The 12 International Conference of International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG) 1-6 October, 2008

Goa, India

th

Design of Machine Foundation on Reinforced Sand

A. K. Verma, Darshana R. Bhatt
Sstructural Engineering Department, B.V.M.Engineering college, Birla Vishvakarma Mahavidyalaya, Vallabh Vidyanagar-388120,

Key words: machine foundation, reinforced sand bed, dynamic soil parameters ABSTRACT: Dynamic analysis to evaluate the response of earth structures to dynamic stress applications, such as those produced by earthquakes, blasting, wind loading or machine vibrations are finding increased application in civil engineering practice. In the present investigation the authors have calculated the dynamic soil parameters, the coefficient of elastic uniform compression (Cu), coefficient of elastic uniform shear (C), coefficient of elastic non-uniform compression(C) and coefficient of elastic non-uniform shear(C) by performing laboratory model cyclic tests on annular footing resting on un-reinforced and reinforced earth beds. 1

Introduction

In machines, there will be reciprocating parts, imperfectly balanced rotating parts or impact producing parts. A foundation block subjected to vibratory load can have six types of motions, i.e. three translations in three mutually perpendicular directions and three rotations about three axes. Most of the machine foundations can be analyzed by assuming them to be simple harmonic motion or in a combination of more than one simple harmonic motion. Like any other foundation, a machine foundation is designed to carry safely the static loads due to the weight of the machine and its foundation plus any superimposed load. In addition, it should be able to carry dynamic loads induced by the unbalanced forced produced by the moving parts of the machine. These loads are transmitted to the foundation-soil system, whose behaviour under dynamic loads should therefore be analyzed for safe design.The magnitudes of the dynamic forces depend on factors such as the type of moving parts. Compressors, hammers and blowers generate impact-type forces. Raciprocating and rotary engines, turbines, generators and motors operate at different frequencies. Further, the vibrations produced by machine may be periodic, random or a combination of both. Generally, machines are mounted on a heavy block foundation. Such a block can have six degrees of freedomthree motions translation along the x,y and z axes, and three rotations about the same axes. The translations along the two horizontal axes are called sliding, while the three rotations about x,y and z axes are called, respectively, rocking, pitching and yawing. All these motions induced due to machine vibration may be independent of each other or coupled. In block motion, the sliding is often coupled to rocking or pitching, while vertical translation and yqwing are usually analysed as independent motions. There are two main requirements when designing a machine foundation: The natural frequency of the system should be much higher (or much lower) than the operating frequency of the machine so that there is no resonance; The amplitude at the operating frequency should be within permissible limits.

Many engineering problems can be analyzed by assuming a spring-dashpot model with one degree of freedom. The differential equation governing the motion is m + C + k z =Fo sin t where m is the mass of the machine plus foundation block. It is generally agreed that a certain amount of soil also vibrates, All these masses are lumped together to compute the m term in the above equation. The coefficient C represents the damping property of the machine-foundation-soil system. The spring constant k is the force required for unit displacement. For a single degree of freedom the displacement is in the vertical direction. For vertical vibrations, the spring constant k is taken to be proportional to the coefficient of elastic uniform compression Cu, defined as the ratio of uniform pressure imposed on the soil to the elastic part of the

3583

settlement. The vertical translation mode can also be used to analyze the vibrations of a block in other modes. Although there are, in general, six degrees of freedom, are analyzed identically by interchanging the axes, since the soil is subjected to the same kind of uniform shear stress. Rotations about the horizontal x and y axes are also similar; in both cases (called rocking and pitching), the soil is subjected to a non-uniform shear stress. Rotations about the vertical z axis is not identical but here, too, the soil is subjected to a shear stress which is non-uniform. Thus there are only four cases to be considered for the complete analysis of the block foundation. The spring constant k for these modes is defined as proportional to: 1. 2. 3. 4. Cu, the coefficient of elastic uniform compression for translation along the vertical axis; C, the coefficient of elastic uniform shear (the ratio of shear stress to the elastic part of the displacement) for sliding; C, the coefficient of elastic non-uniform compression (the ratio of the non-uniform pressure applied on the soil to the elastic part of the settlement) for rocking and pitching; C, the coefficient of elastic non-uniform shear (the ratio of the moment applied to the vertical axis to the product J, J being the polar moment of inertia of the area of the base of the foundation and the angle of rotation of the foundation) for rotation about the z axis.

A systematic design procedure is given for the design of machine foundation on reinforced sand beds using the dynamic soil parameters obtained from the experimental study. The natural frequency of the unreinforced and reinforced sand beds can be determined and used for the design of machine foundation.

2 Experimentation
Cyclic plate load tests were carried out as per IS 5249:1992. All the tests were performed in a well stiffened square steel tank specially fabricated in such a way that its size is five times that of the diameter of the footing. Cyclic plate load tests were conducted on the model ring footing of external diameter d=130mm and internal diameter h=50mm, using a reaction frame. The experimental test set-up is shown in fig.-1. The characteristics of sand is as given in Table-1 and the characteristics of reinforcing material and other details are shown in Table-2. The sand bed was prepared by placing the sand in 100mm lift to the desired density 16.7kN/m3. The reinforcing layer was laid flat at the desired depths on top of the smooth bed of compacted sand horizontally such that it is concentrically placed with respect to the model ring footing. A thin film of sand followed by more sand was carefully placed over the reinforcing layer and then compacted before the next layer was placed. After the setup has been arranged, the initial readings of the dial gauges were noted and the first increment of static load was applied to the footing. The load was maintained constant throughout for a period till no further settlement occurred or the rate of settlement became negligible. The final readings of dial gauges were then recorded. The entire load was then removed quickly but gradually and the footing allowed to rebound. When no further rebound occurred or the rate of rebound became negligible, the readings of the dial gauges were again noted. The load was then increased gradually till its magnitude acquires a value equal to proposed next higher stage of loading, which was maintained constant & the final dial gauge readings were noted as mentioned earlier. The entire load was then reduced to zero and final dial gauge readings were recorded when the rate of rebound became negligible. The cycles of loading & unloading and reloading continued till the estimated ultimate load had been reached, the final values of dial gauge readings had been noted each time.

3584

Figure:1 Laboratory set up

Table: 1 Characteristics of sand

Specific gravity (G) Maximum density (-max ) Minimum density (-min) Compacted density () Coefficient of curvature (Cc) Coefficient of uniformity (Cu) Cohesion parameter ( C ) Angle of internal friction ( ) 2.6 3 18.03 kN/m 3 15.30 kN/m 3 16.7 kN/m 0.91 3.05 0.0 36

Table : 2 Characteristics of reinforcement & other details

Reinforcing material 1 ( geo-grid Netlon-CE-121) Thickness ( t ) = 2.0mm Aperture size =7.5 mm Tensile strength = 7.684 N/ mm Reinforcing material 2 ( geo-jute ) Thickness ( t ) = 3.5mm Tensile strength = 13.2 N/mm Reinforcing material 3 (geocells made of Netlon-CE-121) Dg diameter of geocell Hg height of geocell

3 Results and discussion

The experimental work has been conducted in three series. The first series involves cyclic model tests with reinforcing material as Geogrid CE-121 and in second series the model cyclic load tests were performed under ring footing resting on sand with geo-jute as reinforcing material. The following parameters were studied for both the planer reinforcing materials Depth of top layer of reinforcement below the model footing, u,

3585



Number of reinforcing layers, N, Vertical spacing between adjacent layers, z, Size of the reinforcing material, b.

The cyclic plate load tests were conducted on prepared beds to study the influence of above parameters on damping capacities of sand bed. The curves were plotted for W* vs s* for each set of loading and unloading hence hysteresis loops were obtained for the test series. The indicative of damping capacities of reinforced sand and unreinforced sand are determined by calculating area of one hysteresis loop and area under W* vs s* with the help of planimeter. The test results of the comparison between damping capacity of unreinforced sand bed with that of reinforced sand beds are shown in fig.4. The indicative of damping capacity obtained by the ratio E/ Eo. Where, E = Area of hysteresis loop, Eo = Area under W* vs s*, W* = Load parameter [ p + ( * d)], s* = settlement parameter ( s + d ), d = outer diameter of ring footing, p = load intensity on model footing, = density of sand, The sequential loading and unloading adopted for all tests made it possible to separate the recoverable component ( se*) and non-recoverable component (sp*) of the total settlement of the footing for different load levels. The coefficient of elastic uniform compression Cu, the coefficient of elastic shear C, the coefficient of elastic non-uniform shear C and the coefficient of elastic non uniform compression C are then determined by the relations given below as per IS 5249: 1992. Cu = p/ se kN/m , it can be determined by plotting a graph for p vs se as shown in fig.2, fig. 3 shows the load settlement curve of cyclic plate load test. where, p = corresponding load intensity in Kg/cm and se = Elastic rebound settlement corresponding to p in cm. Cu = 1.5 to 2 C, C = 3.46 C, C = 1.5 C. The values of the above coefficients are obtained for different conditions of sand beds and shown in table-2 and table-3.
2 3

Se

Pressure (p)

Elastic rebound (Se) Figure:2 Determination of the coefficient of uniform compression Cu

3586

Load (P)

sp
Se

Settlement(S)

Figure:3 Load- settlement curve for cyclic plate load test

Table: 3 Values of Cu, C, C, C for unreinforced and various reinforcing conditions of sand beds with planer reinforcement
Cu 3 kN/m 4 *10 13.44 4.752 5.566 5.2229 4.9176 13.44 4.0264 5.3748 4.9266 4.714 13.44 4.6397 4.7506 3.6345 5.498 13.44 4.9415 5 5.47 13.44 5.33 5.2681 5.0837 13.44 4.582 5.2183 5.3259 C 3 kN/m 4 *10 7.680 2.715 3.181 2.985 2.810 7.68 2.301 3.070 2.815 2.694 7.68 2.651 2.715 2.077 3.142 7.68 2.824 2.857 3.126 7.68 3.046 3.010 2.905 7.68 2.618 2.982 3.043 C 3 kN/m 4 *10 26.573 9.395 11.005 10.326 9.723 26.573 7.961 10.621 9.741 9.320 26.573 9.173 9.393 7.186 10.87 26.573 9.77 9.886 10.815 26.573 10.538 10.416 10.051 26.573 9.059 10.317 10.53 C 3 kN/m 4 *10 11.52 4.073 4.771 4.477 4.215 11.52 3.451 4.604 4.223 4.041 11.52 3.977 4.072 3.115 4.713 11.52 4.236 4.286 4.689 11.52 4.569 4.516 4.357 11.52 3.927 4.473 4.565

No.of layers 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3

Size of reinforcement b=3d b=3d b=3d b=3d b=2d b=2d b=2d b=2d b=d b=d b=d b=d b=3d b=3d b=3d b=2d b=2d b=2d b=d b=d b=d

Type of reinforcement grid -do-do-dogrid -do-do-dogrid -do-do-dojute -do-dojute -do-dojute -do-do-

u/d 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

z/d 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

3587

Table: 4 Values of Cu, C, C, C for various reinforcing conditions of sand beds with geocell
Cu 3 kN/m 166000 170000 170000 166600 156000 166000 160000 160000 146600 166000 160000 166000 150000 143000 140000 150000 147000 143000 133000 150000 147000 153000 150000 160000 147000 156000 150000 157000 153000 177000 167000 150000 160000 153000 157000 167000 153000 C 3 kN/m 94857.14 97142.86 97142.86 95200 89142.86 94857.14 91428.57 91428.57 83771.43 94857.14 91428.57 94857.14 85714.29 81714.29 80000 85714.29 84000 81714.29 76000 85714.29 84000 87428.57 85714.29 91428.57 84000 89142.86 85714.29 89714.29 87428.57 101142.9 95428.57 85714.29 91428.57 87428.57 89714.29 95428.57 87428.57 C 3 kN/m 328205.7 336114.3 336114.3 329392 308434.3 328205.7 316342.9 316342.9 289849.1 328205.7 316342.9 328205.7 296571.4 282731.4 276800 296571.4 290640 282731.4 262960 296571.4 290640 302502.9 296571.4 316342.9 290640 308434.3 296571.4 310411.4 302502.9 349954.3 330182.9 296571.4 316342.9 302502.9 310411.4 330182.9 302502.9 C 3 kN/m 142285.7 145714.3 145714.3 142800 133714.3 142285.7 137142.9 137142.9 125657.1 142285.7 137142.9 142285.7 128571.4 122571.4 120000 128571.4 126000 122571.4 114000 128571.4 126000 131142.9 128571.4 137142.9 126000 133714.3 128571.4 134571.4 131142.9 151714.3 143142.9 128571.4 137142.9 131142.9 134571.4 143142.9 131142.9

No.of Geocells 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Size of Geocell Dg=0.27d,Hg=0.62d -do-do-doDg=0.46d,Hg=0.62d -do-do-doDg=0.76d,Hg=0.62d -do-do-do-doDg=0.27d,Hg=1.0d -do-do-doDg=0.46d,Hg=1.0d -do-do-doDg=0.76d,Hg=1.0d -do-do-doDg=0.27d,Hg=1.38d -do-do-doDg=0.46d,Hg=1.38d -do-do-doDg=0.76d,Hg=1.38d -do-do-do-

u/d 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

3588

W* vs % Damping capacity for Geogrid reinforced sand

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

W* vs % Damping for geojute reinforced sand for b=3B

35 30

% D a m p i n g c a p a c i ty

% D a m p in g c a p a c i ty

25 20 15 10 5 0 0 100 200 300 400

N=0 N=1 N=2 N=3

N=0 N=1 N=2 N=3

W* (kN/m2)

W* (kN/m2)

Figure:4 Comparison of percentage damping capacity for geogrid and geojute reinforced sand beds with that of unreinforced sand bed

4 Conclusion
For design of machine foundation on reinforced sand for various reinforcing conditions the table-3 and table-4 can be referred. The coefficient of uniform compression, Cu for the actual foundation area can be calculated using the following relationship Cu A = Cu1 A 1 . Where Cu and A refer to the test plate and Cu1 and A1 to the foundation. The stiffness of the foundation-reinforced-soil system can be determined by using following equations Kz = Cu A and Kx = C A The natural frequency of the foundation-reinforced-soil system will be calculated using the following equation n = (k/m)1/2 After knowing the frequency of the vibration for a machine one can design the machine foundation using the natural frequency of the foundation-reinforced-soil system. The reinforced sand bed has more damping capacity than that of unreinforced sand bed. The percentage damping capacity decreases with increase in load intensity.

5 Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support received from AICTE, New Delhi for the Research and Development Project Titled Cyclic Behaviour of Ring Foundation on Reinforced Sand for the year 2003-2006.

6 Reference
Verma, A.K. and Bhatt, D.R. (2007): Effect of reinforcement on damping capacity of foundation soil under ring footing, th Proceedings of 5 International conference on Seismology and Earthquake engineering,May-2007, Tehran, Iran, pp. SF61-1 to8.

3589