(USC) - Vibrations of Machine Foundations

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

Ci il andd Environmental
Civil E i l Engineering
E i i
University of South Carolina
USC
Thanks To:
Prof Richard D
Prof. D. Woods
Woods, Notre Dame Univ
Univ.
Prof. F.E. Richart, Jr.
USC
T i for
Topics f Today
T d
 Fundamentals
 Modeling
 Properties
 Performance
USC
F
Foundation
d ti Movement
M t
Z
Y
θ
φ
X
ψ
Fundamentals-Modeling-Properties-Performance USC
Design Questions (1/4)
 H D
How Does It Fail?
F il?
 Static Settlement
 Dynamic Motion Too Large (0.02 mm is large)
 Settlements Caused By Dynamic Motion
 Liquefaction
 What Are Maximum Values of Failure?
(Acceleration, Velocity, Displacement)
Fundamentals-Modeling-Properties-Design-Performance USC
Velocity
y Requirements
q
Massarch (2004) "Mitigation of Traffic-Induced Ground Vibrations"
D i Q
Design Questions
ti (2/4)
 What Are Relations Between Loads And

Q
Failure Quantities
 Loading -Machine (Periodic), Impluse, Natural
 Relations Between Load, Structure, Foundation,
Soil, Neighboring Structures
 Generate Model: Deterministic or Probabilistic
 How Do We Measure What Is Necessary?
 Full Scale Tests
 Prototype Tests
 Small Scale Tests (Centrifuge)
 L b t
Laboratory Tests
T t (Specific
(S ifi Parameters)
P t )
 Numerical Simulation
USC
 What Factor of Safety Do We Use?
 Does FOS Have Meaning
 What Happens After There Is Failure
 Loss of Life
 Loss of Property
 Loss of Production
 Purpose of Project, Design Life, Value
r -2 r -2 r -0.5
+
Rayleigh wave
+ Vertical Horizontal
component component
Shear Relative
- + wave + - p
amplitude
r -1
+
+
r
Shear r -1 Wave Type
yp Percentage
g of
window
Total Energy
Rayleigh 67
Waves Shear 26
Compression 7
Modeling Foundations
 Lumped Parameter (m,c,k) Block System
 Parameters Constant, Layer, Special
 p
Impedance Functions
 Function of Frequency (ω), Layers
 Boundary Elements (BEM)
 Infinite Boundary, Interactions, Layers
 Fi it Element/Hybrid
Finite El t/H b id (FEM,
(FEM FEM-BEM)
FEM BEM)
 Complex Geometry, Non-linear Soil
Lumped Parameter
P  Po sin( t )
r
m m
c k
Gνρ
m z  c z  kz  P0 sin(  t )
SDOF
Adynamic
Mag 
Astatic
1

2 2
     
2
1      2 D 
  n    n 
Lumped Parameter System
Z mz z  cz z  k z z  P0 sin( t )
k
n 
Cz Kz m
Kx
Iψ m X
ψ
Cx
Kψ D  c ccr ccr  2 k m
Cψ/2 Cψ/2
Lumped Parameter Values
Mode Vertical Horizontal Rocking Torsion
4Gr 8Gr 8Gr 3 16Gr 3

16Gr
Stiffness k 3(1   )
1  2  3
Mass Ratio m(1   ) m( 2   ) 3I (1   ) I
m̂
m 4 r 3 8 r 3 8 r 5 r 5
Damping 0.425 0.288 0.15 0.50
R ti D
Ratio, m̂1 / 2 m̂ˆ 1/ 2 (1  mˆ )mˆ 1/ 2 1  2m̂ˆ
Fictitious 0.27 m 0.095m 0.24 I x 0.24 I z
Mass mˆ mˆ mˆ mˆ
D=c/ccr G=Shear Modulus ν=Poisson's Ratio r=Radius
ρρ=Mass Density
y Iψ,,Iθ=Mass Moment of Inertia
Mass Ratio
Design Example 1
VERTICAL COMPRESSOR
Unbalanced Forces
•Vertical Primanry = 7720 lb
•Vertical Secondary = 1886 lb
•Horzontal Primaryy = 104 lb
•Horizontal Secondary = 0 lb
Operating Speed = 450 rpm
Wt Machine + Motor = 10 900 lb Soil Properties
Shear Wave Velocity Vs = 680 ft/sec
DESIGN CRITERION:
Smooth Operation
p At Speed
p Shear Modulus, G = 11 000 psi
Velocity <0.10 in/sec Density, γ = 110 lb/ft3
Displacement < 0.002 in Poisson's Ratio, ν = 0.33
Jump
J tto Ch
Chartt
Q0 (1  )Q0 0.667(7720  1885)
Azs   0.002"  
kz 4Gr 4 11 000  r
r  72.8"  6.07'
Try a 15 x 8 x 3 foundation block, Area = 120 ft2 and r = 6.18 ft
Weight = 54,000
54 000 lb Total Weight = 54 000 + 10 900 = 64 900
(1  ) W g 0.67  64 900
mˆ    0.42
4r g  4 1106.18
3 3
0.425  1 
D  0.66 M z  1.0   Jump to Figure
mˆ  2D 
Az dynamic  Az static  0.002"
Design Example - Table Top
18
18'
W=550 000 lb
Q0=400 lb
Iψ=2.88 x 106 ft-lb-sec2
34' DESIGN CRITERION

18' ψ 0.20
0 20 in/sec Horizontal Motion at
11' Machine Centerline
Ax = 0.0015 in. from combined
Soil Properties rocking
ki andd sliding
lidi
Shear Wave Velocity Vs = 770 ft/sec Speed = 160 rpm

Shear Modulus,
Modulus G = 14 000 psi Slower speeds,
speeds Ax can be larger
Density, γ = 110 lb/ft3
Poisson's Ratio, ν = 0.33
Horizontal Translation Only
4cd 4 18  34 2  m
E i l t
Equivanlen r   13.96 ft
f mˆ   0.38
  8 r 3
0.288 Q Q 2 
D 1/ 2
 0.465  Mag x  1.0 Ax static  0 0  3.0 105 in
ˆ
m kx 8 Gr
Rocking About Point "O"

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

mˆ     0.83
8 r 5 8 110
(12.04) 5
32.2
0.15
D   0.09  Mag  5.6 Static Moment  M o  400 18  7200 ft  lbs.
(1  mˆ  ) mˆ 
M o 7200  3(0.67) 0.50
Static Angular Deflection   s    6 rad
k 2.9 10 8
10
0.50
Horizontal Motion  Axs   s  h  6
( 18  12 )  1.0  10 4
in
10
At Resonance  5.6(1.0 10  4 )  5.6 10  4 in.
5
Damping = 9%
4
Mag
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
OmegaRatio
Impedance Methods
 Basedd on Elasto-Dynamic
B El t D i S
Solutions
l ti
 Compute Frequency-Dependent Impedance
Values (Complex-Valued)
 Solved By Boundary Integral Methods
 Require Uniform, Single Layer or Special Soil
Property Distribution
 Solved For Many Foundation Types
Impedance Functions
P  Poeit  Po cos( t )  i sin( t ) 
Sz
Rz  2K 
Sz   K  i C  K STATIC  k ( )   i  C  DSOIL 
Az   
Soil Damping
Radiation Damping
Jump Wave
Impedance Functions
 r
a0   r 
G Vs
Luco and Westmann (1970)
Layer
y
Effects
Impedance Functions
Boundary Element
Stehmeyer and Rizos,

Rizos 2006
B-Spline Impulse Response Approach
M z K z  peit z  Zeit then
K    M Z  p
2
Finite/Hybrid
Model

G*  G 1  2  2  2i 1   2 
Dynamic p-y Curves
Tahghighi and Tonagi 2007
Soil Properties
 Shear Modulus, G and Damping Ratio, D
 Soil Type
 Confining Stress
 Void Ratio
 Strain Level
 Field: Cross-Hole, Down-Hole, Surface
Analysis of Seismic Waves SASW
 Laboratory: Resonant Column, Torsional
Simple Shear,
Shear Bender Elements
Oscilloscope
Crosshole Testing
ASTM D 4428
Pump
t
Shear Wave Velocity:
Vs = x/t
Downhole
Hammer
(Source) Velocity
Test Transducer
D h
Depth (Geophone
Receiver)
packer
x
Slope p
Slope
Note: Verticality of casing Inclinometer Inclinometer
must be established by
slope inclinometers to correct PVC-cased PVC-cased
distances x with depth. Borehole Borehole USC
Resonant Column Test
G D for Different γ
G,
Torsional Shear Test
Schematic Stress-Strain
Hollow Cylinder RC-TOSS
TOSS Test Results
Steam Turbine-Generator
(Moreschi and Farzam, 2003)
Machine Foundation Design Criteria
 Deflection criteria: maintain turbine-generator
alignment during machine operating conditions
 Dynamic criteria: ensure that no resonance
condition is encountered during machine
operating conditions Jump to Resonance
 Strength
g criteria: reinforced concrete design
g
STG Pedestal Structure
Vibration Properties
p Evaluation
 Identification of the foundation natural
frequencies for the dominant modes
 Frequency exclusion zones for the natural
frequencies of the foundation system and
i di id l structural
individual t t l members b (±20%)
 Eigenvalue
g analysis:
y natural frequencies,
q ,
mode shapes, and mass participation
factors
Finite Element Model
Structure and Base
Z
Y X
Low Frequency
q y Modes
1st mode
6.5 Hz
95 % mm.p.f.
pf
2nd mode
7.2 Hz
76 % m.p.f
High
g Frequency
q y Modes
28th mode 42nd mode

46 3 Hz
46.3 64 6 Hz
64.6
0.3% m.p.f 0.03% m.p.f
Excitation
E citation frequency:
freq enc : 50-60 Hz
50 60 H
Local Vibration Modes
 Identification of natural
f
frequencies
i for
f individual
i di id l
structural members
 Q
Quantification
f off changes
g
on vibration properties due
to foundation modifications
ATST Telescope and FE Model
Assumptions in FE analyses
 Optics Lab mass/Instrument weight = 228 tons
 Wind mean force = 75 N, RMS = 89 N
 Ground base excitation PSD = 0.004 g2/hz
 Concrete
C t Pier
Pi
 High Strength Concrete (E=3.11010 N/m2,
=0.15)
0 15)
 Soil Stiffness, k
 Four different values using Arya & O’Neil’s
formula based on the site test data (Shear
modulus:30~75ksi,
d l 30 75k i Poisson’s
P i ’ ratio:0.35~0.45)
ti 0 35 0 45)
Frequency vs Soil Stiffness
Stiffness units = SI, frequency mode (hz)
Stiffness min m in+33.3% m in+66.6% max
Kx 1 19E+10
1.19E+10 1.83E+10
1 83E+10 2.48E+10
2 48E+10 3 12E+10
3.12E+10
Ky 1.19E+10 1.83E+10 2.48E+10 3.12E+10
Kz 1.48E+10 2.45E+10 3.41E+10 4.38E+10
Krx 1.34E+12 2.21E+12 3.09E+12 3.96E+12
K
Kry 1 34E+12
1.34E+12 2 21E+12
2.21E+12 3 09E+12
3.09E+12 3 96E+12
3.96E+12
MODE Krz 1.74E+12 2.61E+12 3.49E+12 4.36E+12
1 6.3 7.0 7.4 7.5
2 6.4 7.1 7.5 7.7
3 9.4 9.7 9.9 10
4 9.4 10.3 11.1 11.8
5 10.4 11.9 12.6 13.3
6 11.2 13.0 13.6 13.7
• Soil property range: Shear modulus (30~75ksi), Poisson’s ratio (0.35~0.45)
• Pier Footing: Diameter (23.3m)
(23 3m)
• “min” for shear modulus of 30 ksi; “max” for 75 ksi
Summary and Conclusions (Cho, 2005)
1. High fidelity FE models were created
2. Relative mirror motions from zenith to horizon pointing: about 400 m in
t l ti andd 60 rad
translation d iin rotation.
t ti
3. Natural frequency changes by 2 hz as height changes by 10m.
4. Wind buffeting effects caused by dynamic portion (fluctuation) of wind
5. Modal
d l responses sensitive
i i to stiffness
iff off bearings
b i andd drive
d i disks
di k
6. Soil characteristics were the dominant influences in modal
behavior of the telescopes.
7. Fundamental Frequency (for a lowest soil stiffness):
OSS=20.5hz; OSS+base=9.9hz; SS+base+Coude+soil=6.3hz
8. A seismic analysis
y was made with a sample p PSD
9. ATST structure assembly is adequately designed:
1. Capable of supporting the OSS
2. Dynamically
y y stiff enough
g to hold the optics
p stable
3. Not significantly vulnerable to wind loadings
Free-Field Analytical Solutions
  L0V  2 r 
u z (r , ,0)  i  3  RV (a0 ) H 0  
ur  2    CR 
uz
  M 0V  2 r 
ur (r , ,0)  i   RV (a0 ) H1  
 2  3
   CR 
Trench
Isolation
Karlstrom and Bostrom 2007

Chehab and Nagger
gg 2003
Celibi et al (in press)
USC
Th k
Thank-you
 Questions?
USC
r -2 r -2 r -0.5
+
Rayleigh wave
+ Vertical Horizontal
component component
Shear Relative
- + wave + - p
amplitude
r -1
+
+
r
Shear r -1
window Wave Type Percentage of
Total Energy
Rayleigh 67
Shear
Sh 26
Compression 7
USC
Waves
Rayleigh,
R l i h R
Surface
Shear,S
Shear S
Secondary
Compression, P
Primary
USC
Machine Performance Chart
Performance Zones
A=No Faults, New
B=Minor Faults,
Good Condition
C = Faulty, Correct
In 10 Days To Save
0 002
0.002 $$
D = Failure Is Near,
Correct In 2 Days
E = Stop Now
450
USC

(USC) - Vibrations of Machine Foundations

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

(USC) - Vibrations of Machine Foundations

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Vibrations

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

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

 What Are Relations Between Loads And

 Purpose of Project, Design Life, Value

4Gr 8Gr 8Gr 3 16Gr 3

34' DESIGN CRITERION

Shear Wave Velocity Vs = 770 ft/sec Speed = 160 rpm

Rocking About Point "O"

3(1  ) I 3(0.67) 2.88 106

Luco and Westmann (1970)

Stehmeyer and Rizos,

Tahghighi and Tonagi 2007

28th mode 42nd mode

Karlstrom and Bostrom 2007

Вам также может понравиться