Revision History: Rev - Date Description Prepared Verified Approved

NORTH RUMAILA NCS2 PHASE 2 COMPRESSION STATION
SOK7300343
COMPRESSOR BLC FOUNDATION CALCULATION REPORT
03C 24 JAN 18 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION BHGE

02R 10 JAN 18 ISSUED FOR REVIEW BHGE
01R 14 DEC 17 ISSUED FOR REVIEW BHGE
Rev Date Description Prepared Verified Approved
.
Location Plant Contract Number
NORTH RUMAILA NCS2 PHASE 2

North Rumaila IRAQ
COMPRESSION STATION
Doc Category. Scale Format
/ A4
-Electronically Approved Drawing-Checked:Mellace, E.,Approved:Ricci, A.- Internal DT-'N'

COMPRESSOR BLC FOUNDATION CALCULATION REPORT
Project Originator Plant Site Unit Disc Doc Type Sequence Sheet
6516 GENP C002 ISGP U40300 CX 1206 00001 1/45
REVISION HISTORY
Rev # Date of Issue Description of Change
01R 14-DEC-2017 Issued for review
02R 10-JAN-2018 Issued for review

03C 24-JAN-2018 Issued for construction
TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

COMPRESSOR BLC FOUNDATION CALCULATION REPORT SOK7300343 2
REVISION DESCRIPTION: APPROVED Electronically Stored
ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION REVISION DATE SECURITY CODE
CHECKED Electronically Stored
24-Jan-18 N
EXECUTED GPA
SCALE REPLACES/DERIVED FROM 1st EXECUTION ORIGINAL JOB SIZE LANGUAGE
N/A N/A 14-Dec-17 5840455 4 A
© 2018 Nuovo Pignone Tecnologie S.r.l., a Baker Hughes, a GE company, LLC (“BHGE”) company: the information contained in this document is company confidential and proprietary SHEET
property of BHGE or its affiliates. It is to be used only for the benefit of BHGE and may not be distributed, transmitted, reproduced, altered or used for any purpose without the
express written consent of BHGE. 1 of 45
INDEX
1.0 SCOPE __________________________________________________________________________________ 3

2.0 DESIGN CODES AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS __________________________________________________ 3
2.1 DESIGN CODES _______________________________________________________________________ 3
2.2 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ______________________________________________________________ 3
3.0 MATERIALS & UNITS _______________________________________________________________________ 4
3.1 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE _______________________________________________________________ 4
3.2 STEEL REINFORCEMENT ________________________________________________________________ 4
4.0 DESIGN INSTRUCTIONS ____________________________________________________________________ 5
4.1 LOADS ACTING ON THE FOUNDATION ____________________________________________________ 5
4.2 STATIC LIMITS ________________________________________________________________________ 5
4.3 DYNAMIC LIMITS ______________________________________________________________________ 5
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS _______________________________________________________________ 6
5.1 NET ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ___________________________ 7
5.2 MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ____________________________ 7
5.3 SOIL DYNAMIC MODULUS ______________________________________________________________ 8
6.0 FOUNDATION GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND LOADS _______________________________________ 14
7.0 EFFORTS EXERTED BY ELEMENTARY LOADING ONTO SUPPORTS _____________________________________ 16
7.1 BLOCK NO. 1 _________________________________________________________________________ 20
7.2 BLOCK N. 2 __________________________________________________________________________ 20
7.3 COMPRESSOR ________________________________________________________________________ 21
7.4 LUBE OIL SYSTEM _____________________________________________________________________ 21
8.0 MODAL ANALYSIS _________________________________________________________________________ 23
8.1 RADII OF THE EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR FOOTING _____________________________________________ 23
8.2 DYNAMIC STIFFNESSES ________________________________________________________________ 24
8.3 EIGENFREQUENCIES___________________________________________________________________ 25
8.4 AMPLIFICATION FACTORS ______________________________________________________________ 26
9.0 DYNAMIC DISPLACEMENTS__________________________________________________________________ 27
9.1 DYNAMIC DISPLACEMENTS _____________________________________________________________ 27
10.0 STATIC CALCULATION ___________________________________________________________________ 29
10.1 STRESSES IN THE FOUNDATION _________________________________________________________ 37
11.0 DESIGN OF REINFORCEMENT AND CONCRETE STRESS CHECK ___________________________________ 39
11.1 TRANSVERSAL SECTION ________________________________________________________________ 40
11.2 CHECK OF SOIL PRESSURE ______________________________________________________________ 41
11.3 STATIC CHECK _______________________________________________________________________ 42
11.4 CHECK OF ANCHOR BOLTS _____________________________________________________________ 42
12.0 ANNEX ______________________________________________________________________________ 43

REVISION DESCRIPTION: PAGE MARKER SECURITY CODE
ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION N/A N
ORIGINAL JOB SIZE LANGUAGE
5840455 4 A
1.0 SCOPE
Scope of work is the design of the reinforced concrete foundation of the centrifugal compressor BLC-
foundation for “North Rumaila LP Compression New CS2” in North Rumaila, Republic of Iraq.
As stated by BGC, foundation design case in relation to the gypsum content, needs to consider rainfall as
the only source of water infiltrating the soil.
Industrial or rainfall water infiltration shall be avoided by suitable paved area with mechanical protection,
geomembrane and proper slope even from outside the area in BHGE scope.
2.0 DESIGN CODES AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

2.1 DESIGN CODES
The following design codes have been used:
In the present calculation report the following design codes and specifications have been used:
/1/ ACI 318-11
Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
/2/ ACI 351.3R-04 (Reapproved 2011)
Foundation for dynamic equipment
2.2 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
In the present calculation report, besides the design codes listed in /1/, the following documents are
referenced:
/3/ GEOTECHNICAL FACTUAL AND INTERPRETATIVE REPORT NEW COMPRESSION STATION 2
(CS2), Prepared by Fugro Middle East, P.O. Box 2863, Dubai. United Arab Emirates Report
Fugro Document No. 14-003-IQ/WO125/IR-00, 24 July 2017
/4/ NP-GE Document INCGC001888 - FOUNDATION LOADINGS (DS2 & DS5)
/5/ IPL GC001888 - Civil Works Drawing (DS2 & DS5)
/6/ IPL TC001888 – General arrangement drawing – Plan view (DS2 & DS5)
/7/ Arya, C., Drewyer, R.P.  Pincus, G., "Foundation Design for Reciprocating Compressors",
Hydrocarbon Processing, May 1977
/8/ Wilson, E., L.  Habibullah, A., "SAP2000: a Series of Computer Programs for the Static and
Dynamic Finite Element Analysis of Structures", Computer  Structures Inc., CSI, Berkeley,
Ca, USA

5840455 4 A
3.0 MATERIALS & UNITS
3.1 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE
Characteristic strength of concrete
N
f c'  31
mm 2
Type of cement: ASTM C-150, Type V
3.2 STEEL REINFORCEMENT

Ribbed reinforcing steel bars ASTM 615 grade 60
yield stress:
N
f y  60000 psi  412
mm 2
Units
1 pounds = 0.4536 kg = 4.45 N
1 in = 2.54 cm
1 psi = 0.0703 kg/cm2

5840455 4 A
4.0 DESIGN INSTRUCTIONS
For the design of the foundation we refer to the design instructions given by G.E., which are here in the
following summed.
4.1 LOADS ACTING ON THE FOUNDATION

Global loads acting on the foundation are:
• nominal torque loads (nominal couples)
• dynamic loads in operation
• emergency loads
• seismic loads
• wind loads
• static loads
Combinations of loads are listed in the section “Static calculation” (par.10.0).
4.2 STATIC LIMITS

After placement of machine maximum differential deflection between two support pads of the foundation
shall not be greater than 0,2 mm/m (see Section 0 of ref./4/).
4.3 DYNAMIC LIMITS

The disturbing frequencies of the compressor are 2985 RPM and 16482 RPM according to ref./4/.
Natural frequencies in the modes being excited shall preferably be out of the range of 0.8 to 1.2 times the
disturbing frequencies of any machine on the foundation (see reference /4/):
fn < 0.80 fe and fn > 1.20 fe

fn < 2388 RPM and fn > 3582 RPM
fn < 13186 RPM and fn > 19778 RPM
where fn = natural frequency of the foundation,

fe = operating frequency in all the speed variation field of the machines.
2388 3582 13186 19778
- - - - - -  frequencies to be avoided

5840455 4 A
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
Soil’s design parameters were taken from ref. /3/; based on the drilled boreholes and excavated trial pit, the
general stratigraphy at the New CS2 Site is listed in the following table.
The ground conditions revealed by the investigation comprise medium dense to very dense sands to the
maximum investigated depth of 20 m bgl. The soils within the upper 4 m bgl is moderately to highly
gypsiferous. Groundwater level was measured at 15 m bgl during the fieldworks activity.
Particular attention must also be given to robust drainage measures in the direct vicinity of foundations to
avoid contact with migrating water or other adverse fluids from the surface. As an added precaution to
reduce potential effects of gypsum dissolution, consideration should be given to minor over-excavation at
the founding depths and replacement with well compacted structural fill with a minimum thickness of 0.3 m
to 0.5 m.

5840455 4 A
5.1 NET ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
The geotechnical report gives following values of the net allowable bearing pressure for shallow foundations.
Table 1. Net allowable bearing pressure at the New SC2 and the Flare area
5.2 MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

The geotechnical report gives following values of the modulus of subgrade reaction (k) for shallow
foundations, which has been evaluated based on the allowable settlements (25 mm considered) for an
applied foundation bearing pressure (qna), that is k = qna/s.

5840455 4 A
Table 2. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction at the New SC2 and the Flare area
The value corresponding to dimensions of the present foundation (B = 3.94 m, L/B = 1.7 and D = 2.20 m) is
equal to 7500 kN/m3 = 0,75 kg/cm3, which is adopted in the finite element model, utilized for the static
calculation of the foundation.
5.3 SOIL DYNAMIC MODULUS

Two downhole seismic tests were performed at boreholes NR-CS4-NEW-BH03 and NR-CS4-NEWBH04 for
assessing dynamically loaded foundations at the new CS2 site.
The shear moduli required to assess dynamically loaded foundations have to be down-graded from the small-
strain moduli listed above, based on soil type and the strain magnitude induced by the dynamic loads. In the
modulus degradation scheme and at this stage of the project, it is recommended to apply a multiplier of
approximately 0.6 (Burland, 1989).
From down-hole tests is results that shear modulus varies with the depth below the ground level. Following
figures show the variation with the depth of P and S waves (km/s), of Poisson’s ratio and of dynamic shear
modulus (GPa).

5840455 4 A
Table 3. Results of the down-hole seismic survey
(from Geotechnical Investigation - North Rumaila LP Compression New CS2 by Fugro)

5840455 4 A
Figure 1. P&S wave velocity (km/h)

5840455 4 A
Figure 2. Shear modulus (MPa)

5840455 4 A
Figure 3. Poisson ratio

5840455 4 A
Average results of the down-hole seismic are listed in the following table.
Table 4. Average results of the down-hole seismic survey
The dynamic shear modulus is assumed as the average of all Gdyn values that have been measured from the
ground level up to 20 m bgl by Fugro during the geotechnical campaign (see reference document [3]). The
average dynamic shear modulus is equal to 384 MPa = 0.384 GPa.
The Poisson ratio has a mean value of 0.38.

Therefore, following values of Gdyn and  are assumed in dynamic calculations :
Gdyn = 384 MPa
 = 0.38

5840455 4 A
6.0 FOUNDATION GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND LOADS
Foundation load data are listed in the document “INCGC001888 - FOUNDATION LOADINGS” by GE.
Loads and Co-ordinates of the equipment (referred to the orthogonal cartesian system XYZ shown in the
sketch below)
P x' y’ z’
EQUIPMENT
(kg) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Motor 10500 4267 -325 0
Gearbox 1100 1752 -245 -45
Compressor 4600 234 0 -7
Base Plate 5900 2552 -352 -1076
Seal Gas Panel 1500 675 -1640 -300
Piping 1500 1800 -100 -800
Total mass 25100
Figure 1. Layout of machines

5840455 4 A
Figure 2. Plan of the foundation with positions of loading plates
Note: Block no. 1 and block no. 2 is only a conventional subdivision of the foundation block to simplify the
subsequent dynamic calculations. Actually, the foundation is formed by a unique foundation block, so
dynamic checks concern the whole dynamic system formed by the foundation block (block no.1 + block no.
2) and the overlying equipment.

5840455 4 A
7.0 EFFORTS EXERTED BY ELEMENTARY LOADING ONTO SUPPORTS
Dead Load of Equipment
Point x’ y’ Force per point
(mm) (mm) Vz (kg)
P1 -200 -1955 -2055
P2 -200 1145 -2094
P3 1175 -1955 -2831
P4 1175 1145 -2460
P5 2550 -1955 -2617
P6 2550 1145 -2847
P7 3925 -1955 -2710
P8 3925 1145 -2955
P9 5300 -1955 -2196
P10 5300 1145 -2335
Nominal torques and short circuit torques
Point x’ y’ Nominal Short circuit

torques torques
(mm) (mm) Vz (kg) Vz1 (kg) Vz2 (kg)
P1 -200 -1955 16 0 0
P2 -200 1145 -16 0 0
P3 1175 -1955 -90 -531 531
P4 1175 1145 90 531 -531
P5 2550 -1955 -46 -111 111
P6 2550 1145 46 111 -111
P7 3925 -1955 60 420 -420
P8 3925 1145 -60 -420 420
P9 5300 -1955 60 420 -420
P10 5300 1145 -60 -420 420
Unbalance at alarm
(mm) (mm) Vy1 (kg) Vy2 (kg) Vz1 (kg) Vz2 (kg)
P1 -200 -1955 188 -188 170 -170
P2 -200 1145 188 -188 -251 251
P3 1175 -1955 254 -254 231 -231
P4 1175 1145 254 -254 -281 281
P5 2550 -1955 211 -211 190 -190
P6 2550 1145 211 -211 -200 200
P7 3925 -1955 145 -145 163 -163
P8 3925 1145 145 -145 -180 180
P9 5300 -1955 145 -145 141 -141
P10 5300 1145 145 -145 -151 151

5840455 4 A
Unbalance at trip

P1 -200 -1955 266 -266 240 -240
P2 -200 1145 266 -266 -354 354
P3 1175 -1955 367 -367 335 -335
P4 1175 1145 367 -367 -406 406
P5 2550 -1955 313 -313 282 -282
P6 2550 1145 313 -313 -297 297
P7 3925 -1955 211 -211 237 -237
P8 3925 1145 211 -211 -262 262
P9 5300 -1955 211 -211 205 -205
P10 5300 1145 211 -211 -220 220
Loads due to seismic (X=0.083g)

(mm) (mm) Vx1 (kg) Vx2 (kg) Vz1 (kg) Vz2 (kg)
P1 -200 -1955 220 -220 305 -322
P2 -200 1145 157 -157 205 -222
P3 1175 -1955 243 -243 -240 252
P4 1175 1145 180 -180 -140 152
P5 2550 -1955 230 -230 139 -216
P6 2550 1145 230 -230 139 -216
P7 3925 -1955 207 -207 92 98
P8 3925 1145 207 -207 92 98
P9 5300 -1955 207 -207 -296 189
P10 5300 1145 207 -207 -296 189
Loads due to seismic (Y=0.083g)

P1 -200 -1955 220 -220 101 -101
P2 -200 1145 157 -157 -101 101
P3 1175 -1955 243 -243 121 -121
P4 1175 1145 180 -180 -121 121
P5 2550 -1955 230 -230 167 -167
P6 2550 1145 230 -230 -167 167
P7 3925 -1955 207 -207 147 -147
P8 3925 1145 207 -207 -147 147
P9 5300 -1955 207 -207 147 -147
P10 5300 1145 207 -207 -147 147

5840455 4 A
Loads due to seismic (Z=0.042g)
(mm) (mm) Vz1 (kg) Vz2 (kg)
P1 -200 -1955 86 -86
P2 -200 1145 87 -87
P3 1175 -1955 118 -118
P4 1175 1145 102 -102
P5 2550 -1955 109 -109
P6 2550 1145 119 -119
P7 3925 -1955 113 -113
P8 3925 1145 123 -123
P9 5300 -1955 91 -91
P10 5300 1145 97 -97
Loads due to wind Y

P1 -200 -1955 363 -363 58 -58
P2 -200 1145 85 -85 -58 58
P3 1175 -1955 388 -388 81 -81
P4 1175 1145 111 -111 -81 81
P5 2550 -1955 224 -224 183 -183
P6 2550 1145 224 -224 -183 183
P7 3925 -1955 198 -198 161 -161
P8 3925 1145 198 -198 -161 161
P9 5300 -1955 198 -198 161 -161
P10 5300 1145 198 -198 -161 161
Loads due to wind X

(mm) (mm) Vx1 (kg) Vx2 (kg) Vz1 (kg) Vz2 (kg)
P1 -200 -1955 159 -159 250 -253
P2 -200 1145 55 -55 83 -87
P3 1175 -1955 220 -220 -125 127
P4 1175 1145 116 -116 42 -39
P5 2550 -1955 184 -184 11 -75
P6 2550 1145 184 -184 11 -75
P7 3925 -1955 122 -122 66 67
P8 3925 1145 122 -122 66 67
P9 5300 -1955 122 -122 -203 134
P10 5300 1145 122 -122 -203 134

5840455 4 A
Here in the following we report the translational and inertial masses of the foundation and machines
evaluated with respect to the reference system whose origin is located at the barycenter of the foundation
base.
As the central principal axes of inertia of the base are only slightly rotated with reference to the longitudinal
and transversal directions of the foundation, they are assumed to be parallel to these directions.
For sake of simplicity, the foundation has been thought as formed by two blocks, as shown in the following
figure.
Figure 3. Schematic subdivision of the foundation into blocks

5840455 4 A
7.1 BLOCK NO. 1
lx = cm 670 ly = cm 394 lz = cm 250
dx = cm 18 dy = cm 24 dz = cm 125
(dx, dy and dz represent distances of the center of gravity of the R/C block from the center of gravity of the
foundation base)
Weight = 164987.5 (kg)
Mass =Weight / 981 = 164987.5 / 981 = 168.183 (kg sec^2 / cm)
Ixx( 1 ) = mass x [(ly^2 + lz^2) / 12 + (dy^2 + dz^2)] =

= 168.183 x [( 394 ^2 + 250 ^2) / 12 +
+ ( 24 ^2 + 125 ^2)] = 5776357 (kg sec^2 cm)
Iyy( 1 ) = mass x [(lx^2 + lz^2) / 12 + (dx^2 + dz^2)] =

= 168.183 x [( 670 ^2 + 250 ^2) / 12 +
+ ( 18 ^2 + 125 ^2)] = 9849748 (kg sec^2 cm)
Izz( 1 ) = mass x [(lx^2 + ly^2) / 12 + (dx^2 + dy^2)] =

= 168.183 x [( 670 ^2 + 394 ^2) / 12 +
+ ( 18 ^2 + 24 ^2)] = 8618481 (kg sec^2 cm)
7.2 BLOCK N. 2
lx = cm 305 ly = cm 95.5 lz = cm 250
Distance of center of gravity with respect to origin the center of base foundation:
dx = cm 164.5 dy = cm 220.75 dz = cm 125
(dx, dy and dz represent distances of the center of gravity of the R/C block from the center of gravity of the
foundation base)
Weight = 18204.69 (kg)
Mass = Weight/ 981 = 18204.69 / 981 = 18.55728 (kg sec^2 / cm)
Ixx( 2 ) = mass x [(ly^2 + lz^2) / 12 + (dy^2 + dz^2)] =
= 18.55728 x [( 95.5 ^2 + 250 ^2) / 12 +
+ ( 220.75 ^2 + 125 ^2)] = 1305020 (kg sec^2 cm)
Iyy( 2 ) = mass x [(lx^2 + lz^2) / 12 + (dx^2 + dz^2)] =
= 18.55728 x [( 305 ^2 + 250 ^2) / 12 +

5840455 4 A
+ ( 164.5 ^2 + 125 ^2)] = 1032632 (kg sec^2 cm)
Izz( 2 ) = mass x [(lx^2 + ly^2) / 12 + (dx^2 + dy^2)] =
= 18.55728 x [( 305 ^2 + 95.5 ^2) / 12 +
+ ( 164.5 ^2 + 220.75 ^2)] = 1564433 (kg sec^2 cm)
7.3 COMPRESSOR
Weight = 25100 (kg)
Mass = Weight / 981 = 25100 / 981 = 25.58614 (kg sec2 / cm)
Ixx( 1 ) = 2226439 (kg sec2 cm)
Iyy( 1 ) = 2496757 (kg sec2 cm)
Izz( 1 ) = 1524929 (kg sec2 cm)
These values are obtained considering n concentrated masses mi corresponding to the dead weight of the
machine onto supports; then, the contribution to Ixx, Iyy and Izz of each mass mi is calculated as the product of
mi by its distance squared from the gravity center of the foundation base.
7.4 LUBE OIL SYSTEM

Weight = 1962 (kg)
Mass = Weight / 981 = 1962 / 981 = 2 (kg sec2 / cm)
Ixx( 2 ) = 210314.5 (kg sec2 cm)
Iyy( 2 ) = 199211.3 (kg sec2 cm)
Izz( 2 ) = 159525.8 (kg sec2 cm)
These values are obtained considering n concentrated masses mi corresponding to the dead weight of the
machine onto supports; then, the contribution to Ixx, Iyy and Izz of each mass mi is calculated as the product of
mi by its distance squared from the gravity center of the foundation base.

5840455 4 A
Inertial characteristics of the system foundation+machinery
Mass Ixx Iyy Izz

(kg s2/cm) (kg s2 cm) (kg s2 cm) (kg s2 cm)
Block no. 1 2.558614E+01 2.226439E+06 2.496757E+06 1.524929E+06
Block no. 2 2.000000E+00 2.103145E+05 1.992113E+05 1.595258E+05
Compressor 1.681830E+02 5.776357E+06 9.849748E+06 8.618481E+06
Lube-oil system 1.855728E+01 1.305020E+06 1.032632E+06 1.564433E+06
Total values 2.143264E+02 9.518131E+06 1.357835E+07 1.186737E+07

5840455 4 A
8.0 MODAL ANALYSIS
The dynamic stiffnesses of the foundation have been calculated assuming that the foundation is infinitely
rigid compared to the soil see ref. /7/.
8.1 RADII OF THE EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR FOOTING

Subsequent formulas are taken from :
Arya, C., Drewyer, R.P. & Pincus, G., "Foundation Design for Reciprocating Compressors", Hydrocarbon
Processing, May 1977
- Vertical translation
Rv = (area / 3.14159) ^ 0.5 =
= ( 293108 / 3.14159 ) ^ 0.5 = 305,45 (cm)
- Horizontal translation
Rh = (area / 3.14159) ^ 0.5 =
= ( 293108 / 3.14159 ) ^ 0.5 = 305,45 (cm)
- Rotation around x axis (rocking)

Rro = (4 Jx / 3.14159) ^ 0.25 =
= ( 4 x 4,79 · 109 / 3.14159) ^ 0.25 = 279,45 (cm)
- Rotation around y axis (pitching)

Rpi = (4 Jy / 3.14159) ^ 0.25 =
= ( 4 x 1,12 · 1010 / 3.14159) ^ 0.25 = 345,57 (cm)
- Rotation around z axis (torsion)

Rto = [(2 Jx + 2 Jy) / 3.14159] ^ 0.25 =
= [(2 x 4,79 · 109 + 2 x 1,12 · 1010) / 3.14159] ^ 0.25 = 317,64 (cm)

5840455 4 A
8.2 DYNAMIC STIFFNESSES
Subsequent formulas are taken from :
Arya, C., Drewyer, R.P. & Pincus, G., "Foundation Design for Reciprocating Compressors", Hydrocarbon
Processing, May 1977
Kv = 4 x G x Rv x Etav / (1 - ni) =
= 4 x 3840 x 305.45 x 1 / (1 - 0.38 ) = 7567277 (kg/cm)
Kh = 32 x (1 - ni) x G x Rh x Etah / (7 - 8 x ni) =
= 32 x (1 - 0.38 ) x 3840 x 305.45 x 1 / (7 - 8 x 0.38 ) = 5876488 (kg/cm)
- Rocking
Kro = 8 x G x Rro ^ 3 x Etaro / (3 x (1 - ni))=
= 8 x 3840 x 279.45 ^ 3 x 1 / (3 x (1 - 0.38 )) = 3.60430E+11 (kgcm/rad)
- Pitching
Kpi = 8 x G x Rpi ^ 3 x Etapi / (3 x (1 - ni))=
= 8 x 3840 x 345.57 ^ 3 x 1 / (3 x (1 - 0.38 )) = 6.8158E+11 (kgcm/rad)
- Torsion
Kto = 16 x G x Rto ^ 3 / 3 =
= 16 x 3840 x 317.64 ^ 3 / 3 = 6.56350E+11 (kgcm/rad)

5840455 4 A
8.3 EIGENFREQUENCIES
Subsequent formulas are taken from Chopra, Dynamics of Structures, Ed. Prentice Hall) .
Fv = (Kv / M)^0.5 x 60 / (2 x 3.14159) =
= (7567277 / 214.3264)^0.5 x 60 / (2 x 3.14159) = 1794 (RPM)
Fh = (Kh / M)^0.5 x 60 / (2 x 3.14159) =
= (5876488 / 214.3264)^0.5 x 60 / (2 x 3.14159) = 1581 (RPM)
- Rocking
Fro = (Kro / Ixx)^0.5 x 60 / (2 x 3.14159) =
= (3.6043E+11 / 9.518131E+06)^0.5 x 60 / (2 x 3.14159) = 1858 (RPM)
- Pitching
Fpi = (Kpi / Iyy)^0.5 x 60 / (2 x 3.14159) =
= (6.8158E+11 / 1.357835E+07)^0.5 x 60 / (2 x 3.14159) = 2139 (RPM)
- Torsion
Fto = (Kto / Izz)^0.5 x 60 / (2 x 3.14159) =
= (6.56350E+11 / 1.186737E+07)^0.5 x 60 / (2 x 3.14159) = 2246 (RPM)
All the eigenfrequencies are outer of the range (+ 20 %) ÷ (- 20 %) of the nominal frequencies of the machinery
(see reference /4/):
2388 3582 13186 19778
 frequencies to be avoided

5840455 4 A
8.4 AMPLIFICATION FACTORS
The displacement amplification factors are given by the following expression
(see Chopra, Dynamics of Structures, Ed. Prentice Hall) :
1
A
2
  f 2   2
1   m     2  D  f m 
  f n    f n 
 
The values of A have been obtained adopting a damping ratio equal to 0.05.
Amplification factors
Operating 2985 16482
Frequency RPM RPM
Avertical 0,469 0,011
Ahorizontal 0,374 0,009

Arocking 0,521 0,011
Apitching 0,829 0,015
Atorsion 1,286 0,019

5840455 4 A
9.0 DYNAMIC DISPLACEMENTS
Dynamic displacements are calculated assuming that dynamic forces on the compressor side rotate at 16482
RPM, while those on the motor side rotate at 2985 RPM.
9.1 DYNAMIC DISPLACEMENTS
support Fy Fz x y z Mx My Mz
pad (kg) (kg) (cm) (cm) (cm) (kgcm) (kgcm) (kgcm)
v () w ()
P1 188 170 -308,1 -179,3 250 77485 -52383 57930

P2 188 -251 -308,1 130,7 250 79800 77342 57930
P3 254 231 -170,6 -179,3 250 104923 -39417 43342
P4 254 -281 -170,6 130,7 250 100221 47949 43342
16482
RPM 884 -131 362429 33491 202542 0,034 0,038
P5 211 190 -33,1 -179,3 250 86821 -6296 6992

P6 211 -200 -33,1 130,7 250 78886 6627 6992
P7 145 163 104,4 -179,3 250 65479 17011 -15133
P8 145 -180 104,4 130,7 250 59772 -18786 -15133
P9 145 141 241,9 -179,3 250 61534 34103 -35070
P10 145 -151 241,9 130,7 250 55982 -36521 -35070
2985
RPM 1002 -37 408475 -3861 -86423 1,482 -0,049
1,515 -0,011

5840455 4 A
- Vertical displacement
(see P.J. Moore, Analysis and design of foundations for vibrations, Ed. A.A. Balkema)
 V M ly M lx 
v   Av   Aro  x   Api  y    1.515 
 Kv K ro 2 K pi 2 

- Horizontal displacement
(see P.J. Moore, Analysis and design of foundations for vibrations, Ed. A.A. Balkema)
H M  lx  2  ly  2 
u  Ah   Ato  z         0.011
Kh K to  2   2  
the total displacement is:

d = 1.52 ,
which is lower than the dynamic limits listed in Document INCGC001888, (ref. /4/), reported in the following:

5840455 4 A
10.0 STATIC CALCULATION
The stress calculation of the foundation has been performed with the F.E. technique using the computer code
SAP2000 ref./8/. The foundation slab and the overlying blocks have been discretized into 9828 three-
dimensional finite elements (“solid”), taking into account the different thicknesses. The soil has been
schematized with vertical springs, whose stiffnesses have been calculated using the value of the subgrade
modulus reported in section 5.
The joints coordinates in the finite elements model have been assigned in a right-hand global reference
system with X axis parallel to the longitudinal compressor axis (rocking axis), Z axis is vertical ascendant and
Y axis is defined consequently.
Each solid has a right-hand local reference system defined as follows: local axis 1 is parallel and concordant
to X global axis, local axis 2 is parallel and concordant to Y global axis and local axis 3 is parallel and concordant
to Z global axis.
Units of measure employed are:
length time weight

cm sec kg
View from below of the F.E. model of the foundation (to notice springs representing soil)

5840455 4 A
F.E. model of the foundation (with dead weight of equipments)
F.E. model of the foundation (with nominal torques of equipments)

5840455 4 A
F.E. model of the foundation (with short-circuit torques)
F.E. model of the foundation (with seismic_Y loads)

5840455 4 A
F.E. model of the foundation (with seismic_Z loads)
F.E. model of the foundation (with wind_Y loads)

5840455 4 A
F.E. model of the foundation (with loads due to unbalance at alarm)
F.E. model of the foundation (with loads due to unbalance at trip)

5840455 4 A
The Annex contains the input file used for the stress calculation of the foundation.
The following load cases have been taken into account:
LOAD CASES
ID LOAD CASE DESCRIPTION
1. DEAD DEAD WEIGHT OF THE FOUNDATION
2. EQUIPMENTS DEAD WEIGHTS OF EQUIPMENTS
3. NOMINAL_TORQUES NOMINAL COUPLES OF THE COMPRESSOR
4. SHORT_CIRCUIT_TORQUES NOMINAL COUPLES DUE TO SHORT CIRCUIT
5. SEISMIC_Y EARTHQUAKE IN THE Y-DIRECTION
6. SEISMIC_Z EARTHQUAKE IN THE Z-DIRECTION
7. WIND_Y WIND IN THE Y-DIRECTION
8. UNBALANCE_AT_TRIP UNBALANCE_AT_TRIP
The above mentioned load cases have been combined as listed beneath, according to ACI code.
LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR SOIL CHECK

Following load combinations have been considered. They are consistent with design premises .
ID LOAD CASE 1A 2A 3A 4A
1. DEAD 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
2. MACHINES 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
3. TORQUE_LOADS 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
4. SHORT CIRCUIT 1.0
5. UNBALANCE_AT_TRIP 1.0
6. WIND 1.0
7. SEISMIC 1.0
UNBALANCE_AT_TRIP
LOAD COMBINATION
SHORT CIRCUIT
EARTHQUAKE
MEANING
WIND

5840455 4 A
LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR REINFORCEMENT DESIGN AND CONCRETE CHECK
ID LOAD CASE 1B 2B 3B 4B
1. DEAD 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
2. MACHINES 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
TORQUE_LOA
3. DS 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
SHORT
4. CIRCUIT 1.0
UNBALANCE_
5. AT_TRIP 1.0
6. WIND 1.0
7. SEISMIC 1.0
UNBALANCE_AT_TRIP
LOAD COMBINATION
SHORT CIRCUIT
EARTHQUAKE
MEANING
WIND
The load condition no. 2 (“EQUIPMENTS”) allows to check the static limit reported in /4/ at Section 0:
“The differential settlings of the supporting structure shall be limited so that the resulting deformation under
the gear supports remains less lower the allowable tolerance to insure the quality of the gear tooth contact
pattern 0,02 mm/m of parallelism gap between the gear supports.”
The maximum displacement is exhibited by the support pad P1 and is equal to 1.43 mm, while the minimum
of 1.09 mm is exhibited by the support pad P10; the maximum differential displacement is:
sd = (1.43 – 1.09) = 0.34 mm
moreover, being the distance between support pads P1 and P10 equal to 6313 mm, the static limit is equal
to:
0.34 / 6.313 = 0.054 mm/m << 0.2 mm/m. → CHECK SATISFIED

5840455 4 A
Following table lists vertical displacements of all support pads in the load combination “EQUIPMENTS” .
TABLE: Joint Displacements

Joint OutputCase U1 U2 U3
Text Text mm mm mm
P1 EQUIPMENTS -0,101589 -0,109334 -1,433221
P2 EQUIPMENTS -0,100395 -0,020046 -1,279775
P3 EQUIPMENTS -0,062089 -0,109454 -1,388287
P4 EQUIPMENTS -0,060806 -0,02018 -1,233322
P5 EQUIPMENTS -0,022512 -0,109392 -1,339356
P6 EQUIPMENTS -0,021284 -0,020082 -1,186376
P7 EQUIPMENTS 0,017066 -0,109271 -1,29154
P8 EQUIPMENTS 0,01806 -0,019973 -1,138399
P9 EQUIPMENTS 0,056747 -0,109169 -1,241175
P10 EQUIPMENTS 0,05763 -0,019969 -1,087786

5840455 4 A
10.1 STRESSES IN THE FOUNDATION
The following figures show the distribution of stresses in the foundation under the load combinations 4B.
Stresses s11 (N/mm2) – Load Combination 4B

5840455 4 A

5840455 4 A
11.0 DESIGN OF REINFORCEMENT AND CONCRETE STRESS CHECK
In safety the strength checks have been performed taking into account only the upper and lower
reinforcement layers, neglecting the intermediate layers.
The flexural strength is evaluated making the following assumptions:

a) plane sections before bending remain plane after bending
b) the stress-strain curve for the steel is elasto-plastic
c) the tensile strength of the concrete can be neglected
d) compressive stresses in the concrete are derived using the simplified stress block shown in the following
figure:
In the longitudinal direction the upper and the lower reinforcement layers are formed by #6 / 20":
As(upper long.) = 20 / 20" = 314  20 = 6280 mm2
As(lower long.) = 20 / 20" = 314  20 = 6280 mm2
In the transversal direction the upper and the lower reinforcement layers are formed by #5 / 20":
As(upper transv.) = 16 / 20" = 201  34 = 6834 mm2
As(lower transv.) = 16 / 20" = 201  34 = 6834 mm2

5840455 4 A
11.1 TRANSVERSAL SECTION
Section Height Width V M

no. (cm) (cm) (kg) (kgm)
2 transv. 250 394 7150 5400
Flexural strength
In safety, the compression steel is neglected in the calculation of the flexural strength; if the tension steel is
yielding, the resultant internal forces are:
compression in the concrete: C = 0,85 f’c a b
tension in the steel: T = As fy
where As is the area of the tension steel; f’c is the compressive cylinder strength of the concrete (25 N/mm2);
fy is the yield strength of the steel (413 N/mm2);
for equilibrium:
C–T=0
0,85 f’c a b = As fy
As f y 6280  413
a   24.98 mm
0.85  f 'c b 0.85  31 3940
the corresponding steel strain is equal to:
d c 0.85  d  a 0.85  2400  24.98 413
 s  0.003   0.003   0.003   0.242   0.002
c a 24.98 200000
hence the tension steel is yielding, as assumed above;
finally, the flexural strength is equal to:
 a  24.98 
M u  As f y   d    6280  413   2400    6.192 10 Nmm  6192 kNm  619200 kgm
9
 2  2 
assuming a strength reduction factor of 0.9 (as prescribed by ACI): the flexural strength is 5573 kNm = 557300
kgm, which is much higher than the design bending moment (5400 kgm). → CHECK SATISFIED
The adopted reinforcement gives a steel ratio equal to :
22534 / (4895 x 2500) = 0.184 %
is higher than the minimum amount prescribed by ACI 318:
ACI 318-14 Section 24.4.3 (ACI 318-11 Section 7.12.2.1) stipulates that the minimum steel ratio for Grade 60
steel is .0018.

5840455 4 A
Shear strength
Vu = 7150 kg = 71500 N
Shear Strength: 0.75 Vn  0.75  Vc  Vs 

where:
Vc  2  f ' c bw d (nominal shear strength provided by the concrete, f’c in psi)
Vc  0.166  f 'c bwd  0.166  31  3940  2400  8739697 N (f’c in N/mm2)
Av  f y  d
Vs  (nominal shear strength provided by the shear reinforcement when shear reinforcement
s
is perpendicular to the axis of member Vs)
where:
• bw is web width;
• d is distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement.
• Av is shear area reinforcement within a distance s.
0.75  Vc  0.75  8739697

Vu    3277386 N → CHECK SATISFIED (the minimum area of shear
2 2
reinforcement is not required).
11.2 CHECK OF SOIL PRESSURE

The maximum soil pressure is calculated from the maximum displacement obtained from the F.E. analysis in
load combinations no. 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A.
The maximum soil pressure is equal to:
pmax,soil = 0.72 kg/cm2 = 0.072 MPa = 72 kPa
which is lower than the allowable bearing pressure, which holds 185 for B/L = 2, Df = 2.0 m and B = 3.0 m
(see Section 5.0 “Geotechnical parameters” above) → CHECK SATISFIED.

5840455 4 A
11.3 STATIC CHECK
Foundation weight to machine weight: 183192 / 27062 = 6,77 >> 3 (value adopted for centrifugal compressor)
% of foundation area below the finished ground level = 100 %
11.4 CHECK OF ANCHOR BOLTS
The maximum compression load on the grout layer is equal to:
F1 = 13700 + 531 = 14231 daN = 142,31 kN
Considering a diffusion at 45° from the tightening nut (45 mm x 50 mm), the corresponding maximum
compression stress on the concrete top surface (which lies at 50 mm below the steel skid) is equal to:
c = 142310 / (95 x 95) = 16 N/mm2
which is only half the concrete strength of 31 N/mm2.

5840455 4 A
12.0 ANNEX
Table: Joint Loads – Force
Joint LoadPat CoordSys F1 F2 F3
Kgf Kgf Kgf
P1 EQUIPMENTS GLOBAL 0,00 0,00 -2055,00
P1 NOMINAL_TORQUES GLOBAL 0,00 0,00 16,00
P1 UNBALANCE_AT_ALARM GLOBAL 0,00 188,00 170,00
P1 UNBALANCE_AT_TRIP GLOBAL 0,00 266,00 240,00
P1 SEISMIC_Y GLOBAL 0,00 220,00 101,00
P1 SEISMIC_Z GLOBAL 0,00 0,00 -86,00
P1 WIND_Y GLOBAL 0,00 363,00 58,00
P1 WIND_X GLOBAL 159,00 0,00 0,00
P1 WIND_X GLOBAL 0,00 0,00 250,00
P2 NOMINAL_TORQUES GLOBAL 0,00 0,00 -16,00
P2 UNBALANCE_AT_ALARM GLOBAL 0,00 188,00 -251,00
P2 UNBALANCE_AT_TRIP GLOBAL 0,00 266,00 -354,00
P2 SEISMIC_Y GLOBAL 0,00 157,00 -101,00
P2 WIND_Y GLOBAL 0,00 85,00 -58,00
P2 WIND_X GLOBAL 55,00 0,00 0,00
P2 WIND_X GLOBAL 0,00 0,00 83,00
P4 SHORT_CIRCUIT_TORQUES GLOBAL 0,00 0,00 531,00
P4 WIND_Y GLOBAL 0,00 111,00 -81,00
P4 WIND_X GLOBAL 116,00 0,00 0,00
P4 WIND_X GLOBAL 0,00 0,00 42,00
P6 WIND_Y GLOBAL 0,00 224,00 -183,00
P6 WIND_X GLOBAL 184,00 0,00 0,00
P6 WIND_X GLOBAL 0,00 0,00 11,00
P3 SHORT_CIRCUIT_TORQUES GLOBAL 0,00 0,00 -531,00
P3 WIND_Y GLOBAL 0,00 388,00 81,00
P3 WIND_X GLOBAL 220,00 0,00 0,00
P3 WIND_X GLOBAL 0,00 0,00 -125,00
5840455 4 A
Joint LoadPat CoordSys F1 F2 F3
Kgf Kgf Kgf
P5 WIND_Y GLOBAL 0,00 224,00 183,00
P5 WIND_X GLOBAL 184,00 0,00 0,00
P5 WIND_X GLOBAL 0,00 0,00 11,00
24045 EQUIPMENTS GLOBAL 0,00 0,00 -327,00
P8 WIND_Y GLOBAL 0,00 198,00 -161,00
P8 WIND_X GLOBAL 122,00 0,00 0,00
P8 WIND_X GLOBAL 0,00 0,00 66,00
P7 WIND_Y GLOBAL 0,00 198,00 161,00
P7 WIND_X GLOBAL 122,00 0,00 0,00
P7 WIND_X GLOBAL 0,00 0,00 66,00
P10 WIND_Y GLOBAL 0,00 198,00 -161,00
P10 WIND_X GLOBAL 122,00 0,00 0,00
P10 WIND_X GLOBAL 0,00 0,00 -203,00
P9 WIND_Y GLOBAL 0,00 198,00 161,00
P9 WIND_X GLOBAL 122,00 0,00 0,00
P9 WIND_X GLOBAL 0,00 0,00 -203,00

5840455 4 A
Table: Load Case Definitions
Case DesignType
DEAD DEAD
MODAL OTHER
EQUIPMENTS SUPER DEAD
SEISMIC_Y QUAKE
WIND_Y WIND
NOMINAL_TORQUES LIVE
SHORT_CIRCUIT_TORQUES LIVE
SEISMIC_Z QUAKE
UNBALANCE_AT_ALARM LIVE
UNBALANCE_AT_TRIP LIVE
WIND_X WIND

5840455 4 A

Revision History: Rev - Date Description Prepared Verified Approved

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revision History: Rev - Date Description Prepared Verified Approved

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NORTH RUMAILA NCS2 PHASE 2 COMPRESSION STATION

03C 24 JAN 18 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION BHGE

NORTH RUMAILA NCS2 PHASE 2

-Electronically Approved Drawing-Checked:Mellace, E.,Approved:Ricci, A.- Internal DT-'N'

6516 GENP C002 ISGP U40300 CX 1206 00001 1/45

01R 14-DEC-2017 Issued for review

02R 10-JAN-2018 Issued for review

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

1.0 SCOPE __________________________________________________________________________________ 3

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

2.0 DESIGN CODES AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

/4/ NP-GE Document INCGC001888 - FOUNDATION LOADINGS (DS2 & DS5)

/5/ IPL GC001888 - Civil Works Drawing (DS2 & DS5)

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

3.2 STEEL REINFORCEMENT

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

4.1 LOADS ACTING ON THE FOUNDATION

Combinations of loads are listed in the section “Static calculation” (par.10.0).

4.2 STATIC LIMITS

4.3 DYNAMIC LIMITS

fn < 0.80 fe and fn > 1.20 fe

where fn = natural frequency of the foundation,

2388 3582 13186 19778

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

5.2 MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

5.3 SOIL DYNAMIC MODULUS

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

(from Geotechnical Investigation - North Rumaila LP Compression New CS2 by Fugro)

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

Table 4. Average results of the down-hole seismic survey

(from Geotechnical Investigation - North Rumaila LP Compression New CS2 by Fugro)

The Poisson ratio has a mean value of 0.38.

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

Figure 1. Layout of machines

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

Nominal torques and short circuit torques

Point x’ y’ Nominal Short circuit

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

Point x’ y’ Force per point

Loads due to seismic (X=0.083g)

Loads due to seismic (Y=0.083g)

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

Loads due to wind Y

Loads due to wind X

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

Figure 3. Schematic subdivision of the foundation into blocks

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

Ixx( 1 ) = mass x [(ly^2 + lz^2) / 12 + (dy^2 + dz^2)] =

Iyy( 1 ) = mass x [(lx^2 + lz^2) / 12 + (dx^2 + dz^2)] =

Izz( 1 ) = mass x [(lx^2 + ly^2) / 12 + (dx^2 + dy^2)] =

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

7.4 LUBE OIL SYSTEM

TITLE: DOCUMENT CODE REVISION

Mass Ixx Iyy Izz

Block no. 1 2.558614E+01 2.226439E+06 2.496757E+06 1.524929E+06

Block no. 2 2.000000E+00 2.103145E+05 1.992113E+05 1.595258E+05

Compressor 1.681830E+02 5.776357E+06 9.849748E+06 8.618481E+06