Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON on 06/15/14. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Dynamic Analysis for Foundation of Vibrating Equipments

Considering Soil-Structure Interaction

Y. C. Han, F. CSCE

Principal Specialist, Fluor, 1075 W. Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6E 4M7,
yingcai.han@fluor.com

ABSTRACT: The dynamic analysis and design for a large pump foundation are
investigated with different design options. The nonlinearity of soil is considered
approximately using the boundary zone model with non-reflective interface. The
impedances (stiffness and damping) and the dynamic response of foundation are
generated from a computer program DYNAN. The amplitudes calculated might be larger
than the allowable vibration limit, if the design of foundation is not reasonable. Three
options of the foundation design are considered: shallow block foundation, deep block
foundation, and cast-in-place concrete piled foundation. The stiffness and damping of
foundation, dynamic response, and construction cost are compared with the different
types of foundation. The ground water is very shallow in the construction site, and the
level of water even closes to the surface. The effects of groundwater on dynamic
response of foundation are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

With the recent progress, the importance of soil-structure interaction, or soil-pile-structure

interaction, has been recognized widely. Now the real problem is how to account for the
interaction in practice and how to account for the nonlinear properties of soil. A
comprehensive method should be not only advanced in theory but also verified in tests and
applications.
In this study, the dynamic behavior is investigated for a large pump foundation. The
amplitudes calculated might be larger than the allowable vibration limit, if the design of
foundation is not reasonable. To reduce the damage of vibration, three options of the
foundation design are considered: shallow block foundation, deep block foundation, and
cast-in-place concrete piled foundation.
The groundwater is very shallow in the construction site, and the level of water even
closes to the surface. The effects of groundwater on dynamic response of foundation are
discussed.

SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION CONSIDERING NON-LINEAR

PROPERTIES OF SOIL
For the dynamic soil - pile interaction, many efforts have been spent on the numerical
analysis using the finite element method (FEM) or boundary element method. However,
it is too complex, especially for group piles in nonlinear soil. A rigorous approach for the
nonlinearity of a soil-foundation system is extremely difficult and time consuming.
Both theoretical and experimental studies have shown that the dynamic response of piles

71

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
 72 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 201

is very sensitive to the properties of the soil in the vicinity of the pile shaft (Han and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON on 06/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Novak, 1988). The validation of impedance function method is confirmed by dynamic

tests on piles in the field (Han 1997).
Novak and Sheta (1980) proposed including a cylindrical annulus of softer soil (an
inner weakened zone or so called boundary zone) around the pile in a plane strain
analysis. One of the simplifications involved in the original boundary zone concept was
that the mass of the inner zone was neglected to avoid the wave reflections from the
interface between the inner boundary zone and the outer zone. To overcome this
problem, Velestsos and Dotson (1988) proposed a scheme that can account for the mass
of the boundary zone. Some of the effects of the boundary zone mass were investigated
by Novak and Han (1990) who found that a homogeneous boundary zone with a non-zero
mass yields undulation impedance due to wave reflections from the fictitious interface
between the two media.
The ideal model for the boundary zone should have properties smoothly approaching
those of the outer zone to alleviate wave reflections from the interface. Consequently,
Han and Sabin (1995) proposed such a model for the boundary zone with a non-reflective
interface. DYNAN program has been developed based on such a model (2003), details
see www.ensoftinc.com.
The group effect of piles is accounted for using the method of interaction factors. The
vertical static interaction factors are based on Poulos and Davies (1980). The horizontal
static interaction factors are due to El-Sharnouby and Novak (1986). The dynamic
interaction factors are derived from the static interaction factors multiplied by a
frequency variation, and the frequency variation of interaction factors is based on the
charts of Kaynia and Kausel (1982).
It should be explained that the foundations (or caps on piles) are assumed to be rigid. In
most cases, the superstructures are flexible rather than rigid. By means of a substructure
method, the dynamic response of the superstructure is calculated using a finite element
program, such as SAP2000, and the stiffness and damping of the foundation can be
generated from the computer program. With this procedure, the seismic or dynamic
response of the structure can be calculated in time domain or frequency domain (see Han,
2001). This method has already been applied in practice (see Han et al, 1999).

DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF PUMP FOUNDATION

The soil properties in the location of vibrating equipments are described based on the
geotechnical report. In the top 7 m, the type of soil is light brown medium sand with SPT
N value of 26 to 33. From depth of 7 to 12 m, it is very dense sand. From depth of 12 to
16.5 m, it is hard clay. The ground water is very shallow, about 2 m, even closes to the
surface in some season. The effects of liquefaction were discussed by Han and Wang
(2008).
The weight of pump is 290 kN and motor is 180 kN, with operating speed of 507 rpm.
The layout of foundation for the vibrating equipments is shown in Fig.1.

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 201 73
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON on 06/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1 Layout of pump foundation

In this case, the unbalanced force is 2.3 KN for pump and 1.5 KN for motor, and the
shallow foundation was considered in the original design. The base slab is 9.5 m x 5.0 m
with thickness of 0.6 m. The base slab was embedded into soil 0.9 m.

Fig. 2 Effect of groundwater on dynamic response of pump foundation

However, the level of groundwater is shallow and the buoyant forces of soil have to be
considered under the foundation. The buoyant density of soil should be used rather than
the natural density in this case. The reaction mass of foundation under the buoyant forces
will different from that case without the groundwater. The effects of groundwater on
dynamic response of foundation is calculated and shown in Fig. 2. It should be explained
that there are six degrees of freedom for the foundation vibration, three translations and
three rotations. The horizontal vibration is discussed only here.
From Fig. 2, it can be seen that the dynamic response of foundation with ground water
(dash line) is higher than those without the groundwater (real line) in the lower

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
 74 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 201

frequency domain. The amplitude of horizontal vibration is 13.3 m calculated with

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON on 06/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

groundwater and 4.5 m calculated without the groundwater at the operating speed of
507 rpm (8.45 Hz).
The allowable vibration limit is peak-to-peak value of 0.9 mil ( 23 m) for centrifugal
machine operating at 507 rpm. That is, the allowable vibration limit is 11.5 m. The
amplitude of horizontal vibration calculated in the case with groundwater is larger than
the vibration limit. The machine operation will be not in order with the groundwater
raised up although the foundation is workable in the case without the groundwater.

DIFFERENT DESIGN OPTIONS FOR PUMP FOUNDATION

To reduce the vibration, a design option of deep block foundation is considered. The
base slab is changed as 9.2 m x 8.0 m with thickness of 1.0 m, and the embedment is
increased to 2.2 m as shown in Fig. 1. Since the soil blocks above the base slab can
service as reaction mass in the foundation vibration, the total reaction mass is increased
sufficiently. The amplitude calculated is 4.4 m at the operating speed, and meets the
vibration limit. This option is workable.
For comparison, the option of pile foundation is also considered. 12 cast-in-place
concrete piles with diameter of 3 feet (0.914 m) are used, with pile length of 15 m. The
spacing of piles is 3.0 m.
In the dynamic analysis, the shear wave velocity of soil is 200 m/s within the depth of
10 m, and 350 m/s below the depth of 10 m. Both cases of with groundwater and without
groundwater are considered. The amplitude of horizontal vibration calculated is 5.2 m
at the operating speed.
The dynamic response of deep block foundation and pile foundation are shown in Fig.
3. The peak value of amplitude is 15.7 m and the frequency corresponding to the peak
value is 10 Hz for the shallow block foundation as shown in Fig. 2. The peak value of
amplitude is 5.6 m and the frequency corresponding to the peak value is 6.5 Hz for the
deep block foundation as shown in Fig.3. With the soil above base slab added to the total
reaction mass, the peak value of amplitude is reduced and the resonant frequency
becomes lower. With the option of deep block foundation, the construction cost is lower
than that for pile foundation and vibration damage is reduced. The advantage of
embedment is mobilized in the design of pump foundation. With the advanced design of
foundation, the construction cost is saved and dynamic response is reduced.
The dynamic response is calculated using the computer program for the option of pile
foundation, and the construction cost is estimated. The embedment of pile cap is 0.9 m
and the effect of embedment is accounted for. The shear modulus of side soil is reduced
since the confining pressure becomes low closed to the surface. Two layers of side soil
are included, and the thickness of each layer is 0.3 m. The shear wave velocities of 100
m/s and 150 m/s are used in the two layers.
The peak value of amplitude is 5.6 m and the frequency corresponding to the peak
value is 10 Hz as shown in Fig. 3. By comparison with the option of shallow block, the
dynamic response is reduced sufficiently, and meets the vibration limit.

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 201 75
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON on 06/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3 Dynamic response (horizontal vibration) for

deep block foundation and pile foundation

In this study, three options of foundation design are described, shallow block, deep
block and pile foundation. The parameters are shown in Table 1, including mass,
stiffness and damping of foundation. It can be seen that the mass of deep block is three
times of that for shallow block. With the mass increased, the peak value of amplitude is
reduced and the frequency corresponding to the peak value also reduced. Due to the
effect of embedment, the rocking stiffness and damping in three directions are increased
significantly. The mass of soil block above base slab is accounted for as the reaction
mass, so the construction cost is saved.

Table 1. Parameters of Foundation at 507 rpm ( f = 8.45 Hz)

Option of Mass Stiffness Damping
Foundation Kx Kz K Cx Cz C
(Mg) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN.m/ra) (kN/m/s) (kN/m/s) (kN.m/rd/s
)
Shallow 220 0.85 x106 0.97 x106 1.70 x107 1.19 x104 1.67 x104 1.07 x105
6 6 7 4 4
Deep Block 671 1.04 x10 1.09 x10 2.58 x10 2.38 x10 2.84 x10 2.57 x105

Pile 371 1.11 x106 1.59 x106 7.94 x107 2.46 x104 6.48 x104 6.03 x105

Where, Kx, Kz, and K are stiffness in the horizontal, vertical and rocking directions, and
Cx, Cz, and C are damping constants in the respective directions.
As for the pile foundation, the rocking stiffness is increased almost five times by
comparison with the shallow block foundation. The damping is also increased
significantly. The horizontal and vertical stiffness are increased, but not too much. With
the option of pile foundation, the dynamic response is reduced sufficiently.

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
 76 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 201

CONCLUSIONS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON on 06/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The following conclusions are suggested based on three options of foundation design.
The vibration amplitude of shallow block foundation is higher than the allowable
vibration limit as the groundwater raise up.
The vibration damage can be reduced significantly using the deep block foundation.
With the effect of embedment, the rocking stiffness and damping are increased greatly.
The soil block above the base slab can service as the reaction mass, so the vibration
amplitude is reduced and the construction cost is saved.
The vibration amplitudes can be reduced by the pile foundation, since the rocking
stiffness and damping are increased significantly. However, the construction cost is
expensive using the pile foundation in this project.

REFERENCES

DYNAN 2.0 for Windows, Dynamic analysis of shallow and deep foundations,
Ensoft. 2003. www.ensoftinc.com.
El-Sharnouby, H.and Novak. (1986). Flexibility Coefficients and Interaction Factors
For Pile Group Analysis, Canadian Geotechnical J., 23(4), P441- 450.
Han, Y. C. and Wang, S.T. (2008). Non-linear analysis of soil-pile-structure
interaction under seismic loads, 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing, China.
Han, Y.C., Wang, S., Chan, P., and Sprinkhuysen, A. (1999). Design of an Elevated
Compressor Table Top Structure Considering Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction.
Annual Conf. CSCE, Regina, Saskatchwan, P291-300.
Han, Y.C. (1997). Dynamic Vertical Response of Piles in Nonlinear Soil.
J. of Geotech. And Geoenvir. Engineering, ASCE, 123(8), 710-716.
Han, Y.C. and Sabin, G. (1995). Impedances for Radially Inhomogeneous Soil Media
with Non-reflective Boundary. J. of Eng. Mechanics, ASCE, 121(9), 939-947.
Han, Y.C. and Novak, M. (1988). Dynamic Behavior of Single Piles under Strong
Harmonic Excitation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 25(3), 523-534.
Han, Y.C. (2001). Dynamic Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction. 4th Int. Conf. On Recent
Advances In Geot. Earthq. Eng. & Soil Dynamics, San Diego, CA, Paper 6.04.
Kaynia, A.M. and Kausel, E. (1982). Dynamic Behavior of Pile Groups.
2nd Int. Conf. On Num. Methods in Offshore Piling, Austin, TX, P509-532.
Novak, M. and Sheta, M. (1980). Approximate Approach to Contact Problems of
Piles. ASCE National Convention, Florida, P53-79.
Novak, M. and Han, Y.C. (1990). Impedances of Soil Layer with Boundary Zone,
J. of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 116(6), 1008-1014.
Poulos, H.G. and Davies, E.H. (1980). Pile Foundations Analysis and Design.
John Wiley and Sons, P. 397.
Veletsos, A.S. and Dotson, K.W. (1988). Vertical and Torsional Vibration of
Foundation in Inhomogeneous Media. J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 114(9), 1002-
1021.

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering