Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Scholars' Mine
International Conference on Case Histories in (1984) - First International Conference on Case
Geotechnical Engineering Histories in Geotechnical Engineering
May 6th
Recommended Citation
Woods, Richard D., "General Report for Theme Six Case Histories in Machine Foundations" (1984). International Conference on Case
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. 6.
http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge/1icchge/1icchge-theme6/6
This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in International
Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright
Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact
scholarsmine@mst.edu.
General Report for Theme Six
Case Histories in Machine Foundations
Richard D. Woods
Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.
1711
1712
0.7
0. 6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0. 2
o. 1
0. 0
0 2 3 4 c/a
1713
First International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering
Missouri University of Science and Technology
http://ICCHGE1984-2013.mst.edu
when all four gangsaws were operating, in com- has until now been ignored in the planning anc
parison with the amplitudes when only gangsaw design of sawmills, resulting in serious vi-
2 was operating. bration problems in large modern sawmill units
as described in Weiner (1983). By using force-
On a basis of the determined values of transmitting expansion joints the horizontal
spring constants and interaction factors, it dynamic stiffness and damping of the gangsaw
was possible to tune the vibration system by foundation can be increased, and one can as a
altering the counterweight masses of gangsaws result, when necessary
so that the inertia forces were synchronized o reduce the area and/or volume of the gang
with the real spring constants and a favour- saw foundation,
able interaction of the foundations. In this o reduce the number of piles supporting gar.
way it was possible to reduce the horizontal saw foundations,
vibration amplitude for the gangsaw foundation o reduce too large vibrations in existing
from 30 mmjsec to 10 mm/sec. sawmills as, for example, in the case de-
scribed.
About six months later, a considerable in-
crease in horizontal vibrations was noted in From the economic point of view, force-
gangsaw foundation 4. It was assumed on a basis transmitting expansion joints are especially
of the measurements that these gangsaw foun- suitable for foundations for reciprocating ma-
dations, which had previously exhibited the chines with large horizontal forces and low RP
smallest amplitudes, were now subject to the
same kind of disturbance as the previous foun-
dation. This indicated a continual reduction in References
the horizontal dynamic stiffness (spring con-
stants) of the supporting foundations (piles- Barkan, D.D., 1962, Dynamics of Bases and Foun
soil). An investigation of the soil material dation. (Translated from the Russian, ed.
below the gangsaw foundations showed that this 1948.) McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
had a propensity to liquefaction and development
of an air gap below the foundations. Major, A., 1980, Dynamics in Civil Engineering
Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.
Dynamic interaction
o between adjacent gangsaw foundations,
o gang saw foundation- soil- adjoining struc-
tures
1714
At the outset we congratulate the author for a very in- I appreciate the authors for presenting a study of
teresting paper on vibration studies on machine foundations frame foundation using soil structure interaction and
for which very 1 ittle data is avai !able. The dynamic re- I also agree with their conclusions that the mode shapes,
sponse of rigid block type foundations is rather sensitive stresses, etc., are effected by soil structure inter-
to the soil conditions and thereforenecessitates a careful action. However I have the following questions on the
and realistic selection of dynamic soi ld parameters. The paper which the authors may clarify.
dynamic soi 1 constants are influenced by several factors,
the most significant among them are the effective confining The acceptability of the frame foundation is a
pressure and the dynamic shear strain amplitude. These dy- function of (a) strength and (b) dynamic response. As
namic soi 1 constants can be readily determined as a part far as my experience goes, these foundations have ade-
of the soil exploration program from in-situ wave propaga- quate strength and thereby adequate safety margins.
tion tests. The values of dynamic soil constants for de- Regarding dynamic response of the foundation, the limits
sign may then be selected after accounting for the effect imposed by machines are very stringent. However sophis-
of significant parameters influencing them (Prakash and ticated method of analysis one may use for modelling
Puri (1981, 1984)). The soil constants in the present the frame foundation, unless the dynamic loading is
case have been arbitrarily assumed and the range of their defined accurately, it is difficult to evaluate dynamic
values is rather wide. It is not possible to consider such amplitude correctly. In view of this, the authors may
a wide variation in the values of dynamic soi 1 properties clarify the following:
when attempting a design. The results of the study would
have been more meaningful to the designers if adequate in- 1. What dynamic loading has been used for assessing
formation on dynamic soi 1 properties had been obtained the amplitudes using the mathematical models as
along with the monitored performance of the machine foun- described by them.
dations at different sites.
2. What would be the variation in dynamic ampli-
tudes if a simplified model would have been
REFERENCES used instead of sophisticated model.
Prakash, S., and Puri, Vijay K., (1981), "Dynamic Proper-
3. Unless sub harmonics of excitation forces are
ties of Soils From In-Situ Tests", Journal of the Geotech-
used to evaluate the amplitudes, the free
nical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No GT7, July,
vibration frequency values do not convey much
PP 943-963
meaning for the design of frame foundation.
Prakash, S., and Puri, Vijay K. (1984), "Design of A Com-
pressor Foundation: Predictions and Observations 11 , Inter-
national Conference On Case Histories in Geotechnical En-
Discussion by Dr. K.G. Bhatia, Sr. Manager, ESG, Bharat
gineering, St. Louis, May 6-11, Vol. IV.
Heavy Electricals Ltd., Corp. R&D Division, Hyderabad,
India, on 11 Vibration Problems in Gangsaw Foundation, 11
by David Weiner.
1715
First International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering
Missouri University of Science and Technology
http://ICCHGE1984-2013.mst.edu
sion by Shamsher Prakash, Professor in Civil Engineer- Discussion by Dr. K,G. Bhatia, Sr. Manager, ESG, Bharat
niversity of Missouri, Rolla and Vijay K. Puri, Heavy Electricals Ltd., Corp. R&D Division, Hyderabad,
ant Professor in Civil Engineering, Polytechnic India, on "Dynamic Response and Static Analysis of RCC
.ute of New York on "Vibration Studies of Block Foun- Space Frame Supporting High Speed Centrifugal Machines
's" by S.K. Guha, Department of Geology, University with Coupled Soil Structure Interaction," by Dilip K.
>na, Pune, India. Chakravorthy, D.K. Ghosh and H.N. Batergal,
tt the outset we congratulate the author for a very in- I appreciate the authors for presenting a study of
:ing paper on vibration studies on machine foundations frame foundation using soil structure interaction and
dch very little data is available. The dynamic re- I also agree with their conclusions that the mode shapes,
' of rigid block type foundations is rather sensitive stresses, etc., are effected by soil structure inter-
'soil conditions and thereforenecessitates a careful action. However I have the following questions on the
,alistic selection of dynamic soild parameters. The paper which the authors may clarify.
c soil constants are influenced by several factors,
JSt significant among them are the effective confining The acceptability of the frame foundation is a
1re and the dynamic shear strain amplitude. These dy- function of (a) strength and (b) dynamic response. As
soil constants can be readily determined as a part far as my experience goes, these foundations have ade-
'soil exploration program from in-situ wave propaga- quate strength and thereby adequate safety margins.
:ests. The values of dynamic soil constants for de- Regarding dynamic response of the foundation, the limits
lay then be selected after accounting for the effect imposed by machines are yery stringent, However sophis-
Jnificant parameters influencing them (Prakash and ticated method of analysis one may use for modelling
:1981, 1984)). The soil constants in the present the frame foundation, unless the dynamic loading is
1ave been arbitrarily assumed and the range of their defined accurately, it is difficult to eyaluate dynamic
; is rather wide. It is not possible to consider such amplitude correctly. In view of this, the authors may
'variation in the values of dynamic soil properties clarify the following:
lttempting a design. The results of the study would
Jeen more meaningful to the designers if adequate in- 1. What dynamic loading has been used for assessing
:ion on dynamic soil properties had been obtained the amplitudes using the mathematical models as
with the monitored performance of the machine foun- described by them.
1S at different sites.
2. What would be the variation in dynamic ampli-
tudes if a simplified model would have been
oNCES used instead of sophisticated model,
;h, S., and Puri, Vi jay K., (1981), "Dynamic Proper-
3. Unless sub harmonics of excitation forces are
)f Soils From In-Situ Tests", Journal of the Geotech-
used to evaluate the amplitudes, the free
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No GT7, July,
vibration frequency values do not convey much
!-963
meaning for the design of frame foundation.
;h, S., and Puri, Vijay K. (1984), "Design of A Com-
)r Foundation: Predictions and Observations", lnter-
1al Conference On Case Histories in Geotechnical En-
Discussion by Dr. K.G. Bhatia, Sr. Manager, ESG, Bharat
ing, St. Louis, May 6-ll, Vol. IV.
Heavy Electricals Ltd., Corp. R&D Division, Hyderabad,
India, on "Vibration Problems in Gangsaw Foundation,"
by David Weiner.
1715
1716