Analysis of Frame Type Machine Foundations

© All Rights Reserved

39 tayangan

Analysis of Frame Type Machine Foundations

© All Rights Reserved

- Vibration Measurement of Rotating Machinery
- Machine Foundation Dr. Bhatia
- Turbo Generator Foundation 922
- Machine Foundation Design by Dayarathnam
- Design of Turbo Generator Foundation
- Eccentric Mass Dynamic Vibration Absorber - Vibrations - 2131
- Pump+Turbine_ foundation design spreadsheet
- Foundations for Machines-Analysis & Design_By Shamsher Prakash.pdf
- Two Dergree of Freedom System Undamped
- report_2
- AQA A2 Physics A chapter 3 textbook answers
- Physics
- Fluid Induced Vibration of Composite Natural Gas Pipelines
- Seismic Response of Structure with Lead Extrusion Damper
- Cross wind oscillation.pdf
- Vibration Analysis, For Designers _ Archive Content From Machine Design
- Basics of 3-Phase Induction Motor (Part 3)
- Energy harvesting from underwater vibration of an annular ionic polymer metal composite-MECC15.pdf
- NBC 105 Revision Commentary V1.2
- Free Vibrations of Beam System Structures With Elastic Boundary Conditions and Internal Elastic Hinge

Anda di halaman 1dari 76

MACHINE FOUNDATIONS:

:INFLUENCE OF ELEMENT TYPES

AND SOIL STIFFNESS

ANJUM S.

(2009CES3435)

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI

MAY 2012

ANALYSIS OF FRAME TYPE

MACHINE FOUNDATIONS:

:INFLUENCE OF ELEMENT TYPES

AND SOIL STIFFNESS

by

ANJUM S.

(2009CES3435)

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY

in

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

to the

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI

MAY 2012

i

CERTIFICATE

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reproduced From: Srinivasulu and Vaidhyanathan (2007)

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 sint

0.5m2 0.5m2

k1

m1

vibration of

column

Reproduced From: Srinivasulu and Vaidhyanathan (2007)

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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.

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.

(Source Bhatia, K.G., 2008)

400 360 100 100 1160

weight (kN)

Machine Unbalance Force

7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 45

Vertical/Lateral Direction (kN)

Concrete Grade: M25

Mass density of concrete: 25kN/m3

Poisson’s ratio (ν ): 0.15

Damping ratio (ξ) : 0.05

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

at the 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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

(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.

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)

(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.

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.

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

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)

Mass matrix of the entire structure-foundation system:

[M ] =

m1 0

0 m 2

− 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

m1 = m mb + 0.45m d (4.3)

k1 =

1 (4.5)

δv

l3 (1 + 2k ) 3l (4.6)

δv = +

96EI b ( 2 + k ) 8GA b

2EA c (4.7)

k2 =

H

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

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

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.

4.5.1 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.

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.

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

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

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;

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.

(Duggal, 1992)

Soil Type

Hard Soil Medium Soil Soft Soil

Properties Units

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.

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.

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.

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

using different number of springs.

44

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

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)

(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.

Conditions number of springs at the bottom of mat

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)

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.

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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

(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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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

- Vibration Measurement of Rotating MachineryDiunggah olehDraveilois
- Machine Foundation Dr. BhatiaDiunggah olehBalaji Hari
- Turbo Generator Foundation 922Diunggah olehcardreadre
- Machine Foundation Design by DayarathnamDiunggah olehprabhu81
- Design of Turbo Generator FoundationDiunggah olehVed Vrat Arya
- Eccentric Mass Dynamic Vibration Absorber - Vibrations - 2131Diunggah olehsouthertontimothy
- Pump+Turbine_ foundation design spreadsheetDiunggah olehnpwal
- Foundations for Machines-Analysis & Design_By Shamsher Prakash.pdfDiunggah olehAnonymous G38yix
- Two Dergree of Freedom System UndampedDiunggah olehHaseeb Ur Rehman
- report_2Diunggah olehHarsh Singh
- AQA A2 Physics A chapter 3 textbook answersDiunggah olehcathylister
- PhysicsDiunggah olehShubham Patsaria
- Fluid Induced Vibration of Composite Natural Gas PipelinesDiunggah olehSimon Achink Lubis
- Seismic Response of Structure with Lead Extrusion DamperDiunggah olehIJRASETPublications
- Cross wind oscillation.pdfDiunggah olehTAG290jtr
- Vibration Analysis, For Designers _ Archive Content From Machine DesignDiunggah olehSargunam Sankaravadivel
- Basics of 3-Phase Induction Motor (Part 3)Diunggah olehvijaydev75
- Energy harvesting from underwater vibration of an annular ionic polymer metal composite-MECC15.pdfDiunggah olehokigami
- NBC 105 Revision Commentary V1.2Diunggah olehAbinash Mandal
- Free Vibrations of Beam System Structures With Elastic Boundary Conditions and Internal Elastic HingeDiunggah olehJotero Zavaleta
- 8344x_04Diunggah olehnasirfahim
- 15200 Vibration Limits and Control 0606Diunggah olehjuwie_maharani
- Disha Publication Mechanical Concept Notes With Exercises VibrationsDiunggah olehNasir Ahsan
- Ce2403 Bdad QbDiunggah olehUmar Saba
- 16ECEE Arcticle I3S FullPaper.pdfDiunggah olehAnonymous nbozs80lyg
- df20c805e37f7648e9df19f329165972335a.pdfDiunggah olehaokank
- Research paperDiunggah olehPrasad Patil
- Lecture_1Diunggah olehSachi Dhanandam
- SECTDiunggah olehMustefa Adem
- 10_chapter5Diunggah olehCvn Aditya

- Query PrintDiunggah olehimamta
- IRC_006-1966Diunggah olehArun Ks
- Procedure Manual LlDiunggah olehimamta
- Procedure Manual LlDiunggah olehimamta
- Annex 31 Tool Design Extended AerationDiunggah olehKalyca Nazhifa Salwa
- RetainingDiunggah olehimamta
- D.concreteStruc.N15Diunggah olehdrp
- Counterfort Retaining Wall B C Punamia 05 Feb 2012Diunggah olehimamta
- hill roadsDiunggah olehபிரபாகரன் முனிசாமி
- R_WallDiunggah olehAshish Bhoi
- colluviumDiunggah olehimamta
- wall loadDiunggah olehimamta
- wall load.pdfDiunggah olehimamta
- TRT Rating CurvesDiunggah olehimamta
- Dri1.p02.comp_msgs.txtDiunggah olehimamta
- TRT Rating CurvesDiunggah olehimamta
- Sst UT 3 2017-18Diunggah olehimamta
- Staad SpaceDiunggah olehimamta
- CALCULO PUENTESDiunggah olehCarlosRodriguez
- CBDG TG 14 - Best Construction Methods for Concrete Bridge Decks - Cost DataDiunggah olehimamta
- DRI.p01.Comp MsgsDiunggah olehimamta
- DRI.p01.comp_msgs.txtDiunggah olehimamta
- Ref_85Diunggah olehimamta
- Tp3-P17_1083160_1510852Diunggah olehbufalote
- 2400 Surface and Sub Surface Geotechnical ExplorationDiunggah olehimamta
- Solid 1_229Diunggah olehimamta
- Dri1.p01.comp_msgsDiunggah olehimamta
- Tangon_Dam-1800csm.p01.comp_msgs.txtDiunggah olehimamta
- PH-TRT-only.p01.comp_msgs.txtDiunggah olehimamta

- 52821613-FINAL-BOOKDiunggah olehWoldemariam Worku
- Servo-Motor_Selection-Guide_en-US_2006.pdfDiunggah olehIsaac Gutierrez Payan
- ECE110 Course OutlineDiunggah olehJonathan Leung
- Sir Syed University of Engineering & Technlogy, Karachi Even Odd 2008 Basic Electronics 2012Diunggah olehFaisal Yazdanie
- Rocket Engines Basic PrinciplesDiunggah olehSaideep Kc
- Electrical Machines MockDiunggah olehNGOUNE
- POWER ELECTRONICS 2015.pdfDiunggah olehPraveen
- Low Voltage Circuit BreakerDiunggah olehAriesFranandaPanjaitan
- Static Electricity LabDiunggah olehSwarnapali Liyanage
- Important Subjective Questions MWE KSatishReddyDiunggah olehksreddy2002
- Pavan IIT HyderabadDiunggah olehdon-donnola
- CHAPT.4-Dc Equivalent CircuitDiunggah olehFaris Gbs
- Curriculum-mapping PHYSICS 9Diunggah olehkristinebarredo
- Construction of GeneratorDiunggah olehpraveshkafle
- Cambridge Ocr Advanced Sciences Physics 1 for OcrDiunggah olehjnwnnr
- Physics in National DevelopmentDiunggah olehjerome
- Simple Stress and StrainsDiunggah olehJohn Cena
- Bypassed Emitter Resistor CircuitDiunggah olehSandesh Adhikary
- 1316Diunggah olehUpendra Kumar
- 15E282_18Lab1Diunggah olehYadhuvanth kumar
- Module_2Diunggah olehZbor Zbor
- 1 0 Understanding Physics[1]Diunggah olehccffy
- 409608151physics-xii.2-168Diunggah olehsarvodyaseo
- Modular Multilevel Converter using Single DC CapacitorDiunggah olehFirman Sasongko
- EC303Diunggah olehapi-3853441
- ppt1Diunggah olehsan86jay36
- Kapitel_A2_G_onlineDiunggah olehJuan Tamez
- 9 1 and 9 2 practiceDiunggah olehapi-276660391
- manual_speedmaster motor controlDiunggah olehTerence Wood
- Physics One Mark OldDiunggah olehGR Raghav