7/ 184 7/ 184 8/ 216 1/ x 10 fi/x1/
185 2230 1012 5.37 136 415 7.44 Silver 7/ 197 12/ 305 x 254 x 38
SLFH- 186 2710 1229 5.37 136 505 9.04 Tan 7/ 197 12/ 324
187 3300 1497 5.37 136 615 11.01 Blue/Orng 8/ 222 12/ 324 15/ 381 9/ 241 8/ 216 8/ 216 9/ 241
188 4100 1860 5.37 136 755 13.68 Blue/Red 8/ 222 13/ 340 16/ 406 9/ 241 8/ 216 8/ 216 9/ 241
189 4900 2223 5.37 136 915 16.35 Blue/White 9/ 230 13/ 341 16/ 406 9/ 241 8/ 216 8/ 216 9/ 241 1/ x 10 / x 2
9/ 241 10/ 267 x 254 x 51
190 6000 1852 5.37 136 1120 20.01 Blue/Yelw 9/ 241 14fi/ 371 17/ 432 10/ 267 9/ 241
191 7300 2252 5.37 136 1365 24.35 Blue/Silvr 9/ 241 15/ 386 17/ 445 10/ 267 9/ 241 9/ 241 10/ 267
192 9000 2777 5.37 136 1670 30.01 Blue/Gray 10/ 260 15fi/ 397 18/ 457 11/ 279 10/ 254 10/ 254 11/ 279 1/ x 10 / x 2
193 11000 3395 5.37 136 2040 36.69 Blue/Tan 10/ 260 16/ 406 x 254 x 51
194 13300 6033 5.37 136 2482 44.36 Blue/Brown 11/ 279 16/ 413 19/ 483 12/ 305 11/ 279 11/ 279 12/ 305
195 16300 7394 5.37 136 3028 54.37 Blue/Pink 11/ 289 17/ 435 20/ 508 12/ 305 11/ 279 11/ 279 12/ 305 2 x 10 1 x 2/
196 19800 8981 5.37 136 3694 66.04 Blue/Black 11fi/ 295 18/ 457 21/ 533 13/ 330 12/ 305 12/ 305 13/ 330 x 254 x 64
197 24200 10977 5.37 136 4506 80.71 Blue/Green 13/ 330 19/ 495 23/ 584 14/ 356 13/ 330 13/ 330 14/ 356

198 29000 13154 5.27 134 5500 98.16 Blue/Purple 13/ 330 19/ 486 23/ 584 14/ 356 13/ 330 13/ 330 14/ 356 2 x 10 1/ x 3
x 254 x 76
Mounts in gray area have steel holders top and bottom. 7
SLF SPRING MOUNTS MASON INDUSTRIES

Alternate bracket and spring adjustment methods to improve stability and


appearance when using 4 (102mm), 5 (127mm) and greater deflection springs.

PULL-DOWN BRACKET 3 ADJUSTMENT BOLTS

SPRING CHARACTERISTICS
Spring Rated Ratio Ratio Spring Rated Ratio Ratio
Size Deflection Kx/Ky OD/OH Size Deflection Kx/Ky OD/OH
X 1.00-1.30 0.75-1.00 0.92-1.40 101-118 2.00-2.55 0.71-1.10 0.82-1.15
A 1.00-1.60 0.50-0.90 0.74-1.25 126-143 3.25 0.72-1.00 0.85-1.36
B 1.00-2.10 0.70-0.90 0.80-1.25 150-169 4.38 0.80-1.10 0.85-1.33
C & Multiples 1.00 0.90-1.10 0.92 174-198 5.27-5.38 0.70-1.00 0.92-1.31

PRODUCT FINISHES
All standard products have a painted finish unless otherwise indicated.
Special finishes include:
Zinc Chromate
Neoprene Dipping
Cold Galvanized Paint
Epoxy Finish
Hot Dipped Galvanized Holders with Electro-Galvanized or Cadmium Plated Hardware,
depending on size and method of attachment. Springs in these holders will be made
rust resistant.

MASON INDUSTRIES, INC.


350 Rabro Drive,Hauppauge, NY 11788 631/348-0282 FAX 631/348-0279
2101 W. Crescent Ave., Suite D Anaheim, CA 92801 714/535-2727 FAX 714/535-5738 T201
Email info@Mason-Ind.com or info@MasonAnaheim.com Website www.Mason-Ind.com 1/02
Printed
8 in U.S.A.