Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
598
Abstract: The planning of foundations for equipment that is sensitive to vibrations requires a thorough dynamic investigation of the proposed location of the foundation with regard to the effect of already existing or additional vibration
sources. This paper discusses the analyses performed for a number of foundations supporting vibration-sensitive equipment that has been subjected to ground-transmitted excitations. These analyses considered the dynamic response of the
foundations resulting from the normal operation of the supported equipment or the ground-transmitted excitations. In
one case, the foundation of the Canadian Light Source, a third generation synchrotron that will be capable of generating electromagnetic radiation used in the study of the atomic and subatomic structure of materials, is examined.
Another case involves the vibration analysis of a magnetic resonance imaging unit affected by traffic excitation. In the
third case, a power plant facility that is subjected to blast-induced vibration from an adjacent quarry is investigated.
The last case involves the response analysis of a compressor foundation affected by the ground-transmitted vibration
from another compressor situated on a different foundation within the same facility. To assess the level of seismic excitation at the site due to traffic on an adjacent roadway in the first two cases and to blasting activity in the third case,
extensive green field ground vibration-monitoring programs were carried out. The ground accelerations due to traffic
and blasting were measured and recorded for three directions simultaneously: a vertical and two orthogonal horizontal
directions. The measurements with the most intense ground accelerations taken at the ground surface in the location of
the future equipment foundation were selected as the final design acceleration time-history. A Fourier analysis approach
was used to predict the response of the foundation to the ground-induced vibrations in the first three cases, and a
frequency domain analysis was used in the last case.
Key words: machine foundations, vibration, blasting, kinematic, soilstructure interaction.
Rsum : Planification de fondations pour de lquipement qui est sensible aux vibrations requiert un tude dynamique
complte du site propos pour la fondation en considrant leffet des sources de vibrations dj existantes ou additionnelles. Cet article discute des analyses ralises pour un certain nombre de fondations sur lesquelles reposent des quipements sensibles aux vibrations et qui ont t soumises des sollicitations transmises par le terrain. Ces analyses
considrent la rponse dynamique des fondations due lopration normale de lquipement quelles supportent ou aux
sollicitations transmises par le terrain. Dans un cas, on examine la fondation du Canadian Light Source, un synchrotron
de troisime gnration qui pourra gnrer des radiations lectromagntiques utilises dans ltude de la structure
atomique et subatomique des matriaux. Un autre cas implique lanalyse des vibrations dune unit dimagerie de
rsonnance magntique dues la sollicitation du trafic. Dans le troisime cas, on tudie une centrale lectrique qui est
soumise des vibrations induites par le dynamitage dans une carrire adjacente. Le dernier cas implique lanalyse de
la rponse de la fondation dun compresseur due la vibration transmise par le sol en provenance dun autre
compresseur situ sur une autre fondation lintrieur de la centrale. Pour valuer le niveau dexcitation sismique sur
le site, due au trafic sur une route adjacente dans les deux premiers cas, et lactivit de dynamitage dans le troisime
cas, on a ralis des programmes labors de mesures des vibrations du terrain naturel. Les acclrations du terrain
dues au trafic ou dynamitage ont t mesures et enregistres simultanment dans trois directions: une direction
verticale et deux horizontales orthogonales. Les mesures ayant les acclrations du sol les plus intenses prises la
surface du terrain sur le site de la fondation du futur quipement ont t choisies pour la conception finale de lhistoire
en fonction du temps de lacclration. On a utilis une approche danalyse de Fourier pour prdire la rponse de la
fondation aux vibrations induites par le terrain dans les trois premiers cas, et une analyse dans le domaine des
frquences dans le dernier cas.
Mots cls : fondations de machine, vibration, dynamitage, cintique, interaction solstructure.
[Traduit par la Rdaction]
El Naggar
615
Received 5 November 2001. Accepted 28 December 2002. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cgj.nrc.ca on
20 May 2003.
M.H. El Naggar. Geotechnical Research Centre, Faculty of Engineering Science, The University of Western Ontario, London ON
N6A 5B9, Canada. (e-mail: naggar@uwo.ca).
Can. Geotech. J. 40: 598615 (2003)
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:35 PM
doi: 10.1139/T03-014
El Naggar
Introduction
The main objective when designing a foundation for
vibration-sensitive equipment is to limit the response amplitudes of the foundation to the specified tolerance in all vibration modes. The tolerance is usually set by the machine
manufacturer to ensure satisfactory performance of the machine. The displacement of foundations subjected to dynamic loads depends on the type and geometry of the
foundation, the flexibility of the supporting ground, and the
type of dynamic loading.
The objective of this paper is to establish a rational approach for the evaluation of the dynamic performance of
foundations supporting vibration-sensitive equipment. This
approach incorporates the dynamic characteristics of both
the foundation system and the seismic excitation. It includes
the planning and execution of vibration monitoring programs
at the location of the proposed foundations, the evaluation of
the characteristics of the dynamic loading, the calculation of
the foundation impedance functions, and the response of the
foundation to the dynamic loads.
Design procedure
The vibration criteria stated by the manufacturer are always specified as floor vibrations. Before the facility is
built, no floor vibration can be directly measured. On the
other hand, the ground-transmitted excitation at the site due
to external sources of vibration could be, in many cases, an
important factor for designing the facility or even in deciding whether or not it will be built. Therefore, establishing
the relationship between measured ground vibrations and
expected floor vibrations is the first step in the evaluation
process. The procedure used to establish this relationship
includes the following steps:
(1) Evaluating the dynamic loads: this includes the determination of their magnitudes and characteristics, including
intensity and frequency content of the groundtransmitted vibration.
(2) Establishing the soil profile and evaluating the soil
properties required for the dynamic analysis (shear
modulus, mass density, Poissons ratio, and material
damping ratio).
(3) Selecting the type and trial dimensions of the foundation based on experience.
(4) Computing the dynamic response of the trial foundation
supported by the given soil profile due to the estimated
load and comparing the response with the performance
criteria. If the response is not satisfactory, the dimensions of the foundation are modified and the analysis is
repeated until a satisfactory design is achieved.
The dynamic response analysis is the major component
in the design process. The analysis essentially involves the
calculation of the vibration characteristics of the machine
foundationsoil system (i.e., the natural frequencies and the
vibration amplitudes due to all sources of vibration). The
complexity of the response analysis required depends on the
type of foundation system used. For flexible foundation systems (e.g., thin mat foundations), dynamic finite element
analysis may be necessary. For rigid foundations resting di-
599
Ki = ki [ ki (a 0) + ia 0 ci (a 0)]
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:36 PM
600
v =
Vs
2H
2(2 )
1 2
and
u =
Vs
2H
[3]
c = k k
Deep foundation
Stiffness and damping of piles are affected by interaction
of the piles with the surrounding soil. In groups of closely
spaced piles, the character of dynamic stiffness and damping
is further complicated by interaction between individual
piles. To account for pilesoilpile interaction effects, the
superposition approach was used in the analysis. In this approach, the stiffness and damping of single piles are calculated first, then group effect is accounted for using the
interaction factors.
The dynamic stiffness (impedance function) of piles can
be described as
[4]
Ki = ki (a 0) + i ci (a 0)
Vibration monitoring
To assess the level of seismic excitation at a site caused
by ground-transmitted vibration from external sources, a
ground vibration-monitoring program should be carefully
planned and executed. This involves taking ground acceleration measurements at several stations situated across the site
prior to the start of construction. The evaluation of groundtransmitted vibration caused by the operation of vibrating
equipment in an adjacent facility involves vibration monitoring if the facility already exists or dynamic response analysis
of the proposed foundation system if it is to be constructed
in the future.
Vibration monitoring equipment
Components of the ground vibration monitoring equipment included sensors, mountings for the sensors, and a data
acquisition system. The monitoring system was designed
to provide the required sensitivity, minimize data sampling
errors, and achieve the robust performance necessary for the
anticipated environmental conditions.
In this study, ground vibrations were measured using ICP
model 393B31 seismic accelerometers supplied by PCB
Piezotronics Inc. (Depew, New York) with a sensitivity of
1.0 106g and a measurement range of 0.5 g, a frequency
range of 0.07300 Hz (at 10% gain), and an operational
temperature range from 18 to 65C. These accelerometers
were deemed to satisfy the stringent project requirements. In
addition, a mounted natural frequency in the order of 1 kHz
helped to minimize measurement bias in the frequency range
of interest.
The accelerometers were mounted directly on specially
fabricated aluminum posts installed in the ground at the
measuring stations. Mounting arrangements enabled the
simultaneous attachment of accelerometers in three mutually
orthogonal directions, with two oriented horizontally and the
third vertically. An embedded length of 0.6 m for the posts
was selected to enhance the rigidity of the system. At the
same time it was significantly smaller than the minimum
wavelength of soil vibrations for the maximum frequencies
considered. The sensors were protected from interference
from other factors such as wind, snow, and electromagnetic
fields.
Dynamic tests were conducted on the mounted sensor
assembly using an impact hammer apparatus. It was found
that the embedded posts exhibited a fundamental resonant
frequency ranging between 120 and 150 Hz with a single
2003 NRC Canada
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:36 PM
El Naggar
601
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:36 PM
602
Response analysis
The basic mathematical model used in the dynamic analysis is a lumped mass with a spring and dashpot. If the mass,
m, is able to move in only one direction, e.g., vertical, it is
said to have a single degree of freedom (SDF). The foundation block has six degrees of freedom, three translational and
three rotational. These are the displacements along the x, y,
and z axes and rotation about the same axes.
The response of the mass depends on the nature of the soil
reaction that is modeled by both the spring and the dashpot.
The stiffness and damping constants are calculated for different foundation types using the approaches described earlier. Due to the large resulting stiffness of the foundation
block or pile cap relative to that of the soil or the piles, the
foundation block can be assumed to vibrate as a rigid body.
The equation of motion for this rigid body in one direction
(i.e., SDF) when subjected to a dynamic excitation is
[5]
(t) =
P
( k m ) + 2 c2
2 2
cos( t + )
(t) =
1
0 1 D
where 0 = k / m , D = c / 2 km and d = 1 D2 .
The response of the machine-foundation system is influenced by both its natural frequency and the frequency content of loading. The traffic loading is transmitted to the
foundation as a combination of seismic waves propagating
in the ground at different frequencies. While eq. [7] implies
that the stiffness and damping of the foundation system are
constant, they are, in fact, frequency dependent; the use of
eq. [7] to calculate the response may therefore compromise
the resulting accuracy.
Alternatively, a Fourier analysis can be used to calculate
the response of the foundation to the transient load in the
frequency domain. In this type of analysis, the load is represented by the sum of a series of harmonic components
obtained by subjecting the load time history to a fast Fourier
transform (FFT). In the FFT, the input function x(t)
(i. e., mu&&(t)) is given as an even number, N, of equidistant
points in the time domain. The number of frequency components is limited, and for N data points, N/2 frequency components are obtained. Thus, increased accuracy can only be
obtained by increasing the number of data points.
The response of a SDF system acted on by the nth harmonic component of the load would be governed by
[8]
m && + c& + k = x ei n t
k
n(t) = H (n) x k ei n t
H(n) =
1
2
1 n + i 2D n
0
0
= H(n) ei
where |H(n)| is the modulus of the complex transfer function. For the current study, |H(n)| was defined using the
foundation model described in the section titled Design
procedure. The real part of the response due to the nth harmonic component is then
[11]
n(t) =
xk
H(n) cos(n t + )
k
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:37 PM
El Naggar
shear waves, embedded foundations experience a modification in base-slab translational motions relative to the freefield, and rocking motions are introduced. These modified
foundation motions, named foundation input motions (FIM)
are used as the excitation in the analysis of inertial interaction of the equipment foundations to ground-transmitted
vibrations.
The significance of kinematic interaction depends on the
characteristics of the ground-transmitted vibration and the
size, embedment, and flexibility of the foundation. Roesset
(1980) suggests that these embedment effects are likely to be
significant for e/r (e is the embedded depth, r is the foundation radius or equivalent radius) greater than about 0.5.
Analytical and empirical studies have been performed to
examine embedment effects on foundation input motions.
Analytical studies of embedment effects have focused on
the evaluation of transfer functions expressing the amplitude
ratio of base-slab translational and rocking motions to
free-field motions (Elsabee et al. 1977; Day 1977). These
formulations are generally based on assumed vertically propagating coherent waves and the results are given in terms of
dimensionless frequency, a0. The results of these analyses
indicate significant filtering of translational motions for a0 >
0.5 and the development of a significant rocking component
for a0 > 1.0. At low frequencies, a0 < 1.5, the filtering of
foundation motions and magnitude of rocking motions increase with increasing embedment ratio, while at higher frequencies there is little sensitivity to this parameter. These
results can be contrasted with the behaviour of a surface
foundation that would have no reduction of translational motions and no rocking motions when subjected to vertically
incident coherent shear waves.
For a foundation embedded at depth e, with or without
sidewalls, and subjected to harmonic vertical and oblique
waves, the amplification functions for translational and rocking components of FIM, Iu() and I () can be estimated as
(Luco 1969; Elsabee et al. 1977; Tassoulas 1984)
[12]
e
2
cos a 0 a 0 a s
r
3
I u () =
2
0.457
a 0 > as
3
0.247
e
1 cos a 0 a 0 a s
r
I () = r
0.245
a 0 > as
r
603
1
[ 2 (1 cos )]1 2
in which =
Df
2 D f
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:37 PM
604
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:39 PM
El Naggar
605
Fig. 3. Stiffness and damping of the CLS foundation: (a) vertical stiffness, (b) vertical damping, (c) horizontal stiffness, and (d) horizontal damping.
damping of the foundation were calculated over the frequency range of interest. Figure 3 shows the horizontal and
vertical stiffness and damping of the foundation. It can be
noted from Fig. 3 that the stiffness and damping of the foundation vary considerably with frequency, and care should be
exercised in the selection of the stiffness value used in the
dynamic analysis. It should also be noted that the stiffness
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:41 PM
606
Fig. 3 (concluded).
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:45 PM
El Naggar
607
Fig. 4. Canadian Light Source vibration amplitudes based on ground vibration measured at S5.
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:46 PM
608
Fig. 5. Stiffness and damping of the MRI foundation: (a) vertical stiffness, (b) vertical damping, (c) horizontal stiffness, and (d) horizontal damping (1 lb/ft = 14.59 N/m).
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:49 PM
El Naggar
609
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:51 PM
610
Fig. 8. Stiffness and damping of a foundation resting on a halfspace (1 lb/ft = 14.59 N/m).
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:53 PM
El Naggar
611
Fig. 8 (concluded).
[14]
r
r = 0 0 e (r r0 )
r
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:55 PM
612
Fig. 9. Stiffness and damping of foundation resting on a composite medium (1 lb/ft = 14.59 N/m).
There are two methods to account for the additional vibration from adjacent foundations. The calculated average
amplitude can be used to calculate the acceleration of the
ground motion as
[15]
&& = 2
ave
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:58 PM
El Naggar
613
Fig. 9 (concluded).
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:28:00 PM
614
Fig. 10. Vibration of turbine generator foundation due to blast loading (composite medium) (1 ft = 0.3048 m).
response evaluation of foundations supporting vibrationsensitive equipment to ground-borne excitations, incorporating the dynamic characteristics of both the foundation system
and the seismic excitation. The analysis of four different case
histories that involved the response of foundations supporting
vibration-sensitive equipment to ground-transmitted excitation
was demonstrated. The following conclusions can be made:
(1) When designing a foundation for vibration-sensitive
equipment, a ground vibration-monitoring program
should be carefully planned and executed to assess the
level of seismic excitation at the proposed site caused
by ground-transmitted vibration from external sources.
(2) The stiffness and damping of a shallow foundation
should be based on proper modeling of the actual soil
profile. The stiffness functions of layers differ substantially from those of the halfspace because the geometric
damping vanishes below the first layer resonance. Thus,
the widely used halfspace model seriously overestimates
the damping and underestimates the stiffness. The halfspace model may lead to a gross underestimation of the
response of a foundation resting on a layer of limited
thickness underlain by a hard stratum.
(3) The effect of kinematic interaction on the ground motion to the rigid foundation (i.e., the -factor) should be
taken into consideration in the response analysis of large
foundations subjected to ground-transmitted excitations.
(4) In cogeneration plants with two or more units, the vibrations emanating from one unit would induce additional
vibrations on other units. If these units are closely
spaced, the additional vibration should be taken into
consideration when evaluating the dynamic performance
of the foundation.
Ackowledgements
The author would like to thank Dr. Bruce Sparling of
the University of Saskatchewan, Mr. Eric Norum and
Mr. Dan Lowe of the CLS management group, and
Mr. Nizar Dhanani of UMA Engineering Ltd., Saskatoon,
for their contributions in facilitating the study of the CLS
foundation.
References
Barkan, D.D. 1962. Dynamics of bases and foundations [translated
from Russian]. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.
Beredugo, Y.O., and Novak, M. 1972. Coupled horizontal and
rocking vibration of embedded footings. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 9: 477497.
Bycroft, G.N. 1956. Forced vibrations of a rigid circular plate on a
semi-infinite elastic space and on an elastic stratum. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 248:
327368.
Chang, C.-Y., Power, M.S., Idriss, I.M., Somerville, P.G.,
Silva, W., and Chen, P.C. 1985. Engineering characterization of
ground motion. Task 2: Observation data on spatial variations of
earthquake ground motion. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. Rpt. No. NUREG/CR-3805.
Clough, R.W., and Penzien, J. 1993. Dynamics of structures.
McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y.
Day, S.M. 1977. Finite element analysis of seismic scattering problems. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego, La
Jolla, Calif.
Dobry, R., and Gazetas, G. 1988. Simple method for dynamic stiffness and damping of floating pile groups. Gotechnique, 38(4):
557574.
2003 NRC Canada
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:28:02 PM
El Naggar
El Naggar, M.H., and Novak, M. 1995. Nonlinear lateral interaction in pile dynamics. Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 14(2): 141157.
Elsabee, F., Morray, J.P., and Roesset, J.M. 1977. Dynamic behavior of embedded foundations. Research report No. R7733,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, Mass.
Gazetas, G., and Makris, M. 1991. Dynamic pilesoilpile interaction, Part I: Analysis of axial vibration. Earthquake Engineering
& Structural Dynamics, 20: 115132.
Kaynia, A.M., and Kausel, E. 1982. Dynamic behavior of pile
groups. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Institute of Civil Engineers, University of Texas, Austin, Tex., pp. 509532.
Kobori, T., Minai, R., and Suzuki, T. 1971. The dynamical ground
compliance of a rectangular foundation on a viscoelastic stratum. Bulletin Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, 20: 289329.
Luco, J.E. 1969. Dynamic interaction of shear wall with the soil.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 95: 333346.
Luco, J.E., and Hadjian, A.H. 1974. Two-dimensional approximations to the three-dimensional soil-structure interaction problem.
Nuclear Engineering and Design, 31(2): 195203.
Luco, J.E., and Westmann, R.A. 1971. Dynamic response of circular footings. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 95(5):
13811395.
Novak, M., and Aboul-Ella, F. 1978. Impedance functions of piles
in layered media. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 104(EM3): 643661.
Novak, M., Nogami, T., and Aboul-Ella, F. 1978. Dynamic soil
615
reactions for plane strain case. Journal of the Engineering
Mechanics Division, ASCE, 104(EM4): 953959.
Novak, M., El Naggar, M.H., Sheta, M., El-Hifnawy, L.,
El-Marsafawi, H., and Ramadan, O. 2002. DYNA5, v5.2, a computer program for calculation of foundation response to dynamic
loads. Geotechnical Research Centre, The University of Western
Ontario, London, Ont.
Roesset, J.M. 1980. A review of soil-structure interaction. In
Soil-structure interaction: the status of current analysis methods
and research. Edited by J.J. Johnson. Rpt. No. NUREG/CR-1780
and UCRL-53011, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Livermore, Calif.
Seed, H.B., and Lysmer, J. 1980. The seismic soil-structure interaction problem for nuclear facilities. In Soil-structure interaction: the status of current analysis methods and research. Edited
by J.J. Johnson. Rpt. No. NUREG/CR-1780 and UCRL-53011,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. and
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif.
Tassoulas, J.L. 1984. An investigation of the effect of rigid sidewall on the response of embedded circular foundations to
obliquely-incident SV and P-waves. In Dynamic soilstructure
interaction. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 5563.
Veletsos, A.S., and Verbic, B. 1973. Vibration of viscoelastic foundations. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2: 87102.
Veletsos, A.S., and Wei, Y.T. 1971. Lateral and rocking vibrations
of footings. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, 97(SM9): 12271248.
I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:28:02 PM