Scribd
Upload
89 views

18 224

This document discusses adapting ACI 351.3R for explicit representation of piles and pile-cap interaction in structural models. It presents a methodology for developing notional pile elements to represent pile groups and their interaction with the pile cap. It demonstrates the approach on an original process facility foundation and retrofit configuration. Response comparisons show good agreement between measured and analyzed vibration levels, validating the foundation modeling approach. The conclusions state that the notional pile methodology was verified for this application and discusses pros and cons of the notional pile representation technique.

Uploaded by

Huaman Chavez Jesus Angel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
89 views

18 224

This document discusses adapting ACI 351.3R for explicit representation of piles and pile-cap interaction in structural models. It presents a methodology for developing notional pile elements to represent pile groups and their interaction with the pile cap. It demonstrates the approach on an original process facility foundation and retrofit configuration. Response comparisons show good agreement between measured and analyzed vibration levels, validating the foundation modeling approach. The conclusions state that the notional pile methodology was verified for this application and discusses pros and cons of the notional pile representation technique.

Uploaded by

Huaman Chavez Jesus Angel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 48

Adapting ACI 351.

3R for
Explicit Representation of
Piles and Pile-Cap
Interaction
with Model Validation and Application to Retrofit Analysis
▪ Tim Hogue, PhD, PE, SE, M.ACI
Senior Civil/Structural Engineer
Hargrove Engineers + Constructors
Mobile, AL
▪ David Kerins, PE, F.ACI
Senior Engineering Advisor
ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Ltd.
Spring, TX
▪ Matthew Brightman, PE, SE
Americas/IOL Regional Civil/Structural Engineering DTL
ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Ltd.
Spring, TX
Original Retrofit
PROCESS
MOTOR
PROCESS
MOTOR

GEARBOX
GEARBOX
Original Configuration
Retrofit Configuration
Foundation Model Basis

From Arya, O’Neill and Pincus, 1979


Foundation Model Basis
(Original Configuration)
1. Drive block
only

2. Process block
only

3. Entire
foundation
Rigid Cap Assumption

From ACI 351.3R-18, Fig. 5.5.2.2a


Single, Isolated Pile Properties

From ACI 351.3R-18, Fig. 5.5.1a


Single, Isolated Pile Properties

From ACI 351.3R-18, Fig. 5.5.1a


Group Action Factors
Group Action Factors
Group Action Factors
Integrated Group Properties

PILES

CAP-SOIL FRICTION

RATIO
Integrated Group Properties

PILES

CAP-SOIL FRICTION

RATIO
Integrated Group Properties

PILES

CAP-SOIL FRICTION

RATIO
Notional Piles – Concept
▪ Distribute Stiffness Spatially
▪ Pile – Cap Interaction
Notional Piles – Execution
▪ 7 Terms
▪ “Beam” Parameters: A, L, Ix, Iz
▪ Off-Diagonals
▪ Use One Spring
Notional Pile Properties
Notional Pile Properties
Notional Pile Properties
Notional Pile “Beam”
Notional Pile “Beam”
Notional Pile “Beam” – STAAD Input
Notional Pile Properties

0
Additional Notes
▪ Activated Mass
▪ Rocking
▪ Damping
▪ Torsion
Model - Original Configuration
PROCESS
GEARBOX
MOTOR
Forces - Original Configuration

MOTOR

fs = 1.5
Measured vs. Analysis Response
PIP
STC01015:
0.12”/sec
Comparison Comments
▪ Veracity of Foundation Modeling
▪ Measured vs. Computed
➢Damping Too Large
➢Force Too Small
➢Synthesis Too Large
➢Structure Too Stiff
➢S:N
Comparison Comments (cont’d)
▪ Measurement Synthesis
▪ Dynamic Forces
▪ Soil Properties
▪ Overall Foundation Modeling
Foundation Modeling Guidance for Retrofit
▪ Baseline Model → 1x Gs
▪ Limit Damping
▪ Set Dynamic Loads at Nominal
▪ No Stiffness Tinkering
Foundation Model Basis
(Retrofit Configuration)
1. Drive block only

2. Process block only

3. Entire foundation
Analysis Model
(Retrofit Configuration)

CAP-SOIL SPRING
AND MASS
Response Limits
1. Displacements (Owner)
1.3/1.4 mils Pk-to-Pk
2. Natural Frequencies (Owner)
Avoid 0.8-1.2x Operating Speeds
3. Surface Distortion (GB Vendor)
1/7500 Ea Fdn Block
1/15000 GB Footprint
4. Bearing (Base) Velocity (GB Vendor)
0.28 in/sec rms – DIN ISO 10816
5. Velocity (PIP STC01015)
0.12 in/sec
Responses
1. Displacements
0.39 mils vs. 1.40 mils
2. Natural Frequencies
Within 0.8-1.2x Oper Speeds (“NG”)
3. Surface Distortion
0.03 mil vs. 3.00 mil limit

4. Bearing (Base) Velocity


0.019 in/sec rms vs. 0.28 in/sec rms
5. Velocity (PIP STC01015)
0.12 in/sec
Epilogue
Conclusions
▪ Foundation Modeling Verified*
▪ Notional Piles – Pros & Cons

You might also like