Anda di halaman 1dari 76

ANALYSIS OF FRAME TYPE

MACHINE FOUNDATIONS:
:INFLUENCE OF ELEMENT TYPES
AND SOIL STIFFNESS

ANJUM S.
(2009CES3435)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING


INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI

MAY 2012
ANALYSIS OF FRAME TYPE
MACHINE FOUNDATIONS:
:INFLUENCE OF ELEMENT TYPES
AND SOIL STIFFNESS

by

ANJUM S.
(2009CES3435)

submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
in

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

to the

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING


INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI
MAY 2012

i
CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the report entitled, “ANALYSIS OF FRAME TYPE


MACHINE FOUNDATIONS: INFLUENCE OF ELEMENT TYPES AND SOIL
STIFFFNESS” is a bonafide record of the research work carried out by ANJUM S. (Entry
No: 2009CES3435) towards the partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the
degree of MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY in STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING. She has
worked under our supervision and guidance at Indian Institute of Technology Delhi and to the
best of our knowledge, it has not been submitted in part or full to any other Institution or
University for the award of any degree or diploma.

Dr. SURESH BHALLA


Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
Hauz Khas, New Delhi – 110016
New Delhi
MAY 2012

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I feel great pleasure and privilege to express my deep sense of gratitude, indebtedness and
thankfulness towards my supervisor, Dr. SURESH BHALLA for his invaluable guidance,
constant supervision and continuous support throughout the work. I would also like to thanks
and express my gratitude to Dr. Vasant A. Matsagar, Prof. A.K Nagpal and Dr. D. R. Sahoo
for their guidance and suggestions.
I am also very thankful to all my classmates, friends and family for their consistent
support and suggestions in completion of this work.

(SHAGUFTA ANJUM)
New Delhi, 2009CES3435
MAY 2012

iii
ABSTRACT

Machine foundations form a vital and expensive part of any industrial complex. Analysis
and design of machine foundation requires special considerations as it transmits dynamic
loads in addition of static loads to the ground below through the foundation. It is essential to
limit the amplitude of vibration for effective functioning of the machine, durability of the
supporting structure and human comfort. This project deals with the analysis of framed type
machine foundations considering 3-D skeletal method and 3-D FEM modelling with fixed
base as well as considering soil effect as elastic springs. A framed foundation typically
consists of columns and beams in the longitudinal and the transverse direction with the top
slab resting the machine and bottom slab at base. In this project, a real-life framed foundation
is analysed using three dimensional analysis. Responses are investigated considering all
members as 3-D skeletal elements and compared with 3-D finite element (FE) approach
considering solid elements with fixed base condition. The responses for 3-D skeletal analysis
and 3-D finite element (FE) approach with fixed base condition are compared. It is found the
modelling approach plays an important role in the natural frequencies and peak amplitudes of
framed foundation subjected to high speed machine type-loading. The skeletal approach
yields lower natural frequencies and higher amplitudes as compared to finite element (FE)
approach.
Using 3-D FE approach, responses are investigated with three different soil conditions
along with the fixed base condition and with modelling the soil as combination of springs,
gradually increasing the number of springs from 4 to 20 to achieve as equivalence of total
stiffness and damping of the soil. It is found that the 8 springs are adequate to achieve
convergence. The dynamic responses for 16 and 20 numbers of springs are comparable to
each other and to 8 springs.
It is found that the effect of soil-structure interaction plays an important role in the
analysis of framed foundation subjected to high speed machine type loading and the effect is
predominant in case of medium to soft soil conditions. Numerical modelling (FE analysis)
yields lower natural frequency as compared to the manual computation.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENT PAGE
CERTIFICATE ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
ABSTRACT iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF TABLES x
NOMENCLATURES xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 General 1
1.2 Soil-Structure Interaction 1
1.3 Mathematical Modelling 2
1.4 Methods of Analysis of Framed type Foundations 2
1.4.1 Two-Dimensional Analysis 3
1.4.2 Three-Dimensional Analysis 4
1.5 Objective and Scope of Study 4
1.6 Organisation of the Thesis 5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction 7
2.2 Studies on Block-Type Machine Foundations 7
2.3 Studies on Framed-Type Machine Foundations 9
2.4 Vibration Isolation in Machine Foundations 10
2.5 Assessment of Literature Review 11
2.6 Summary 12
CHAPTER 3: MODELLING OF FRAMED FOUNDATION
STRUCTURE USING DIFFERENT MODELLING ELEMENTS
3.1 Introduction 13
3.2 Modelling of Superstructure 13
3.3 Unbalanced Dynamic Loads from Machine 17
3.4 Solution Procedure and Numerical Study 18
3.5 Results for Fixed Base Condition 19

v
3.5.1 Free Vibration Analysis 19
3.5.2 Frequency Response Analysis 26
3.6 Discussion on Influence of Different Element Types 28
3.7 Summary 30
CHAPTER 4: COMPARISON OF 3-D FEM MODEL WITH
SIMPLIIFIED 2D ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction 31
4.2 Modelling of Superstructure 31
4.3 Governing Equations of Motion 32
4.4 Solution Procedure and Numerical Study 34
4.5 Results for Fixed Base Condition using Manual Computation 34
4.5.1 Free Vibration Analysis 34
4.6 Discussion 35
4.7 Summary 35
CHAPTER 5: NUMERICAL MODELLLING OF
SUPERSTRUCTURE-FOUNDATION-SOIL
5.1 Introduction 36
5.2 Modelling of Superstructure 36
5.3 Modelling of Foundation and Soil 38
5.4 Solution Procedure and Numerical Study 41
5.5 Results for Soil-Structure-Interaction with Variation in Number of 43
Springs
5.5.1 Free Vibration Analysis 43
5.5.2 Frequency Response Analysis 47
5.6 Results for Soil-Structure-Interaction Considering Different Types of Soil 49
5.6.1 Free Vibration Analysis 49
5.6.2 Frequency Response Analysis 55
5.7 Effects of Number of Springs 57
5.8 Effect of Soil-Structure Interaction 58
5.9 Summary 59
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Summary 60
6.2 Conclusions 61

vi
6.3 Future Scope of Study 61
REFERENCES 63

vii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Caption Page


1.1 Model System for Vertical Vibrations (Resonance Method) 3
1.2 Model System for Vertical Vibrations (Amplitude Method) 4
3.1 General arrangement of Turbo-Generator foundation 14
3.2 A typical 3-D model of framed foundation and its idealised model 15
considering fixed base condition
3.3 Unbalanced force in a single shaft rotary machine 17
3.4 Load points of Turbo-Generator top deck 18
3.5 3-D Rendered view of TG foundation models using different 20
modelling elements
3.6 First mode of vibration (Translation in transverse/Z direction) 22
3.7 Second mode of vibration (Translation in longitudinal/X direction) 23
3.8 Third mode of vibration (Torsion about Y direction) 24
3.9 Fourth mode of vibration (Translation in Vertical/Y direction) 25
3.10 Plot of frequency vs response at top deck of Turbo-Generator 27
foundation
3.11 Bar chart showing variation in frequencies at different modes using 29
different modelling elements
3.12 Response at top deck of Turbo-Generator foundation using different 29
modelling elements
4.1 A typical framed foundation and its idealised model considering fixed 32
base condition (without soil-structure interaction)
5.1 Finite element model of superstructure-foundation-soil in 38
ANSYS11.0
5.2 Coefficients for geometry factor β for rectangular footings 40
5.3 Finite element modelling of foundation and spring supports for soil- 43
structure interaction considering 16 number vertical and horizontal
springs
5.4 Bar chart showing variation in frequencies at different modes using 44
different number of springs

viii
5.5 3-D Rendered view of Turbo-Generator foundation models using 45
different number of springs
5.6 Fourth mode of vibration (Translation in Vertical/Y direction) 46
5.7 Plot of frequency Vs response at top deck of Turbo-Generator 48
foundation for different number of spring element at the bottom of
mat.
5.8 Bar chart showing variation in frequencies at different modes 49
considering soil-structure interaction
5.9 3-D Rendered view of Turbo-Generator foundation models using 50
vertical and horizontal number of springs for soil-structure
interaction case
5.10 First mode of vibration (Translation in transverse/Z direction) 51
5.11 Second mode of vibration (Translation in longitudinal/X direction) 52
5.12 Third mode of vibration (Torsion about Y direction) 53
5.13 Fourth mode of vibration (Translation in Vertical/Y direction) 54
5.14 Plot of frequency Vs response at top deck of Turbo-Generator 56
foundation
5.15 Response at top deck of Turbo-Generator foundation using different 57
number of springs at bottom of base raft
5.16 Response at top deck of Turbo-Generator foundation considering soil- 58
structure interaction

ix
LIST OF TABLES

Table Caption Page


3.1 Input data for Foundation of Turbo-Generator 18
3.2 Modes and Natural frequencies 21
3.3 Response Analysis results for Different Models 26
3.4 Analysis Results for Different Models 28
4.1 Frame Values used in Manual Computation 33
4.2 Analysis Results of Manual Computation 34
5.1 Soil Properties 41
5.2 Soil Properties used in ANSYS11.0 42
5.3 Modes and Natural frequencies 44
5.4 Response Analysis Result for Different Models 47
5.5 Modes and Natural Frequencies 49
5.6 Response Analysis Result for Different Models 55

x
NOMENCLATURES

Notation Abbreviation
C Damping
ζ Damping Constant
[D] Damping Matrix
C Damping of soil
D Damping ratio of soil
DOF Degree of Freedom
αz ,αx Damping ration embedment factor

η z ,η x Embedment coefficients

ro Equivalent radius of rectangular footing

ω Excitation frequency
βz ,β x Geometry factors
h Height of embedment of foundation
L Length of foundation
[M] Mass matrix
α Mass damping factor
ρ Mass density of soil
Bv , Bh Mass or Inertia ratio

η Mechanical loss factor of material


ν Poisson’s ratio
G Shear modulus of soil
K Stiffness
β Stiffness damping factor
[K] Stiffness matrix
k Stiffness of soil
SSI Soil-structure interaction
γ Unit weight of soil
W Weight of machine and foundation
B Width of foundation

xi
Chapter-1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL
A machine foundation is an important component in any industrial complex. The analysis
and design of machine foundation is more complex than that of foundation which supports
only static loads. Hence, in general the machine foundation needs a special consideration
because it transmits dynamic loads to soil in addition to static loads due to weight of
foundation, machine and accessories. Machines of high speeds such as turbo-generators
produce a considerably high dynamic stresses. These turbo-generators are important
components in a power plant complex; therefore it is important that the foundation is
designed adequately for all possible combinations of static and dynamic loads.
Framed-type foundations are generally the recommended solution for such type of
problems. Frame foundation is the assemblage of columns, longitudinal and transverse
beams. The advantages of using framed-type foundations over other types are saving in
space, convenience of arrangement of auxiliary equipments, saving in materials, easy
accessibility to all machine parts for inspection and less liability to cracking due to settlement
and temperature changes. The common materials of construction used for these foundations
are reinforced cement concrete (RCC) and steel.
In general, the dynamic loads arising from the operation of the machine are comparably
smaller than the static weight of machine and the supporting foundation. In a machine
foundation, the dynamic load is applied repetitively over a very long period of time but its
magnitude is small and therefore, the soil behaviour is essentially elastic. The amplitude of
vibration of a machine at its operating frequency is the most important parameter to be
determined in designing a machine foundation, in addition to the natural frequency of a
machine foundation soil system.
Hence, the main criteria for designing machine foundations are to satisfy frequency limits
to avoid resonance and amplitude limits to avoid excessive vibrations.

1.2 SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION


There are many parameters such as; the type of structure, type of foundation and soil
characteristics which affect the dynamic response of any structure. In general, all civil
structures interact with its surrounding soil. So, the response of structure quite significantly

1  
depends upon its own properties and that of the supporting soil. The inability of the
foundation soil to conform to the free field motion causes the base motion of the structure to
deviate from the free field motion and the dynamic response of the structure induces dynamic
deformation to the supporting soil. This process in which the response of the soil influences
the motion of the structure and the response of the structure influences the motion of the soil
is called soil-structure interaction (SSI). The local soil conditions and the interaction between
soil and the foundation will affect the dynamic behaviour of a structure in three different
ways, namely, soil amplification effect, kinematic interaction effect and inertial interaction
effect. The total interaction effect is generally termed as soil–structure interaction (SSI)
effect.

1.3 MATHEMATICAL MODELLING


A machine foundation involves modelling of the machine, the foundation, and the soil.
Finite element method (FEM) enables modelling of the machine, the foundation and the soil
in one go that brings behaviour of the machine foundation system closer to the prototype
resulting in improved reliability. There are many ways of modelling a frame foundations.
One can model using the combination of beam and plate elements or solid elements or a
combination of all these. Each modelling style, however, shall have associated limitations.
While it is possible to get bending moments and shear forces in flexural members like beams,
columns, slabs etc (using beam/plate elements),it however does not permit inclusion of effect
like haunches, depressions, cut-outs, raised blocks, projections etc. On the other hand, by
modelling using solid elements, one may not be able to get bending moments and shear
forces in the columns, beams and slabs needed for structural design of these members.

1.4 METHODS OF ANALYSIS OF FRAMED TYPE FOUNDATIONS


In frame foundations it is necessary to check the frequencies and amplitudes of vibration.
There are two methods available for carrying out dynamic analysis of framed
foundations.
(i) Two-Dimensional Analysis
(a) Resonance method (Rausch, 1959)
(b) Amplitude method (Barkan, 1962)
(c) Combined method (Major, 1980)
(ii) Three-Dimensional Analysis

2  
1.4.1 Two-Dimensional Analysis
a) Resonance Method (Rausch)
In the resonance method, the frame foundation is idealized as a single-degree freedom
system as shown in Fig. 1.1, and the consideration is only given to the natural frequencies of
the system in relation to the operating speed of the machine. The amplitude of vibration is not
computed by this method. Resonance method is based on the idealisation of each transverse
frame as a single mass-spring system. So, this is an over simplification of a complex problem
and gives very approximate natural frequencies only.

Fig. 1.1 Model System for Vertical Vibrations (Resonance Method)


Reproduced From: Srinivasulu and Vaidhyanathan (2007)

b) Amplitude Method (Barkan)


In the amplitude method, vibration analysis is carried out for each transverse frame
independently. Each transverse frame is modelled as an independent two-degree of freedom
system as shown in Fig. 1.2. Both natural frequencies and amplitude of vibration are
determined. The main criterion for design is that the amplitudes due to forced vibrations are
within permissible limits.

3  
F0 sint

0.5m2 0.5m2
k1
m1

0.5k2 Direction of 0.5k2


vibration of
column

Fig. 1.2 Model System for Vertical Vibrations (Amplitude Method)


Reproduced From: Srinivasulu and Vaidhyanathan (2007)

c) Combined Method/Extended Resonance Method (Major)


In combined method, which is also known as extended resonance method, the
possibilities of resonance and excessive amplitudes both during steady vibration and
acceleration or deacceleration stages are investigated. It accounts for the occurrence of
transient resonance which inevitably occurs in under-tuned foundations. This method is most
popularly used in design offices because of the above advantages.

1.4.2 Three-Dimensional Analysis


For turbo-generator foundations of more than 100 MW capacity, a three-dimensional
space frame model is preferred for analysis. In this type of analysis 3D space modelling is
done in commercially available software using solid elements. Lumped-mass approach is
used and both natural frequencies and amplitude of vibration are calculated.

1.5 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF STUDY


The main objective of this study is to compare different modelling approaches, based on
skeletal elements and solid elements, as well as consider soil-structure interaction in
accurately predicting the behaviour of framed-type machine foundations. From the past 15 to
20 years, much work had been done on machine foundation vibration analysis and on soil-

4  
structure interaction. A number of formulations and computer programs have been developed
to determine dynamic response in a rational way. However there is a lack of comparative
studies covering various possible modelling approaches.
In this study three dimensional analysis is performed to analyse frame foundation for
turbo-generator. 3D space modelling is done in commercially available software. Lumped-
mass approach is used. Both natural frequencies and amplitude of vibration are calculated. A
real-life framed type foundation used for supporting high speed rotary machine (i.e. turbo-
generator) which is mounted at mid span of frame, is chosen as the subject of the study.

Followings are the specific objectives of this study:


(i) To develop a mathematical model of the structure-foundation system using spring mass-
dashpot model.
(ii) To determine the response of the system using 3-D skeletal elements and 3-D FE method
based on solid elements and compare the results.
(iii) To determine the response of the system considering fixed base (without soil) and with
soil-structure interaction (SSI), modelling soil as springs, and compare their results.
(iv) To study the influence of the stiffness of soil on the response of the foundation by
considering different types of soil.
(v) To study the influence of number of spring element required to model the stiffness and
damping of soil.
(vi) To obtain results using manual computations and compare the results obtained from
numerical models for fixed base condition.
(vii) To prepare recommendations regarding the requirements of the modelling and effect of
soil for framed-type machine foundations.

1.6 ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS


In this thesis there are six chapters including this introductory chapter. This introductory
chapter describes introduction to the problem, needs for further study and research, and scope
of the present study of work.
Chapter 2 presents the detailed review of literatures in the area of analysis of foundation
subjected to machine type loadings and critical assessment on the state of the art in the
literature.
Chapter 3 discusses the modelling of the super structure and the foundation. Equation of
motion for multi-degree of freedom system is discussed in brief manner in this chapter.

5  
Detailed solution procedure is also discussed with the various results obtained, the parametric
studies performed and their discussions.
Chapter 4 discusses the manual method of analysis of framed foundation and validation
of the software results with manual computation. Equation of motion for two-degree of
freedom system is discussed in brief manner in this chapter. Various results obtained using
FE analysis and manual method of analysis is also presented.
Chapter 5 discusses the numerical modelling of the super structure, foundation and the
soil interaction and with variation in number of springs at the bottom of the raft using
ANSYS11.0 software and solution of the proposed model. It also presents the various results
obtained based on numerical modelling parametric studies and their discussions. This chapter
also discuss the comparative assessment between results obtained from various models.
Chapter 6 highlighted the summary of the thesis, concluding remarks arrived and scope of
future research. 
 
 
 
 

6  
Chapter-2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Several studies have been made on the dynamic analysis of foundations subjected to
machine type loadings since 1950. A comprehensive literature review has been undertaken to
arrive at the state-of-the-art in the field of dynamic analysis of foundations subjected to
machine type loadings. The most important studies reported in the literature, including the
most recent ones, are reviewed and have been discussed in detail in the following sections.

2.2 STUDIES ON BLOCK-TYPE MACHINE FOUNDATIONS


Gazetas (1983) reviewed state of the art, the historical developments and advancements
on the analysis of the dynamic response for foundations subjected to machine type loadings.
Crucial dimensionless problem parameters related to soil profile; foundation geometry and
their effects on response were considered. He presented the results in the simple form and
dimensionless graphs for both the static and dynamic impedances pertaining to surface and
embedded foundations having circular, strip and rectangular shapes and supported by three
types of idealised soil profiles namely the half space, the stratum over bedrock and the layer
over the half space. He included the review of available numerical and analytical analysis
methods. Consideration was also given to the effects of inhomogeneity, anisotropy and non-
linearity of the soil.
Aleksandrov et al. (1985) developed an algorithm and a program for analysis and design
of machine foundations. The program runs for design of solid block and framed foundations.
It also considers both open and pile foundations. The selection of number of piles and their
arrangement can be automatically performed. The vibration amplitude obtained from the
dynamic analysis is compared with the allowable value for the foundation of the given
machine, and, if it exceeds the allowable value, the underside dimensions are increased to the
values for which the norm requirements are satisfied. If, however, it is not possible to achieve
this for the permissible underside dimensions, the program may automatically select a pile
foundation. This program is based on SNiP 11-19-79, Machine Foundations under Dynamic
Loads (in Russian), Stroiizdat, Moscow (1980).

7
Chasov et al. (1988) investigated the allowable limits for vibration amplitudes for
machine foundation problems ranging from low to high speed machines. They also
categorized the limits into different groups.
Wolf (1997) also studied the response of the machine foundation under dynamic loads
using simple physical models-the truncated cones, the spring-dashpot-mass models and the
methods with a prescribed wave pattern in the horizontal plane. Use of these simple physical
models leads to some loss of precision, but this is more than compensated for by their many
advantages.
Asik et al. (2001) developed a simplified semi-analytical (analytical and numerical)
model for determining the response of the machine foundation under dynamic loads. Both
rigid strip and circular machine foundations resting on linear and elastic soil layer were
considered in the study. Their model was based on principle of minimization of energy. Non-
dimensionless equations were developed for both types of footings resting on a soil layer and
dynamic response characteristics were plotted. They concluded that the errors in frequency
ratios and amplitudes obtained by this approach are within the acceptable limit for practical
design.
Prakash and Puri (2006) presented the methods of analysis for determining the response
of machine foundations under dynamic loads. Their method assumes spring-mass-dashpot
model having one or two degrees of freedom for the machine-foundation- soil system. Spring
stiffness and damping values are determined from elastic half space theory as per Novak’s
work on the same. They also discussed briefly about the impedance function method for
calculating the dynamic response of the machine foundations. Here, the comparison between
model footing test data by Richart and Whitman (1967) with calculated values using the
spring and damping obtained from the elastic half-space analogy were also presented. They
also discussed the influence of embedment of soil on the response of a foundation.
Kank and Kulkarni (2006) explained the importance of force generated in the electrical
machines which will affect the foundation response. These forces can be determined by
Lorentz force method, Maxwell stress tensor method, virtual work method and equivalent
sources method. The mathematical modelling of the machine, the foundation and the soil
were discussed. The influence of various assumptions and simplifications on the response
was also been discussed.
Kralik (2008) carried out the deterministic and probabilistic analysis of machine
foundations with a discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of both the
approaches and the comparison of results between two. He developed a program on ANSYS

8
for the probabilistic analysis. He did the analysis with considering the soil-structure
interaction for soil with low to high stiffness.
Bhatia (2008) studied the dynamic interaction between the machines, their foundations
and the soil during an earthquake. The machine was modelled along with the foundation and
the masses were lumped at appropriate centroid locations. He considered both block and
framed type foundations and also considered the embedment effect of soil. He did the
analysis and design using FEM through commercially available software. He also discussed
about basics of the vibration isolation system for heavy-duty machines – mechanical isolators
and sheet/pad type isolator.

2.3 STUDIES ON FRAMED-TYPE MACHINE FOUNDATIONS


Aleksandrov et al. (1985) developed some algorithms and program for analysis and
design of framed type machine foundations. The program runs for design of solid block and
framed foundations. It considers both open and pile foundations. The selection of number of
piles and their arrangement can be automatically performed. The vibration amplitude
obtained from the dynamic analysis is compared with the allowable value for the foundation
of the given machine, and, if it exceeds the allowable value, the underside dimensions are
increased to the values for which the norm requirements are satisfied. If, however, it is not
possible to achieve this for the permissible underside dimensions, the program may
automatically turn to design of a pile foundation. This program is based on SNiP 11-19-79,
Machine Foundations under Dynamic Loads (in Russian), Stroiizdat, Moscow (1980).
Chasov et al. (1988) investigated the allowable limits for vibration amplitudes for
machine foundations problems ranging from low to high speed machines. They also
categorized those limits into different groups.
Fleischer et al. (2008) discussed about some important requirements/considerations for
earthquake loadings in the practical simplified design of turbo generator machine
foundations. They proposed to use equivalent lateral force method to calculate seismic shear
and to consider vertical distribution of the seismic shear. They also discussed about the
modelling techniques for analysis using numerical FE model, machine fixations and SSI for
table mounted machine foundations.
Bhatia (2008) studied the dynamic interaction between the machines, their foundations
and the soil during an earthquake. In this approach, the machine is modelled along with the
foundation and that its masses are lumped at appropriate centroid locations. He considered
both block and framed type foundations and also considered the embedment effect of soil. He

9
did the analysis and design using FEM through commercially available software. He
discussed about basics of the vibration isolation system for heavy-duty machines –
mechanical isolators and sheet/pad type isolator.

2.4 VIBRATION ISOLATION IN MACHINE FOUNDATIONS


Stammers and Sireteanu (1998) proposed the use of “semi-active” device for the vibration
control of the machinery foundations. Semi-active suspension systems are a kind of
compromise between passive and active type systems. They have an active damper in parallel
with a passive spring. The damper is basically dry friction damper. The paper showed that
proper implementation of this strategy could produce a significant reduction in dynamic
force/vibration, up to 50%.
Lapin (1998) explained the transmission of vertical oscillations from machine foundations
to adjacent building foundations and proposed an equation/relationship for the coefficient of
this transfer.
Su et al. (2000) investigated the seismic response of rotating machines either fixed with
the structure or isolated housed in the structure. They employed a particular isolation system,
namely the resilient-friction base isolator (RFBI).Parametric studies were performed to
investigate the effects of variations in the isolation system physical properties on the response
of the rotating machines. Comparative studies in the peak response of the rotating machine
supported on various isolation systems and the corresponding fixed base system are carried
out. The study indicates that RFBI system can reduce seismic response of the rotating parts to
great extent.
Ivovich et al. (2001) proposed a lever-type vibration isolation system to reduce the
vibrations transmitted from the machines to their supports. An extensive parametric study
was carried out for the efficient design of this type of isolation system. The experiments were
conducted to validate this isolator and good agreement between theoretical and experimental
results was obtained.
Chehab and Naggar (2003) investigated the efficiency of the mounting systems for
different foundation configurations for hammers and presses. A comprehensive parametric
study was conducted and results were used to prepare a set of charts for the design of
efficient mounting systems.
Costain and Robichaud (2002) explained the practical methods for vibration control of
industrial equipment. The five basic methods for vibration control of industrial equipment are

10
force reduction, mass addition, tuning, isolation and damping. Several case studies were
presented, with emphasis on solutions to industrial vibration problems.
Kumar and Reddy (2006) experimentally investigated the response of the block type
machine foundation by inserting spring mounting cushion between machine and footing. It
concluded that the employment of the spring mounting cushion, having stiffness much
smaller than that of soil strata, results in a drastic reduction in the resonant displacement
amplitude of the footing. It also causes a significant reduction in the resonant frequency of
the machine foundation.
Ju and Lin (2006) investigated the reduction of vibration due to the foundation slab in
both vertical and horizontal directions. They used 3D FE models, field experiments and
averaging scheme of rigid slab theory. They validated the results obtained from numerical
analysis with experiments and averaging scheme of rigid slab theory. Two formulas fitted
from numerical simulations were generated. Using these two simple formulas, one can
estimate the reduction efficiency of horizontal and vertical vibrations due to foundation slabs.
It can be concluded that a suitable mat foundation can significantly reduce the horizontal
vibration transformed from the soil. The reduction efficiency depends on the size of the mat
foundation over the soil.
Bhatia (2008) studied the dynamic interaction between the machines, their foundations
and the soil during an earthquake. In this approach, the machine is modelled along with the
foundation and that its masses are lumped at appropriate centroid locations. He considered
both block and framed type foundations and also considered the embedment effect of soil. He
did the analysis and design on FEM model using commercially available software. He
discussed about the basics of the vibration isolation system for heavy-duty machines –
mechanical isolators and sheet/pad type isolator.
Svinkin (2008) discussed about dynamic effects of the foundations for machines with
impact loads. These foundations generate ground vibrations thereby causing disturbances to
the working people and devices and the structural damages. He also discussed about the
mitigation strategies of the vibrations caused by the impact type machines such as wave
barriers and active isolation techniques.

2.5 ASSESSMENT OF LITERATURE REVIEW


Based on the critical assessment and review of literature, it is found that there are several
studies reported well-established methods to predict the dynamic response of the foundations
subjected to machine type loadings. They cover both block and framed type machine

11
foundations. Also, there are both analytical and numerical methods for response
determination.
The literature review reveals that variation in response of framed foundations using 3-D
skeletal elements and 3-D FEM using solid elements is not thoroughly investigated. Also, the
effect of modelling the soil below as a combination of springs and dampers to be used at the
bottom of foundation to represent equivalent to soil properties is not thoroughly investigated.
The soil-structure interaction has been thoroughly studied in case of block-type machine
foundations. However, the soil-structure interaction has not been thoroughly investigated so
far for framed-type machine foundations. The present research work is undertaken with this
background.

2.6 SUMMARY
In this chapter, the state-of-the-art on various types of machine foundations and vibrations
isolation techniques in machine foundations is critically reviewed. The review suggests that a
lot of work has been done on block type machine foundations but very little focus has been
made for framed foundations for high speed rotary machines. Hence, the present work is
undertaken to investigate the effect of using different modelling elements for foundations,
and combination of springs and dampers at the bottom of foundation. The influence of soil-
structure interaction on the response for framed foundations for high speed rotary machine is
thoroughly investigated.

12
Chapter-3
MODELLING OF FRAMED FOUNDATION STRUCTURE
USING DIFFERENT MODELLING ELEMENTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION
For high speed rotary machine foundations, a 3-D space frame model is preferred for
analysis. There are many ways of representing model of a frame foundation. One can model
using beam elements, plate elements, solid elements or a combination of all these. Each
modelling style, however, shall have associated limitations. While modelling using solid
elements, one may not be able to get bending moments and shear forces in the columns,
beams and slabs needed for structural design of these members. Whereas it is possible o get
bending moments and shear forces in flexural members like beams, columns, slabs etc (using
beam/plate elements), it however does not permit the inclusion of haunches, depressions, cut-
outs, raised blocks, projections etc.
In this project, 3-D modelling is carried out for the superstructure idealising it as a 3-D
combination of skeletal elements and also as 3-D combination of full scale 3-D solid
elements. 3-D Beam element/Plate element has six degree of freedom (DOF) with three
translation and three rotations at each node. For a skeletal model, nodes are specified at all
bearing points, beam-column junctions, mid points, quarter points of beam and columns and
where the member cross-section changes significantly. Lumped mass approach is used having
lumped masses at the node points. The structure is idealized into a skeleton system which
retains the properties of the original structure. A detailed full scale 3-D FEM solid model can
also be created to evaluate the dynamic behaviour of the structure. For this purpose solid
modelling is carried out using 8-noded brick elements, having three-DOF at each node.

3.2 MODELLING OF SUPERSTRUCTURE


In this study, 3-D analysis is used to analyse frame foundation for high speed rotary
machines. Three models are prepared one using 3-D skeletal elements, second using 3-D
skeletal and plate elements and third using full scale 3-D solid elements considering fixed
base condition. All models are used to evaluate the natural frequencies of the structure and to
perform the response analysis due to harmonic loads on the structure. The columns are
assumed to be fixed at the base mat. Fig. 3.1 shows the general arrangement and elevation of

13
the real-life machine foundation considered in the present study. Fig. 3.2 (a) shows the
physical model of a typical frame foundation.

Following assumptions are made for the structural system under consideration:
(i) The superstructure is considered to remain within the elastic limit during the harmonic
excitation from machines.
(ii) The mass of frame column and frame beam with machine mass is supposed to be lumped
at different level.
(iii) The system is subjected to an unbalanced vertical & horizontal harmonic force generated
from a typical high speed rotary machine.

(a)

(b)
Fig. 3.1 General Arrangement of Turbo-Generator Foundation
(a) Plan (b) Sectional elevation

14
Fo Sinωt

Fo Cosωt

(a)

(b) (c)

Fig. 3.2 A Typical 3-D model of framed foundation and its idealised model considering fixed
base condition (Source Srinivasulu, P., Vaidhyanathan, C.V.; 2007)
(a) Physical model of the frame as skeletal system
(b) Physical model of the frame as 3-D solid elements (c) Spring-dashpot-mass-model

The general equations of motion for the structure-fixed base foundation model illustrated
in Fig. 3.2 can be expressed as
[M ]Z ( t ) + [C]Z ( t ) + [K ]Z( t ) = 0 (Free vibration) (3.1)

[M]Z ( t ) + [C]Z ( t ) + [K ]Z( t ) = −F0Sinωt (Forced vibration) (3.2)

15
Mass matrix of the entire structure-foundation system is given by:

Μ 1 0    0 
 0
 Μ2     
 0 0 Μ3   
[M ] =  
     
     
 
 0 0 0   Μ n 

where Μ 1 , Μ 2 ,.........., Μ n are the masses lumped at various floors (see Fig. 3.2 c)

Stiffness matrix of the entire structure-foundation system is given by:

k 1 + k 2 − k1   0
 −k
 2 k2 + k3 − k3  0 
[K ] =      
 
     
     k n 

where k 1 , k 2 ,.........., k n are the lateral stiffness at various storeys (see Fig. 3.2 c)

Damping matrix of the entire structure-foundation system:


In most commercial FEM software, the damping matrix is determined from the stiffness
and the mass matrices as
[C ] = α [M ] + β [K ] (3.3)

where α is the mass damping factor and β is the stiffness-damping factor.


This type of damping is called Rayleigh damping. Alternate damping modelling approach
is to consider complex stiffness to include the damping. This is represented as Κ (1 + ηj) ,
where η is called as mechanical loss factor. The equivalent Rayleigh damping coefficients
η
are α = 0 and β = . So, further simplification can be achieved by defining damping as a
ω
function of the stiffness alone. This type of damping is frequency independent. The present
analysis considered α = 0 . This reduces the damping matrix as
η 2ξ
β= = (3.4)
ω ω

16
[C ] =  η [K ] (3.5)
ω 

3.3 UNBALANCED DYNAMIC LOADS FROM MACHINE


At initial stage of operation, the rotary machines are balanced one. But after long time in
operation, some unbalanced forces are generated in the machines. The unbalance is specified
as the distance between the axis of shaft and mass centre of gravity of rotor, which is known
as effective eccentricity. Even though the amount of eccentricity is small in rotary machines
the unbalanced forces may be large due to their high speed. Fig. 3.3 shows a typical rotating
mass type oscillator in which a single mass m is placed on a rotating shaft at an eccentricity r
from axis of rotation. The unbalanced forces produced by such a system in vertical and
horizontal directions are given by
Fv = Fo Sinωt = mrω 2 Sinωt (3.6)

Fv = FoCosωt = mrω 2Cosωt (3.7)


where, m is the imbalanced mass in kg, r is the radius of the imbalanced mass in m and
ω is the rotational speed of the machine shaft in rad/sec.

Fig. 3.3 Unbalanced force in a single shaft rotary machine

17
3.4 SOLUTION PROCEDURE AND NUMERICAL STUDY
Vibration analysis of multi-degree of freedom system is relatively more complicated.
Therefore, standard software (ANSYS11.0) is used for solving the governing equations of
motion and finding out the natural frequencies and the amplitude of the system.
One numerical problem of framed foundation with fixed base condition for a typical high
speed rotary machine is solved. The input data used for the fixed base problem is listed in the
Table 3.1. Fig. 3.1 shows the schematic layout of the foundation.

Table 3.1 Input data for Foundation of Turbo Generator


(Source Bhatia, K.G., 2008)

Load Points 1 2 3 4 Total (kN)

Machine Weight including rotor


400 360 100 100 1160
weight (kN)
Machine Unbalance Force
7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 45
Vertical/Lateral Direction (kN)

Operating speed of machine: 50Hz


Concrete Grade: M25
Mass density of concrete: 25kN/m3
Poisson’s ratio (ν ): 0.15
Damping ratio (ξ) : 0.05

In order to include equivalent of ξ = 5% in Rayleigh damping, α was considered as zero


and β was computed from Equation 3.4 as 0.0045. Fig. 3.4 shows the loading points in plan
at the top deck.

Fig. 3.4 Load Points of Turbo-Generator Top Deck

18
3.5 RESULTS FOR FIXED BASE CONDITION
3.5.1 Free Vibration Analysis
Natural frequencies for various modes corresponding to various modelling approaches are
listed in Table 3.2. Fig. 3.5 shows the structure modelled using the various elemental
approaches. First four mode shapes and their comparison with different models are shown in
Fig. 3.6 – Fig. 3.9. From the mode shapes it can be observed that the first two modes are
translational modes in Z and X directions (global) respectively, third mode represents the
torsional mode of the top deck about Y axis (global) and the fourth mode represents vertical
mode of vibration along Y axis (global).
From Table 3.2, it can be observed that all the modelling idealizations agree with each
other for the first three modes, which are translational along Z and X and torsional in nature.
However, the major difference arises with respect to the fourth mode, which is the
translational mode along Y. The beam element model significantly deviates from the other
three approaches with respect to this mode.

19
(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig.3.5 3-D Rendered view of turbo-generator foundation using different modelling elements.
(a) Beam element model (b) Beam and plate element model
(c) Solid element model using STAAD (d) Solid element model using ANSYS11.0

20
Table 3.2 Modes and Natural Frequencies.
Frequencies considering Different type of Modelling Elements (Fixed
Mode Base Condition) Hz
Solid Element
Beam and Plate Solid Element
Beam Element (Using
Element (Using STAAD)
ANSYS11.0)
1st Mode 2.277 2.43 2.786 2.8940
nd
2 Mode 2.346 2.484 2.856 2.9513
3rd Mode 3.138 3.267 3.795 3.9108
th
4 Mode 13.849 21.804 22.006 22.550
5th Mode 18.305 27.950 26.898 28.033
th
6 Mode 18.333 30.401 29.185 30.426
7th Mode 22.534 35.112 30.084 30.737
th
8 Mode 22.828 36.275 30.771 31.293
9th Mode 24.608 45.483 33.638 34.823
th
10 Mode 26.061 50.857 34.911 35.478
11th Mode 30.806 66.611 35.461 35.546
th
12 Mode 31.781 71.838 35.830 35.838
13th Mode 32.328 74.883 35.836 36.085
th
14 Mode 35.627 93.955 36.169 36.353
15th Mode 36.202 94.198 36.438 37.922
th
16 Mode 46.845 - 36.592 37.955
17th Mode 52.433 - 37.782 38.669
th
18 Mode 55.609 - 38.446 39.557
19th Mode 61.334 - 39.205 39.956
th
20 Mode 61.760 - 39.391 41.683

- Translation in Z Direction
- Translation in X Direction
- Torsion about Y
- Translation in Y Direction

21
2.27Hz 2.43Hz

(a) (b)

2.78Hz 2.89Hz

(c) (d)

Fig. 3.6 First Mode of Vibration (Translation in Transverse/Z Direction)


(a) Beam element model (b) Beam and plate element model
(c) Solid element model using STAAD (d) Solid element model using ANSYS11.0

22
2.34Hz 2.48Hz

(a) (b)

2.85Hz 2.95Hz

(c) (d)

Fig. 3.7 Second Mode of Vibration (Translation in Longitudinal/X Direction)


(a) Beam element model (b) Beam and plate element model
(c) Solid element model using STAAD (d) Solid element model using ANSYS11.0

23
3.13Hz 3.26Hz

(a) (b)

3.79Hz 3.91Hz

(c) (d)

Fig. 3.8 Third Mode of Vibration (Torsion about Y)


(a) Beam element model (b) Beam and plate element model
(c) Solid element model using STAAD (d) Solid element model using ANSYS11.0

24
18.33Hz 21.80Hz

(a) (b)

22.00Hz 22.55Hz

(c) (d)

Fig. 3.9 Fourth Mode of Vibration (Translation in Vertical/Y Direction)


(a) Beam element model (b) Beam and plate element model
(c) Solid element model using STAAD (d) Solid element model using ANSYS11.0

25
3.5.2 Frequency Response Analysis
To obtain response under loads, dynamic forces are applied at the respective bearing level
locations. Harmonic analysis is performed and the response is evaluated at the four corners of
the top deck. The peak values of the response in range of ±20% of operating frequency (50
Hz) is checked in each direction and the critical results are mentioned in Table 3.3 for each
model. Also the frequency vs response plots are shown in Fig. 3.10.
From Table 3.3, it can be observed that all the modelling idealization agree with each
other except for the solid FE model using ANSYS11.0. The peak amplitude value is least
using solid element in ANSYS11.0. The skeletal model approach is conservative showing
high peak amplitudes. There is 35% variation in peak amplitude values using solid element in
STAAD and ANSY and 48% variation in skeletal and solid FE model results.

Table 3.3 Response Analysis result for different models

Considering Different type of Modelling Elements (fixed


Conditions
base condition)
Beam And Solid Element Solid Element
Beam
Parameters Units Plate (Using (Using
Element
Element STAAD) ANSYS11.0)
Peak Amplitude
in Y-Direction at µm 4.589 4.413 4.19 3.10
top floor level
(40~60 Hz)

26
(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 3.10 Plot of Frequency vs Response at top deck of Turbo-Generator foundation


(a) Beam element model (b) Beam and Plate element model
(c) Solid element model using STAAD (d) Solid element model using ANSYS11.0

27
3.6 DISCUSSION ON INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT ELEMENT TYPES
In this chapter, three different types of modelling elements (beam element, beam and
plate element and solid element) are considered for modelling and their results are compared
with each other. Results are based on the various parameters for the frame foundation as
given in respective tables. This section is focussing on the effect of modelling element types
on the dynamic response.
The peak response quantities obtained from analysis are listed in Table 3.4. The bar charts
for different modes using different modelling elements are shown in Fig. 3.11. The response
vs frequency records of the response parameters for different cases are shown in Fig. 3.12.
For free vibration analysis, it can be observed that using beam element and beam and
plate element model, the frequencies are less as compared to brick element model. The
differences are nearly about 10~25%. For response analysis, it is observed that the responses
are higher for the beam element model and the beam and plate element model as compared to
the brick element model. Among the three cases, brick element gives the minimum peak
responses than other elements. Hence the beam and the beam and plate element models are
on conservative side as far as the response amplitudes are concerned. For amplitude response
analysis, case the difference are nearly about 10~20% using different types of modelling
elements. For frequencies, the analysis using beam and beam plus plate elements will be
conservative when operating frequency is higher than the natural frequency.

Table 3.4 Analysis results for different models

Considering Different type of Modelling Elements


Conditions
(fixed base condition)
Solid Solid
Beam And
Beam Element Element
Parameters Units Plate
Element (Using (Using
Element
STAAD) ANSYS11.0)
Peak Amplitude in
Y-Direction at top floor level µm 4.589 4.413 4.19 3.10
(40~60 Hz)
1st mode Hz 2.277 2.43 2.786 2.89
Natural 2nd mode Hz 2.346 2.484 2.856 2.95
frequency 3rd mode Hz 3.138 3.267 3.795 3.91
4th mode Hz 18.333 21.804 22.006 22.55

28
Fig. 3.11 Bar chart showing variation in frequencies at different modes using
different modelling elements

Fig. 3.12 Response (vertical displacement) at top deck of turbo-generator foundation using
different modelling elements

29
3.7 SUMMARY
The dynamic response analysis of a framed machine foundation for 3-D skeletal and 3-D
FEM models with fixed base condition is presented. The response analysis was carried out
using the state-of-art three dimensional analysis using software. The results for three different
models with the fixed base condition are obtained and studied. It is found that the change in
the final response considering the FEM effect is quite significant.

30
Chapter-4
COMPARISON OF 3-D FEM MODEL
WITH SIMPLIFIED 2D ANALYSIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION
For high speed rotary machine foundations, a 3-D space frame model is preferred for
analysis. Here, the 3-D modelling is done for the superstructure using 3-D FEM considering
fixed base condition and the model is validated using manual method of analysis. The 3-D
FEM modelling of the superstructure with fixed base condition has been discussed in detail in
the preceding chapters. In this chapter, the manual method of analysis has been focused for
comparison. For manual analysis of frame foundation, the foundation is split into as many
numbers of portal frames as present. Considering fixed base condition, the foundation is
solved as 2-DOF system and each degree of freedom is represented as spring-mass-dashpot
system. The responses are calculated for the vertical mode of vibration.
The modelling of the superstructure, formation of equations of motion in the vertical mode
of vibration, solution of equations of motion for obtaining the natural frequencies and
dynamic response are discussed in detail in the succeeding sections.

4.2 MODELLING OF SUPERSTRUCTURE


For manual computation, the amplitude method is used to analyse the foundation for high
speed rotary machines. In this method, vibration analysis is carried out for each transverse
frame independently considering the base as fixed. Each transverse frame is idealized as a
two-degree of freedom system. Fig. 4.1(b) shows the idealized mathematical model of a
typical framed foundation with fixed base condition, shown in Fig. 4.1(a).
Following assumptions are made for the structural system under consideration.
1. The superstructure is considered to remain within the elastic limit during the harmonic
excitation from machines.
2. The mass of the frame column and the frame beam with machine mass is supposed to be
lumped at different levels.
3. In this study, vertical degree of freedom is considered at each level. Horizontal translation
and rotational degree of freedom have not been taken into consideration.
4. The system is subjected to an unbalanced vertical harmonic force generated from a
typical high speed rotary machine.

31
F0 sin ωt

0.5m2 0.5m2
Z1
k1 m1
m1

Direction of k1 c1
0.5k2 vibration of 0.5k2
column
Z2 m2

k2 c2

(a) (b)

Fig. 4.1 A Typical framed foundation model and its idealised model considering fixed base
condition (without soil-structure interaction)
(a) Physical model of the frame foundation (b) Spring-dashpot-mass model

4.3 GOVERNING EQUATIONS OF MOTION


The general equations of motion for the structure-fixed base foundation model illustrated
in Fig. 4.1 can be expressed as
[M ]Z ( t ) + [C]Z ( t ) + [K ]Z( t ) = 0 (Free vibration) (4.1)

[M ]Z(t ) + [C ]Z(t ) + [K ]Z (t ) = − F0 Sinωt (Forced vibration) (4.2)


Mass matrix of the entire structure-foundation system:

[M ] = 
m1 0
0 m 2 

Stiffness matrix of the entire structure-foundation system:


− k1 
[K ] = 
k1
− k 1 k1 + k 2 

32
Damping matrix of the entire structure-foundation system is
− c1 
[C ] = 
c1
− c1 c1 + c 2 

Values of m1 , m 2 , k 1 , k 2 are calculated as follows:


m1 = m mb + 0.45m d (4.3)

m 2 = m mc + 0.55m d + m ll + m lr + 2 × 0.33m c (4.4)

k1 =
1 (4.5)
δv

l3 (1 + 2k ) 3l (4.6)
δv = +
96EI b ( 2 + k ) 8GA b

2EA c (4.7)
k2 =
H

where m mb is the machine load at frame beam centre

md is the mass of the beam only

m mc is the machine load at column top

m ll is the reaction from selfweight of longitudinal beam on top of left side column

m lr is the reaction from selfweight of longitudinal beam on top of right side column

mc is the mass of each coulmn

Table 4.1 Frame Values used in Manual Computation

m1 m2 k1 k2
Frame
(Ton) (Ton) (kN/m) (kN/m)
6
st
I Frame 58.4 83 2.5 x 10 5.15 x 106
IIndFrame 72.3 173 2.5 x 106 5.15 x 106
IIIrd Frame 47.4 179.6 2.57 x 106 5.67 x 106

Natural frequency of the system is calculated for undamped case so c = 0

33
4.4 SOLUTION PROCEDURE AND NUMERICAL STUDY
For manual analysis of frame foundation, the foundation is split into as many numbers of
portal frames as present. Considering fixed base condition, the foundation is solved as 2-DOF
system and each degree of freedom is represented as spring-mass-dashpot system as
discussed above. The responses are calculated for the vertical mode of vibration and
compared with the 3-D FE analysis. Comparisons of the results are presented in the following
sections.
Although the numerical methods have several advantages, these are in general
approximate methods, i.e. these methods do not provide closed from solution and thus
minimization of numerical errors and proper validation of program results have to be done
before use.
Before performing the detailed analysis on parametric studies of structure-foundation-
soil, the basic model is validated. For validation purpose, same numerical problem as
discussed in section 3.4 of framed foundation is solved using the software and results are
compared with manual method.
The input data used for the fixed base problem is listed in the Table 3.1.The data used for
manual computation is listed in Table 4.1 and the results are presented in the following
sections.

4.5 RESULTS FOR FIXED BASE CONDITION USING MANUAL COMPUTATION


4.5.1 Free Vibration Analysis
Natural frequencies for vertical modes for each transverse frame are listed in Table 4.2.
From manual computation, it is seen that vertical natural frequencies, obtained by manual
computation, for frames 1, 2 and 3 are 24.63 Hz, 20.447 Hz and 23.58 Hz and FE analysis
gives vertical mode frequency as 22.55 Hz which is in the same range.

Table 4.2 Analysis results of Manual Computation

Natural Frequency (Hz)


Manual Computation FE Analysis
1st Frame 2nd Frame 3rd Frame Overall
24.63 20.447 23.58 22.55

34
4.6 DISCUSSION
The results computed manually for fixed base condition is in same range as obtained
using FE analysis model. The manual method of analysis gives higher natural frequencies as
compared to FE analysis for fixed base condition, so manual computation results are on
conservative side. The percentage variations in result for the two cases are around 10%.

4.7 SUMMARY
The natural frequencies for the framed foundation with fixed base condition are presented
using manual computation method. The results for the model with the fixed base condition
are obtained using FE analysis and manual computation and are compared with each other. It
is found that the result for both the cases lies within the same range.

35
Chapter-5
NUMERICAL MODELLING OF
SUPERSTRUCTURE-FOUNDATION-SOIL

5.1 INTRODUCTION
The dynamic analysis of a framed machine foundation with fixed base condition for high
speed rotary machine has been done with the help of ANSYS11.0 software and also with the
manual method of computation in the previous two chapters. In this chapter, analysis will be
performed based on mathematical modelling of the superstructure, foundation and soil as
combination of springs using FEM. The analysis results like the natural frequencies and
dynamic response of system will be directly obtained from software after proper modelling.
Four different 3-D FEM models are prepared using different number of springs and
dampers representing soil properties at the bottom of the foundation to investigate the effect
on response with the variation in number of springs. Combin14 element has been used for
representing soil properties (stiffness and damping). Combin14 element has three-DOF at
each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. No bending or torsion is
considered. The spring-damper element has no mass.
To investigate the effect of soil-structure interaction on the analysis of framed foundation,
the analysis of one framed foundation with fixed base condition i.e. without soil-structure
interaction as well as with soil-structure interaction is carried out for a typical high speed
machine-type under harmonic force.
The modelling of the superstructure and foundation-soil system is discussed in detail in
the succeeding sections.

5.2 MODELLING OF SUPERSTRUCTURE


In this study, 3-D analysis is used to analyse frame foundation for high speed rotary
machine. Four models with variation in number of springs are used to evaluate the natural
frequencies of the structure and to perform the response analysis due to harmonic loads on
the structure. The analysis for this case is performed for the vertical mode of vibration and
only vertical springs are used at the bottom of the base raft of the superstructure. Fig. 5.1 (a)
shows the FE model of superstructure-foundation-soil with 16 vertical springs at the bottom
of raft.

36
To investigate the effect of soil-structure interaction on the analysis of framed foundation,
three models with different soil properties (hard soil, medium soil, soft soil) are used to
evaluate the natural frequencies of the structure and to perform the response analysis due to
harmonic loads on the structure. For this case, 16 numbers of vertical as well as horizontal
springs are considered at the bottom of the base mat. Fig. 5.1 (b) shows the FE model of
superstructure-foundation-soil with 16 numbers of vertical and horizontal springs at the
bottom of the raft.
Following assumptions are made for the structural system under consideration:
(i) The superstructure is modelled using 8 noded brick element. Brick element is nothing
but a 3-D element with three DOF at each node. Soil properties are defined using
Combin14 element which is nothing but a spring dashpot system with three DOF at each
node.
(i) The superstructure is considered to remain within the elastic limit during the harmonic
excitation from machines.
(ii) The mass of frame column and frame beam with machine mass is supposed to be lumped
at different joints as determined internally calculated in the ANSYS11.0 based on the
mass density and cross-sectional area of the beam and column section.
(iii) The system is subjected to an unbalanced vertical harmonic force generated from a
typical high speed rotary machine.

37
(a) (b)
Fig. 5.1 Finite element model of superstructure-foundation-soil in ANSYS11.0
(a) 16 vertical springs (b) 16 vertical and 16 horizontal springs

5.3 MODELLING OF FOUNDATION AND SOIL


The foundation below the frame columns are also modelled in the ANSYS11.0 for soil-
structure interaction cases. The entire framed foundation with base raft is modelled using 8
noded brick element. The entire frame foundation is divided into numbers of parts by
meshing. The maximum size of each brick element is taken as 0.3mx0.3m.The foundation on
deformable soil radiates the energy which is represented in structural dynamics as a simple
spring-dashpot-mass model with frequency-independent coefficients.
A sufficiently accurate consideration of soil behaviour can be obtained if the soil stiffness
and damping coefficients of a rectangular foundation on soil strata are evaluated by the
frequency independent expressions. The stiffness and damping coefficients by Lysmer and
Richart (1966) of soil medium are expressed as

38
Spring and Damping Coefficients for vertical mode of vibration
G
Kv = * β z ∗ B ∗ L ∗ ηz (5.1)
1− ν

0.425
Dv = αz (5.2)
Bv

h
η z = 1 + 0.6 * (1 − ν) * ( ) (5.3)
ro

B∗L
ro = (5.4)
π

h
1 + 1.9 * (1 − ν) * ( )
ro (5.5)
αz =
ηz

1− ν W 
B v =  ∗ 3  (5.6)
 4 γro 

Spring and damping coefficient for horizontal mode of vibration

K h = 2 ∗ (1 + ν) ∗ G * β x ∗ B ∗ L ∗ η x (5.7)

0.288
Dh = αx (5.8)
Bh

h
η x = 1 + 0.55 * (2 − ν) * ( ) (5.9)
ro

B∗L
ro = (5.10)
π

h
1 + 1.9 * (2 − ν) * ( )
ro (5.11)
αx =
ηx

7 − 8ν W
Bh = ∗ 3 (5.12)
32(1 − ν) γro

39
Fig. 5.2 Coefficients for geometry factor β for rectangular footings
(Arya et al. 1979)

where k v and k h are the vertical and horizontal stiffness of soil respectively;
D v and D h are the vertical and horizontal damping ratio of soil;
G is the shear modulus of soil;
ν is the poisson’s ratio for the soil
β z and β x are vertical and horizontal geometry factors respectively calculated using Fig.
5.2
ηz and ηx are vertical and horizontal embedment coefficient respectively;
α z and α x are vertical and horizontal damping ratio embedment factor respectively;
B v and Bh are vertical and horizontal mass ratio respectively;

ro is the equivalent radius of rectangular footing;


L and B are the length and width of the foundation respectively;
γ is the unit weight of the soil;
h is the height of embedment;
W is the total weight of the foundation and the machine

40
5.4 SOLUTION PROCEDURE AND NUMERICAL STUDY
Vibration analysis of multi-degree of freedom system is relatively more complicated so,
standard software’s are used for solving the governing equations of motion and finding out
the natural frequencies and amplitude of the system.
Same numerical problem of framed foundation as discussed in section 3.4 is solved with
variation in number of springs at the bottom of the raft and for different soil conditions for a
typical high speed rotary machine and results are presented in the following sections.

Table 5.1 Soil properties


(Duggal, 1992)
Soil Type
Hard Soil Medium Soil Soft Soil
Properties Units

Mass Density, ρ kg/m3 2000 1800 1700

Poisson's Ratio, ν - 0.40 0.35 0.25

Shear Wave
m/s 1000 400 150
Velocity, v s

Shear Modulus,
2
N/m2 2.00 × 109 2.88 × 108 3.80 × 107
G=ρv s

Vertical
kN/m 9.72 × 107 1.3 × 107 1.57 × 106
Stiffness, k v
Vertical
N-s/m 2.5 × 109 2.35 × 109 2.24 × 109
Damping, C v
Horizontal
kN/m 9.79 × 107 1.37 × 107 1.74 × 106
Stiffness, k h
Horizontal
N-s/m 2.28 × 109 2.24 × 109 2.1 × 109
Damping, C h

Table 5.1 lists the properties of different types of soils (Duggal, 1992).
The soil properties listed above are modelled by spring supports in ANSYS11.0 below the
foundation to account for the soil-structure interaction. The spring supports are assigned at

41
bottom of the base raft. The spring supports are defined in ANSYS11.0 using Combin14
element having both stiffness and damping of the soil medium. First, the total vertical
stiffness and damping of the soil medium below each foundation is obtained as discussed
above. Then, this stiffness and damping is distributed at the different nodes based on their
contributory area. Modal analysis is performed to get the natural frequencies of the system.
One important thing is to note that no mass participation is considered from soil medium;
only stiffness and damping are calculated and assigned for the soil medium.

Table 5.2 Soil properties used in ANSYS11.0

Vertical Vertical Horizontal Horizontal


Conditions
Stiffness, k v Damping, C v Stiffness, k h Damping,
(kN/m) (N-s/m) (kN/m) Ch
(N-s/m)
4 springs 2.43 x 107 0.62 x 109 2.44 x 107 0.57 x 109
8 springs 1.22 x 107 0.31 x 109 1.22 x 107 0.28 x 109
Hard Soil
16 springs 0.61 x 107 0.16 x 109 0.61 x 107 0.14 x 109
20 springs 0.49 x 107 0.12 x 109 0.49 x 107 0.11 x 109
4 springs 0.32 x 107 0.59 x 109 0.34 x 107 0.56 x 109
8 springs 0.16 x 107 0.3 x 109 0.17 x 107 0.28 x 109
Medium Soil
16 springs 0.08 x 107 0.15 x 109 0.08 x 107 0.14 x 109
20 springs 0.06 x 107 0.11 x 109 0.06 x 107 0.11 x 109
4 springs 0.4 x 106 0.56 x 109 0.4 x 106 0.53 x 109
8 springs 0.2 x 106 0.28 x 109 0.2 x 106 0.26 x 109
Soft Soil
16 springs 0.1 x 106 0.14 x 109 0.1 x 106 0.13 x 109
20 springs 0.07 x 106 0.11 x 109 0.08 x 106 0.10 x 109

42
Fig. 5.3 shows the ANSYS11.0 model of the frame with foundation and springs to
account for soil-structure interaction effects.

Fig. 5.3 Finite element modelling of foundation and spring supports for soil-structure
interaction considering 16 numbers vertical and horizontal springs.

The system is subjected to an unbalanced vertical harmonic force generated from a


typical high speed rotary machine. The unbalanced dynamic machine load as listed in Table
3.1 is applied in ANSYS11.0 through sinusoidal force function at operating frequency of the
machine and peak magnitude of force as specified by the manufacturer. The harmonic
analysis is done using ANSYS11.0.

5.5 RESULTS FOR SOIL-STRUCTURE-INTERACTION WITH VARIATION IN


NUMBER OF SPRINGS
5.5.1 Free Vibration Analysis
Natural frequencies for first few modes are listed in Table 5.3. Bar chart with variation
in frequencies at different modes using different number of springs at bottom of the raft is
shown in Fig. 5.4. 3-D view of turbo-generator foundation model with different number of
springs is shown in Fig. 5.5. Mode shape corresponding to vertical oscillations and their
comparison using different models are shown in Fig. 5.6.
From Table 5.3, it can be observed that all the modelling idealization agree with each
other with a maximum of approximate 6% variation in results. From the analysis it is found
that the difference in response is not changed much when we go from 16 springs to 20

43
springs. The percentage variation in result for 4 to 8 springs is about 6% and 3% variation for
8 to 16 springs.
Table 5.3 Modes and Natural Frequencies.
Frequencies with variation in number of springs at the bottom of mat Hz
Mode 4 Spring 8 Spring 16 Spring 20 Spring
1st Mode 2.46 2.55 2.88 2.89
2nd Mode 3.09 3.29 3.32 3.41
3rd Mode 5.41 5.41 5.41 5.41
4th Mode 8.25 8.76 9.03 9.13
5th Mode 9.03 9.76 9.96 10.42
6th Mode 11.69 11.93 12.89 12.92
7th Mode 25.46 25.71 25.74 25.82
8th Mode 29.00 29.10 29.28 29.34
9th Mode 29.40 29.59 29.62 29.57
10th Mode 29.99 30.01 30.08 30.12
11th Mode 31.11 31.31 31.34 31.40
12th Mode 32.77 32.76 32.76 32.77
13th Mode 33.02 33.02 33.07 33.07
14th Mode 33.50 33.56 33.55 33.56
15th Mode 33.66 33.66 33.67 33.67

Fig. 5.4 Bar chart showing variation in frequencies at different modes


using different number of springs.

44
(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 5.5 3-D Rendered view of turbo-generator foundation models


using different number of springs.
(a) 4-Spring Model (b) 8-Spring Model (c) 16-Spring Model (d) 20-Spring Model

45
8.25Hz 8.76Hz

(a) (b)

9.03Hz 9.13Hz

(c) (d)

Fig. 5.6 Fourth Mode of Vibration (Translation in Vertical/Y Direction)


(a) 4-Spring Model (b) 8-Spring Model (c) 16-Spring Model (d) 20-Spring Model

46
5.5.2 Frequency Response Analysis
Dynamic forces are applied at the respective bearing level locations. Response is
evaluated at the four corners of the top deck. The peak values of the response are determined
in each direction and the critical results are listed in Table 5.4 for each model. The frequency
vs response plots are shown in Fig. 5.7.
From Table 5.4, it can be observed that all the modelling idealization agree with each
other with a maximum of approximate 7% variation in results. From the analysis it is found
that the difference in response is not changed much when we go from 16 springs to 20
springs. The percentage variation in result for 4 to 8 springs is about 7% and 4% variation for
8 to 16 springs.

Table 5.4 Response Analysis result for different models

Considering superstructure-foundation-soil with variation in


Conditions number of springs at the bottom of mat

4-Spring 8-Spring 16-Spring 20-Spring


Parameters Units Model
Model Model Model
Peak Amplitude
in Y-Direction at 163
µm 250 232.95 166
top floor level

47
(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 5.7 Plot of Frequency vs Response (vertical displacement) at top deck of


Turbo-Generator foundation for different number of spring element at the bottom of mat.
(a) 4-Spring model (b) 8-Spring model (c)16-Spring model (d) 20-Spring model

48
5.6 RESULTS FOR SOIL-STRUCTURE-INTERACTION CONSIDERING
DIFFERENT TYPES OF SOIL
5.6.1 Free Vibration Analysis
For soil-structure-interaction case 16 number of vertical and horizontal springs is
considered at the bottom of the foundation as shown in Fig. 5.9 and modal analysis is
performed. Natural frequencies for first four modes are listed in Table 5.5. First four mode
shapes and their comparison using different soil properties are shown in Fig. 5.10 – Fig. 5.13.
From the mode shapes it is seen that the first two modes are translational modes in Z and X
direction (global), third mode represents torsional mode of the top deck about Y (global) and
fourth mode represents vertical mode of vibration along Y (global).
From Table 5.6 it can be observed that due to soil-structure interaction, the natural
frequency of various floor level changes significantly and it depends on types of soil
condition. The natural frequency for hard soil is more but for soft soil it is less.

Table 5.5 Modes and Natural Frequencies.


With soil-structure-interaction
Mode Shapes Fixed Base Hard Soil Medium Soil Soft Soil
1st Mode 2.89 2.63 1.9 1.33
2nd Mode 2.95 2.66 2.23 1.73
3rd Mode 3.91 3.69 3.52 3.24
4th Mode 22.55 18.66 9.13 5.6

Fig. 5.8 Bar chart showing variation in frequencies at different modes considering
soil-structure-interaction

49
Fig. 5.9 3-D Rendered view of turbo-generator foundation models
using vertical and horizontal number of springs for soil-structure interaction case

50
2.89Hz
2.63Hz
(a) (b)

1.9Hz 1.3Hz

(c) (d)

Fig. 5.10 First Mode of Vibration (Translation in Transverse/Z Direction)


(a) Fixed Base Condition (b) Hard Rock (c) Medium Soil (d) Soft Soil

51
2.95Hz 2.66Hz

(a) (b)

2.28Hz 1.73Hz

(c) (d)

Fig. 5.11 Second Mode of Vibration (Translation in Longitudinal/X Direction)


(a) Fixed Base Condition (b) Hard Rock (c) Medium Soil (d) Soft Soil

52
3.91Hz 3.68Hz

(a) (b)

3.51Hz 3.24Hz

(c) (d)

Fig. 5.12 Third Mode of Vibration (Torsion about Y)


(a) Fixed Base Condition (b) Hard Rock (c) Medium Soil (d) Soft Soil

53
22.55Hz 18.66Hz

(a) (b)

9.13Hz 5.57Hz

(c) (d)

Fig. 5.13 Fourth Mode of Vibration (Translation in Vertical/Y Direction)


(a) Fixed Base Condition (b) Hard Rock (c) Medium Soil (d) Soft Soil

54
5.6.2 Frequenvy Response Analysis
Dynamic forces are applied at the respective bearing level locations. Response is
evaluated at the four corners of the top deck. The peak values of the response is checked in
each direction and the critical results are listed in Table 5.6 for each model and also the
frequency vs response plots are shown in Fig. 5.14.
It can be observed that the effect of soil-structure interaction in the final response of the
framed machine foundation plays a vital role in case of soft to medium soil like clay, sand
deposits etc. The increment in the vertical displacement at top floor level is gradually
increasing from hard soil to soft soil. Increment is highest for soft soil and least for hard soil.

Table 5.6 Response Analysis result for different models

Conditions With Soil-Structure-Interaction

Fixed Base
Parameters Units Hard Soil Medium Soil Soft Soil

Peak Amplitude
in Y-Direction at 177.96
µm 6.1 71.7 121.61
top floor level

55
(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 5.14 Plot of Frequency vs Response (vertical displacement) at top deck of


Turbo-Generator foundation
(a) Fixed Base Condition (b) Hard Soil (c) Medium Soil (d) Soft Soil

56
5.7 EFFECTS OF NUMBER OF SPRINGS
As discussed above, the number of springs at the bottom of base raft plays a vital role in
the dynamic response of the machine foundation. However, as we go on increasing the
number of springs, the results tend to converge. Here, four models are prepared considering
4-Spring, 8-Spring, 16-Spring, 20-Spring for performing response analysis. The peak
response quantities obtained from analysis and frequencies for first four modes are listed in
Table 5.3 and Table 5.4. The variations in natural frequencies corresponding to different
modes for different models are shown in Fig. 5.6. The response vs frequency records of the
response parameters for different cases are shown in Fig. 5.15 on the same scale for
comparison.
For free vibration analysis, it is observed that the frequencies are increased as we move
from 4-springs to 8-springs. There is 6% variation in frequencies for 4 and 8 spring model
and 3% variation in frequencies for 8 and 16 spring model. However, there is hardly 1%
difference in result for 16-springs and 20-springs. Among the four cases, results for 16-
springs and 20-springs are same. So, the soil properties can be modelled at the base raft of the
model using 16-springs only without going for springs at each node of the base mat. For
response analysis case there is 7% variation in response for 4 and 8 spring model and 4%
variation for 8 and 16 spring model. The difference is nearly about 2% using 16-springs and
20-springs.

Fig. 5.15 Response (vertical displacement) at top deck of turbo-generator foundation


using different number of springs at bottom of base raft.

57
5.8 EFFECT OF SOIL-STRUCTURE-INTERACTION
As discussed before, the soil-structure-interaction plays a vital role in the dynamic
response analysis of machine foundations. Here, three models are prepared considering hard
soil, medium soil, soft soil for performing response analysis and the results are also
compared with the fixed base case. The peak response quantities obtained from analysis and
frequencies for first four modes are listed in Table 5.5 and Table 5.6. The variations in
natural frequency at different modes for different models are shown in Fig. 5.14. The
response vs frequency records of the response parameters for different cases are shown in
Fig. 5.16 on the same scale for comparison.
For free vibration analysis, it is observed that the frequencies are decreased considerably
as we go from hard soil to soft soil condition. Hard soil condition can be approximated as
fixed base condition. The frequencies are minimum for soft soil condition and the hard soil
frequencies are in same range as of fixed base condition as was expected For response
analysis case it is observed that the responses are maximum for the soft soil condition.

Fig. 5.16 Response (vertical displacement) at top deck of turbo-generator foundation


considering soil-structure interaction

58
5.9 SUMMARY
The dynamic response analysis of a framed machine foundation with variation in number
of springs, soil-structure-interaction and fixed base condition is presented. The response
analysis is carried out using the state-of-art three dimensional analysis. The results for
different models are obtained and studied. It is found that the change in the final response
considering soil-structure-interaction effect is quite significant.

59
Chapter 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 SUMMARY
In this study, the dynamic response analysis of a framed foundation for high speed
rotary machine is carried out for 3-D skeletal elements and 3-D solid elements through
FEM for fixed as well as variable stiffness conditions. Response analysis is also carried
out with variation in number of springs at the bottom of the base raft and considering soil-
structure interaction effect to investigate effect of using different modelling elements and
soil-structure interaction on the same.
Results for fixed base condition are compared with the manual computation results.
The response analysis is carried out using the 3-D harmonic analysis, using ANSYS11.0.
Analysis is carried out using three different modelling elements namely beam
element, beam and plate element and solid element with fixed base condition for study of
effect on response of frame foundations using different modelling elements.
For study of number of springs required to model at the bottom of the base raft,
instead of going for springs at each node at the bottom of the model, analysis is carried
out with four different conditions namely 4 springs, 8 springs, 16 springs and 20 springs.
The modelling and analysis is carried out in ANSYS11.0. The results are compared for
the four cases.
For soil-structure interaction case, analysis is carried out with three different soil
conditions namely hard, medium and soft soil along with fixed base condition. The
modelling and analysis is carried out in ANSYS11.0.
From the analysis, it is found that the variation in the final dynamic response
considering different modelling elements and the soil-structure-interaction effect is
significant. From the analysis results of using different number of springs required to
represent soil properties at the bottom of the base raft it is found that the difference in
response is not changed much when we go from 16 springs to 20 springs. The percentage
variation in result for 4 to 8 springs is about 6% and 3% variation for 8 to 16 springs. In
general, the response is higher in case of manual computation compared to numerical
modelling for fixed base condition. Hence, for free vibration case the manual computation
approach is more conservative than numerical modelling.

60
6.2 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis and studies carried out in this paper, some of the significant
conclusions arrived at are summarized as follows:
(i) The effect of different element types in modelling plays a vital role in the final
response of the framed machine foundation.
(ii) For free vibration analysis, there is an increment in the natural frequency at top floor
level considering different modelling elements. It was observed that using beam element,
beam and plate element model, the frequencies are less as compared to brick element
model.
(iii)For free vibration analysis the differences are found to be nearly about 10~25% using
different types of element modelling. Among the three cases, brick element gives the
minimum peak responses than other elements. So, using beam, beam and plate element
model is on conservative side. For response analysis case the differences are nearly about
10~20% using different types of modelling elements.
(iv) The results obtained using FE analysis model for fixed base condition is in same
range as computed manually. The manual method of analysis gives higher natural
frequencies as compared to FE analysis for fixed base condition, so manual computation
results are on conservative side.
(v) For the number of springs required to model the soil properties at the bottom of the
raft, it is observed that the difference in response is insignificant when we goes on
increasing number of springs. The foundation can be modelled with 16 numbers of
springs at the bottom of the raft instead going for spring at each node of the raft.
(vi) The effect of soil-structure interaction in the final response of the framed machine
foundation plays a vital role in case of soft to medium soil like clay, sand deposits etc.
The increment in the vertical displacement at top floor level is gradually increasing from
hard soil to soft soil. Increment is highest for soft soil and least for hard soil. Due to soil-
structure interaction, the natural frequency of various floor level changes significantly and
it depends on types of soil condition. The natural frequency for hard soil is more but for
soft soil it is less. The natural frequency of hard soil is in close range as for fixed base
condition as was expected, as hard soil can be approximated as fixed base condition.

6.3 FUTURE SCOPE OF STUDY


The following additional works could be done for further study related to present
work performed as described in the preceding chapters

61
(i) In this thesis analysis is carried out for open foundations. The soil is represented by
spring supports. But in future, analysis can be done modelling the soil as continuum
medium and results can be compared with other modelling.
(ii) The analysis is carried out only for raft foundation the same can be performed for pile
foundations also.
(iii)Here, the analysis for framed foundation with open foundation is done for only one
configuration. The analysis can be done for different sizes and configurations.
(iv) The analysis can be done for different pile group configurations as parametric study.

62
REFERENCES

Aleksandrov, B.K., Pyatetskii, V.M., Dubrovskaya, T. V. (1985) “Automated Design of


Machine Foundations under Dynamic Loads”, GPI Institute, Plenum Publishing
Corporation, No.3, pp. 14-16, May-June.
Arya, S.C., O’Neill, M.W., Pincus, G. (1979) “Design of Structures and Foundations for
Vibrating Machines”, Gulf Publishing Company Book Division, Houston, Londom,
Paris, Tokyo.
Asik, M.Z., Vallabhan, C.V.G. (2001) “A Simplified Model for the Analysis of Machine
Foundations on a Nonsaturated, Elastic and Linear Soil Layer”, Computers and
Structures, 79, pp. 2717-2726.
Bhatia, K.G. (2008) “Foundations for Industrial Machines and Earthquake Effects”,
Indian Society of Earthquake Technology (ISET) Journal of Earthquake Technology,
45(1).
Bhatia, K.G. (2008) “Foundations for Industrial Machines”, Handbook for practising
engineers, First Edition, D-CAD Publishers, India.
Chasov, E.I., Gur'eva, N.S. (1988) “Establishment of Allowable Amplitudes of
Vibrations of High-Speed Machine Foundations”, GPI Institute, Plenum Publishing
Corporation, No.5, pp.10-11, September-October.
Chehab, A.G., El-Naggar, M.H., (2003) “Design of Efficient Base Isolation for Hammers
and Presses”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 23, pp. 127-141.
Chopra, A.K. (2008) “Dynamics of Structures”, Third Edition, Pearson Education,
Prentice-Hall, India.
Costain, A.K., Robichaud, J.M (2002) “Practical Methods for Vibration Control of the
Industrial Equipment”, Bretech Engineering Ltd.
Duggal, S.K., (1992) “Design of Steel Structures” Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company Ltd., New Delhi.
Fleischer, P.S., Trombik, P.G. (2008) “Turbo Generator Machine Foundations Subjected
to Earthquake Loadings”, 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Beijing, China.
Gazetas, G. (1983) “Analysis of Machine Foundation Vibrations: State-of-the-Art”, Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2(1), pp. 2-43.

63
Ivovich, V.A., Savovich, M.K., (2001) “Isolation of Floor Machines by Lever-Type
Inertial Vibration Corrector”, Structures and Buildings, 146, pp. 391-402.
Ju, S.-H., Lin, H.-T., (2006) “Reduction of Vibrations due to Foundation Slabs”, Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(4), pp. 511-520.
Kank, A.V., Kulkarni, S. V. (2006) “Analysis of Lorentz and Saliency Forces in Rotating
Machines”, COSMOL Users Conference, Bangalore.
Kralik, I.J. (2008) “Deterministic and Probabilistic Analysis of Machine Foundation and
Soil Interaction”, ANSYS konference, 16. ANSYS FEM Users’ Meeting & 14.
ANSYS CFD Users’ Meeting.
Kumar, J., Reddy, C.O. (2006) “Dynamics Response of Footing and Machine with
Spring Mounting Base”, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 24, pp. 15-27.
Lapin, S.K. (1998) “Transmission of Vertical Oscillations from Machine Foundations to
adjacent Building Foundations”, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol.
35, No. 3, pp. 8-10,May-June.
Prakash, S., Puri, V.K. (2006) “Foundations for Vibrating Machines”, Journal of
Structural Engineering, Special Issue, April-May.
Saran, Swami (2006) “Soil Dynamics and Machine Foundaions”, Second Edition,
Galgotia Publications pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Srinivasulu, P., Vaidhyanathan, C.V. (2007) “Handbook of Machine Foundations”, Tata
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Ltd., New Delhi.
Stammers, C.W., Sireteanu, T. (1998) “Vibration Control of Machines by Use of Semi-
Active Dry Friction Damping”, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 209(4), pp. 671-684.
Svinkin, M.R., (2008) “Dynamic Effects of Impact Machine Foundations”, Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics - IV Congress, pp. 1-17.
Su, W.-C., Hernried, A.G., Yim, S.C.S. (2000) “Seismic Response of Rotating Machines-
Structure-RFBI Systems”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 29, pp.
213-240.
Wolf, John. P. (1997) “Spring-Dashpot-Mass Models for Foundations Vibrations”,
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vol.26, pp.931-949.

64