Ta-93-1 Reciprocating Compressor Foundations Loading, Design Analysis, Monitoring & Repair

Report No.
TA 93-1
TECHNOLOGY
ASSESSMENT
RECIPROCATING COMPRESSOR
FOUNDATIONS:
LOADING, DESIGN ANALYSIS,
MONITORING & REPAIR
By
A. J. Smalley
J. S. Mandke
P. J. Pantermuehl
R. D. Drummond
Mechanical and Fluids Engineering Division

Southwest Research Institute
December 1993
This document contains information resulting from a cooperative research
effort. The contents hereof are only intended to be guidelines for the subject
matter to which the document pertains. Neither Southern Gas Association
nor the Gas Machinery Research Council make any warranty or
representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy,
completeness or usefulness of the information contained in this document,
including, without limitation, implied warranties of merchantability and
fitness for a particular purpose, or that the use of any method, suggestion,
technology, information or guidelines disclosed herein may not infringe on
rights owned or claimed by others. In no event will Southern Gas
Association or the Gas Machinery Research Council be liable for any
damages, including, without limitation, liability arising out of contract,
negligence, strict liability, environmental or tort, warranty or copyright
infringement, or any incidental or consequential damage arising out of the
use of this Report. The user assumes any liability with respect to any
methods, suggestions, technology, guidelines or other information
contained herein and releases Southern Gas Association and the Gas
Machinery Research Council from any and all damage, loss or injury having
to do with use of any such methods, suggestions, technology, guidelines or
other such information.
This document may contain references to product(s) which may assist in

achieving one or more guidelines as may be set forth herein. Such
references are not intended to constitute endorsement or criticism of any
such product(s) by the Gas Machinery Research Council or Southwest
Research Institute. Any attempted use of this Report, or its contents, by
anyone, as an endorsement or criticism of any such product(s) is expressly
prohibited. Neither this Report or its contents may be used for any
advertising purposes whatsoever.
GMRC PURPOSE
The Gas Machinery Research Council provides member companies and industry with
the benefits of an applied research and technology program directed toward improving
reliability and cost effectiveness of the design, construction, and operation of
mechanical and fluid systems.
For additional copies of this report, please contact:
Marsha Short
Director, Member Services
Gas Machinery Research Council
3030 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300, L.B. 60
Dallas, TX 75234
Telephone (972) 620-4024
FAX (972) 620-8518
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This technology assessment covers topics pertinent to the design, analysis,

condition monitoring, and repair of reciprocating compressor foundations. It first
addresses the loads to which a compressor block is exposed, the implications of these
loads, and important considerations in analyzing them. It shows, for tie-down design and
block stress analysis, how inertia and gas forces should be considered as individual forces
acting at each main bearing - not as total forces and moments for the unit; it also emphasizes
the significance of designing and monitoring anchor bolt tension, so as to hold the
compressor under these forces, and to monitor block integrity. The different loads, their
implications, and procedures for managing them are summarized in a table.
The document then addresses stress analysis of the block, and use of a state-of-the-
art finite element to calculate stresses in concrete and rebar, and the extent of regions
subject to cracking under excess tension. It shows that this element (which uses
incremented loading to address nonlinear effects of crack development) can be effectively
used in design analysis to minimize the potential for concrete cracking.
The technology assessment then presents data documenting how block condition
influences frame vibration. For a series of similar compressors, it shows how peak-to-
peak frame vibration at a single outboard bearing correlates well with block conditions.
The data supports use of regular vibration checking as a condition monitoring technique.
In addition, the document shows conceptually how alignment could be monitored using
fluid level probes. The importance of a regular anchor bolt checking in a meaningful block
condition monitoring program is emphasized.
The technology assessment finally addresses alternative methods of partial block

removal, considering jack hammers, expansion compounds, wire saws, shape memory
materials, hydraulic splitters, water jets, and explosives. It presents important
considerations in selecting these techniques.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. RECIPROCATING COMPRESSOR LOADS: THE

INTERACTION OF COMPRESSOR AND FOUNDATION 4
A. Overview 4
Gravity Loads 6
Anchor Bolt Loads 7
Drive Torque Loads 12
Dynamic Reciprocating and Rotating Inertia Forces in the
Horizontal Plane 13
Horizontal Gas Loads 18
Vertical Gas Loads 20
Vertical Inertia Loads 22
B. Interaction of Dynamic Loads and Block-Soil Dynamic
Response 23
Thermal Loads 24
Loss of Block Integrity 27
C. Summary 28
D. References 30
III. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE BLOCKS 31
A. Introduction 31
B. FEM for Reinforced Concrete 31
C. ANSYS Model of Foundation Block 32
Example Problems 34
D. References 41
IV. CONDITION MONITORING AND ASSOCIATED

INSTRUMENTATION 42
A. Introduction 42
B. Preliminary Evaluation of Vibration as a Basis for Block
Condition Assessment 44
C. Data Reduction 45
D. Animated Displays 45
E. Direct Measures Based on Full Vibration Records 54
F. Discussion of Vibration Results 56
G. Alignment Monitoring 62
H. Reference 67
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
V. A REVIEW OF BLOCK REMOVAL METHODS 68
A. Demolition Hammers 68
B. Diamond Wire Saw 69
C. Hydraulic Splitters 72
D. Expansive Demolition Agents 75
E. Shape Memory Materials 77
F. Explosives 78
G. Water Jets 79
H. References 80
v
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
II-1 Multiple Jack Bolt Torque Nut 9
II-2 Photograph Showing Head of Torque Nut with Multiple

Jack Bolts; Also Illustrating Expansion Joints 10
II-3 Distorted Compressor Shape Every 30° of Crankshaft

Rotation - Plan View - Level of Bearing Centerline -
Eight Cylinders Horizontally Opposed High Pressure
(“Hyper”) Compressor 15
II-4 3-D Animated Display of Frame and Block Distortion

Transmission Compressor with Deteriorated Foundation
Block 16
II-5 Illustration of Variation of Maximum Tie-Down Forces

with Frame Flexibility Factor, KS - KS = Ratio of Frame
to Support Flexibility 17
II-6 Measured Influence of Gas Discharge Pressure on Main

Bearing Misalignment for a High Pressure Compressor:
4,000 PSI (27.6 MPA); 14,500 PSI (100 MPA); 25,000
PSI (173 MPA) 21
II-7 Run 2 Temperatures at Bearing 5 and in Sump as a

Function of Time from Start of Run - Full Bed Grout -
HBA-8 25
II-8 Run 2 Temperatures in Block as a Function of Time from

Start of Run - Full Bed Grout - HBA-8 26
III-1 Finite Element Model of Foundation Block 36
III-2 Concrete Elements Cracked at First Integration Point 37
III-3 Cracked Concrete Region in the Block 38
III-4 Rebar Stresses 39
IV-1 GMV Compressor - One of the Four Tested for Vibration

Effects of Block Condition 46
IV-2 Instrumentation for Block/Frame Vibration Analysis 47
IV-3 Encoder Used to Trigger Data Acquisition at 512 Counts

Per Revolution 48
IV-4 Unfiltered Vibration vs. Shaft Angle 49
vi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
(continued)
Figure Page
IV-5 Vibration vs. Shaft Angle from TDC Cylinder 1, for 6

Bearings at Shaft Centerline Level (F-Number Equals
Bearing Number) 50
IV-6 Unit W7 - 3-D Animated Display 51
IV-7 Unit N5 - 3-D Animated Display 52
IV-8 Unit W6 - 3-D Animated Display 53
IV-9 Comparison of Relative and Absolute Vibration Measures

on Centerline - Base and Foundation 55
IV-10 Bearing Peak-Peak Vibration at Bearing Centerline as a

Function of Bearing Number and Unit 57
IV-11 Bearing Peak-Peak Vibration at Compressor Base as a

IV-12 Bearing Peak-Peak Vibration at Top of Block as a Function

of Bearing Number and Unit 59
IV-13 Vertical Peak-Peak Vibration at Compressor Base as a

IV-14 Vertical Peak-Peak Vibration on Foundation as a Function

of Bearing Number and Unit 61
IV-15 ADE Probes for Compressor Alignment Monitoring 64
IV-16a Vertical Distortion of Bearing 5 Relative to a Line Jointed

Bearings 1 and 9 (Chock Mount Test) 66
IV-16b Variation of Ambient Temperature (Chock Mount Test) 66
V-1 Typical Wire Saw Configuration 71
V-2 Downward Wedge Hydraulic Splitter 73
V-3 Upward Wedge Hydraulic Splitter 74
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
II-1 Summary of Compressor Loads 28
III-1 Foundation Block Parameters 35
III-2 Static Shaking Forces on the Block 40
IV-1 Relative Condition of Blocks 45
viii
I. INTRODUCTION
Reciprocating compressors are the workhorse of the United States gas transmission
network. They are also widely used in gas gathering, gas processing, gas storage,
chemical, and refining applications. Most of the larger low speed compressor models are
mounted on concrete foundation blocks. Reciprocating compressors rely on the foundation
to locate the compressor, to carry its weight, to maintain its alignment, and to assist in
carrying the dynamic loads which every reciprocating compressor generates. The
nationwide fleet of reciprocating compressors in active use today varies in age from
recently installed to 30, 40, and 50 years old or more. For new compressors, there is a
need for effective design technology to ensure that the foundation, as designed and
installed, performs the required functions, and maintains its integrity. There is also a need
to maximize the life of the compressor foundation under the loads to which it is exposed.
For old foundations, there is a need for technology to help assess the condition of the
foundation, and its ability to perform required functions. There is a further need for
guidance in prioritizing deteriorated foundation blocks in terms of urgency of repair. On
those blocks selected for repair, there is a need for effective block removal methods. There
is a need for criteria for the extent of concrete to be removed, and there is a need for design
technology adapted to the particular requirements of block repair so that products such as
epoxy grout and chock mounts can be effectively integrated into the repaired block.
This report presents a start on meeting these needs in selected areas. It is

predominately a technology assessment report, based on work undertaken in the 1992-93
PCRC research year, and on relevant information generated by past PCRC research or
available in the open literature.
The report addresses the following topics:
• Compressor loading,
• Finite element technology for reinforced concrete,
• Condition monitoring and associated instrumentation, and
• Block removal methods.
1
The section on Compressor Loading identifies the various loads to which a
compressor and its foundation block are exposed, and the limitations in the state-of-the-art
as generally practiced in management of these loads. It illustrates some of the
consequences of not fully addressing these loads, and provides some guidance as to
approaches for better management of these loads. In designing a reciprocating compressor
block, a fundamental need is to know the loads to be managed. Equally important, then is
to design a mounting and clamping system to maintain integrity of frame-blade connection,
and a block which will not crack if properly maintained and monitored. This section
includes at its end a table which summarizes the different loads, their implications and
procedures for design and analysis.
The section on Finite Element Technology for Reinforced Concrete provides some
preliminary evaluation of a finite element, available in the ANSYS Commercial Finite
Element Package, for application to reciprocating compressor foundations. This element
has capabilities to account for different strengths in compression and tension, and for the
presence of steel reinforcement in the form of rebar. It is a nonlinear element which
establishes regions of cracking incrementally. This section shows how this element can be
used to build a model of a concrete block foundation, and to evaluate stresses and areas for
potential cracking, as a result of locally applied loads by the compressor frame to the block.
This initial evaluation will form the basis for a more extensive parametric study in future
PCRC research.
The section on Condition Monitoring and Associated Instrumentation addresses the

problem of evaluating severity and significance of the foundation block deterioration, and
of monitoring, using vibration measurements. It also describes and illustrates a concept for
convenient monitoring of alignment changes over extended periods of a machines
operational life. This particular concept is based on a fluid level sensor which monitors
changes in alignment at different points on the block relative to a single fluid level
maintained between the transducer locations. The concept has been used with success on
turbomachinery.
The section on Block Removal Methods describes and reviews various current or
candidate methods, for use in reciprocating compressor block partial removal and repair.
The methods range from diamond saws to shape memory materials. This section presents,
2
for advanced methods, the nature of the concept and the factors to be considered in
applying it to block removal in reciprocating compressors for natural gas transmission or
other types of hydrocarbon processing.
PCRC members interested in exploring a particular topic in this report in additional

detail are invited to contact one of the authors of the report for information.
3
II. RECIPROCATING COMPRESSOR LOADS: THE INTERACTION
OF COMPRESSOR AND FOUNDATION
A. Overview
As subsequent discussions will make clear, the foundation block and

compressor frame act together as a system to carry the various loads acting on the
compressor. It is important to identify and quantify these loads, to evaluate the
frame/foundation system, it's ability to support these loads, and to manage the interaction
between frame and foundation block. Cracks in reciprocating compressor foundations are
a common sight; the compressor-induced loads are an important contributor to these cracks,
while environmental factors such as oil penetration frequently aggravate the situation.
While some foundation block cracks develop at an early stage in the life of the installation,
most are apparent in blocks which are 25 or 30 years old, and their severity is influenced
by the age of the installation. The current condition of old foundation blocks tends to
reflect the technology of reinforced concrete block design at the time of installation.
Certainly understanding, control, and range, of concrete properties have grown as has
knowledge of how to reinforce concrete so it reliably carries known loads; the challenge
which remains in many cases is fully and effectively to define and manage all the loads.
The loads which the system structure must support are generally
recognized, but normal practice in quantifying these loads and their interaction is still likely
to involve simplifying assumptions, and may incompletely address the forces involved.
The primary list of loads which must be accounted for in reinforced concrete and
foundation installation and design for reciprocating compressors is as follows:
• Gravity loads,
• Drive torque (for separable compressors),
• Anchor bolt tensile forces,
• Friction forces at interfaces (e.g., frame-to-chock; frame-to-grout;
chock-to-grout),
• Vertical dynamic forces from reciprocating and rotating inertias,
• Horizontal dynamic forces and moments due to reciprocating and
rotating inertias,
• Vertical gas forces,
• Horizontal gas forces,
4
• Thermally-induced misalignment forces,
• Misalignment forces from loss in block integrity, and
• Differential thermal expansion forces.
When design, operation, and maintenance of reciprocating compressor

installations are considered, these loads produce a number of areas of concern:
• Crankshaft integrity and stress,

• Bearing loads and bearing integrity,
• Compressor frame integrity,
• Anchor bolt selection, sizing, and pre tensioning,
• Chock and soleplate loading and design,
• Grout loading and its effect over time,
• Ability of the anchor bolt and chock or soleplate to maintain a tight,
slippage-free condition of attachment,
• Expansion joint design,
• Anchor bolt tendency to loosen over time,
• Concrete stresses,
• Orientation of re-bar and its ability to control tensile stresses,
• Block geometry to minimize cracking tendency,
• Dynamic vibration response of compressor frame on the block and
its interaction with cylinders and cylinder supports,
• Possibility that re-tightening of loose anchor bolts may impose
crankshaft misalignment, and
• Thermal distortion of block and frame.
This report section considers each item in the list of loads either explicitly or
as part of another topic. It addresses the state-of-the-art in definition and quantification of
these loads, and how these loads, and uncertainty in their values, influence the various
items of concern listed above. The report is written in recognition that operating companies
are spending substantial amounts for foundation block repair and maintenance, and that
newly installed compressor blocks still crack and deteriorate at a rate both undesirable and
unexpected. It is intended primarily as a basis for awareness, but also contains various
guidelines, rules of thumb, and working methods. By its assembly, it helps to define the
limitations of current state-of-the-art, and to pin point and prioritize areas where refinement
and improved understanding are needed. Pockets of hard won experience exist, and rules
5
of thumb are a partial embodiment of that experience; however, there is a need for scientific
methods and predictive tools which can quantify the principals involved in these rules of
thumb and guidelines. Future research should seek to “back fill” the experience with sound
predictive tools.
Gravity Loads
A major function of the foundation is to support gravity loads. The weight

of the compressor will normally be a readily available piece of information from the
supplier - even on old compressors whose blocks are to be re-evaluated or re-designed, a
close approximation to the weight should be available. Some major items of concentrated
weight will be the crankshaft, the flywheel, cylinders, and pistons.
To calculate, with precision, the gravity load distribution as carried on

chocks, soleplates, or a full bed grout, is not completely straightforward. The multiple
support points produce a statically indeterminate system, and the loads at individual support
points are a function of the relative deflections of frame and block under those loads.
However, a full redundant system analysis may not be justified. With a few exceptions, it
is probably valid simply to assume uniform distribution of the compressor frame and
running gear weight between support points. The crankshaft weight is reasonably
distributed over the length of the compressor. The flywheel may add some local loading at
one end of the compressor which must be accounted for (for example, by adding the
flywheel weight to the nearest support points). The cylinders cause concentrated weights,
normally reacted by cylinder supports. Some low pressure cylinders may be very heavy;
their pistons cause some time varying loads to be seen by the cylinder supports, which
must be managed.
The significance of gravity load is first to produce a generally downwards

compressive load on the block and a distribution of compressive stress within the block.
Gravity forces will tend to add to the anchor bolt pretension forces in establishing load on
chocks or soleplates. Gravity and anchor bolt loads will oppose the tendency of
reciprocating and rotating inertias to apply a momentary upwards force locally or globally
on the block, or any tendency of horizontal reciprocating rotating inertia forces, acting at
the crankshaft centerline, to cause over turning moments at the soleplates or chocks.
6
Anchor Bolt Loads
Anchor bolts are installed primarily to tie the compressor frame at a series of
points to the immediately supporting soleplate, chock, or grout, and to establish interfacial
pressure between frame and supports so interfacial friction can overcome the maximum
transverse interfacial forces which the compressor dynamic loads (reciprocating, rotating,
and gas forces) produce. Calculating the appropriate anchor bolt tension for this purpose
requires knowledge of maximum friction force, and the coefficient of friction. The relevant
equation is as follows:
Fmax = µ (WL + T) (1)
where:
WL = local component of compressor weight,

T = the required tension in the anchor bolt,
µ = the coefficient of friction, and
Fmax = the maximum horizontal dynamic force to be
restrained.
Of course an appropriate safety or uncertainty factor must account for all uncertainties in
Fmax, µ, WL, and in the ability to control T. T is controlled by torque measurement or by
other tension control/measurement method (e.g., ultrasonic bolt stress measurement or
hydraulic tensioning). WL may be momentarily reduced by vertical shaking forces at
certain points in crankshaft rotation. Establishing Fmax is an essential step. It results from
horizontal gas and inertia loads as discussed in subsequent sections. These loads,
therefore, dictate the selection and tensioning of the anchor bolts.
The friction coefficient is a function of the materials in contact and the

condition of the interface. A dry tight interface between frame and epoxy can give a
coefficient as high as 0.5. Oil, slipping, and use of steel soleplates can in combination
reduce this to 0.2 or 0.1.
It should be noted that large horizontal differential expansion forces can

usually not be restrained by friction. The design must tolerate relative motion if differential
expansion forces are significant; the dynamic forces should be fully restrained however.
7
The differential growth can occur both as a transient phenomenon after a
cold start, where the frame heats faster than the block, and as a steady state phenomenon,
where different coefficients of expansion cause different amounts of growth at interfaces
once operating temperature is reached.
Anchor bolts are typically tensioned (by design) to a percentage of yield

(typically between 25 and 75 percent). Thus, once the required tensile force is established,
the percent yield requirement becomes a basis for selecting anchor bolt material and
diameter. Anchor bolt selection also has to include length selection (longer is often better;
spatial length variation is sometimes used to avoid putting all terminations in a single
plane), thread type (rolled thread minimizes stress concentration at this point), termination
(a standard nut without washer is preferred by some over J-bolt or washer plate), and top
fastener (alternatives to a straight nut include the use of a nut with multiple jack bolts).
Controlling bolt tension with a torque wrench can be subject to significant

uncertainty. One investigation (by a gas transmission company) showed more than a factor
of four variation in bolt stress (from 16,000 to 70,000 psi for a nominal 31,000) set by a
torque wrench when measured by ultrasonic bolt stretch. It was further found that
variability reduced significantly when the nut and threads were lubricated consistently, and
anchor bolts were located using an accurate template. Use of multiple Jack bolts in the nut
(shown schematically in Figure II-1 and in the photograph of Figure II-2) provides an
option which can reduce uncertainty relative to torquing a single nut. Ultrasonic bolt
stretch measurement is effective with a “clean” end to the anchor bolt for reflection. J-bolts
are typically less effective in achieving a clear reflection for use in ultrasonic bolt stretch
assessment.
The ability to quantify initial bolt stretch is one contributor to uncertainty in

the anchor bolt load. Thermal growth of the epoxy layer thickness is generally a small
contributor. Epoxy creep is a potentially important contributor. Epoxy material is mainly
used as a cap for the concrete block, and in some cases, as a chock on which to mount the
unit. ASTM creep tests (for example C1181-91) for the epoxy or epoxies in use will
provide a value for creep as a fraction under a stated load for a specified period of time,
typically one year (e.g., 0.4 percent creep in a year under 600 psi load). The following
expresses shrinkage of one or more epoxy grout layers:
8
FIGURE II-1. MULTIPLE JACK BOLT TORQUE NUT1
1 Rowan, Robert L. and Associates, Anchor Bolt Assemblies Catalog, Bulletin #400, April 1991.
9
FIGURE II-2. PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING HEAD OF TORQUE NUT
WITH MULTIPLE JACK BOLTS; ALSO ILLUSTRATING EXPANSION
JOINTS
10
NLayer
∆Y = Hi εi (2)
i =1
where:
Y = total creep shrinkage of epoxy,

Hi = the thickness of the ith epoxy layer,
εi = the expected creep strain of that layer, and
NLayer = number of layers.
The resultant losses in anchor bolt strain, stress, and pretension are:
ε = Y/L (3)
NLayer
∆σ = E∆ε = E Hi εi/L (4)
i=1
F=Aσ (5)
where:
E = bolt Young's modulus,

L = bolt length,
ε = bolt strain reduction,
σ = bolt stress reduction,
A = bolt cross sectional area, and
F = loss in pretension force.
Thus, for one 10-inch thick grout layer, the compressive creep ( Y) for 0.35 percent creep
strain is .035 inches. The loss in strain in a 100-inch anchor bolt will be .00035 or 350
micro strains. Thus, for a bolt Young's modulus of 30 million psi, the loss in stress in the
anchor bolt would be 10,500 psi. For a 1.5-inch diameter bolt, the loss in pretension
would be 18,550 lbs. This is a significant loss in anchor bolt pre-stress and pretension
over the creep period. In considering this and other uncertainty factors, it should be noted
that: shorter anchor bolts, a thicker grout layer, a higher creep strain rate and lower design
11
percentage of bolt yield, will all amplify significance of the loss in pre-stress. Loss in
pretension reduces ability of the anchor bolt to maintain high frictional resistance to relative
motion between frame and tie-downs.
If creep is expected to be significant, a program of anchor bolt checking and

retightening is essential. Even without significant creep, an anchor bolt checking program
is sound practice, and should be part of any condition monitoring plans.
The anchor bolt can have an important role beyond that of locating the
compressor; when tight, it places the concrete in its vicinity in compression. A long anchor
bolt, maintained in tension may be a significant factor in overcoming the tendency of
compressor gas and inertia loads to put the concrete in tension. Thus, loose anchor bolts
may have more serious consequences than letting the compressor move - they may
jeopardize the internal integrity of the concrete and increase the opportunity for cracks to
start or grow. Loss of anchor bolt tension might, for example, be the cause of cracking the
corners of the oil pan region of the block.
Drive Torque Loads
When a compressor is driven by a separate motor or engine, the drive

torque is reacted by the foundations of both driving and driven equipment. An integral
engine/compressor on the other hand internally balances the drive torque and torque load
within the single frame. In the case of a separate drive, a distribution of forces must be
applied to the block in the vertical plane which are equivalent to the drive torque applied to
the compressor. For example, assuming the torque is evenly reacted by the tie-downs,
which are symmetrically arranged on each side of the compressor, the force at each tie-
down is given by:
FD = TD/(NT WT) (6)
where:
NT = the number of tie-downs on each side.
WT = the side-to-side separation of the tie-downs (ft.).
12
FD = the force (lb.) at each tie-down resulting from drive
torque, TD.
TD = the drive torque (ft. lb.).
The forces FD act downwards on the block on one side and upwards on the other side.
Appropriate account should be taken of these equivalent reaction forces acting on the block.
Dynamic Reciprocating and Rotating Inertia Forces in the

Horizontal Plane
The great majority of large reciprocating compressors operate with their

cylinders horizontal. As a result, the motion of piston, piston rod, cross head and
connecting rod induce alternating forces in the horizontal direction with most significant
components at first and second order of crankshaft rotation.
If the weight of the reciprocating components is known, relatively simple

kinematic relationships define the time varying reciprocating inertia forces acting at each
cylinder centerline with good accuracy. Analysis of the crankshaft geometry also yields the
rotating unbalance inertia associated with each crank throw. A corresponding analysis of
counterweight location and weight yields the effect of the counter balance rotating inertia
force as seen in the horizontal plane. Thus, these forces, as transmitted to the crankshaft,
are definable with acceptable accuracy. Speed variations may have a small effect if the
calculations are based on a uniform angular velocity, but for the purposes of tie-down and
foundation block design, speed corrections are likely to be small.
Considering just first and second order components, the instantaneous force
associated with a single cylinder and throw is[1]:
Fp ≈ Wr r ω cos ωt + Wc r ω cos ωt + Wc r ω cos 2 ωt

2 2 2
(7)
g g g n
where:
Wc = the total reciprocating weights,
13
Wr = the total net unbalanced rotating weight,
ω = the rotational speed, rad/sec,
t = time, and
n = the ratio of connecting rod length (l) to crank throw
radius (r) (n = l/r).
It should be noted that power cylinders in a vee arrangement will have a

contribution to horizontal forces which should be accounted for.
New uncertainty arises, however, in translating individual cylinder forces

into forces applied to the shaft main bearings, to the compressor frame, to tie-downs, and
to the block. Conventional state-of-the-art analysis assumes the compressor frame to be
rigid, which implies that local forces acting on the frame through the main bearings, need
only be considered in total. The result is individual values for primary and secondary
shaking forces and moments acting on the compressor frame as a whole. Through
appropriate phasing of individual crank throws relative to each other, it is sometimes
possible, on a multi-throw engine to reduce certain of these integrated force components to
small values, even if the components which make them up at individual cylinders are large.
The problem is that compressor frames for large reciprocating compressors are not rigid.
There is substantial evidence that they bend (see Figures II-3 and II-4). The analytical
difficulty is that adjusting loads for realistic frame flexibility is considerably more
complicated than calculating rigid frame loads. An extreme assumption at the opposite end
of the scale from rigid frame is the fully flexible frame assumption. This is also not a
realistic assumption, in that the frame does provide some load sharing capability, but, it is
simple to interpret and may give results with an appropriate safety factor built in, even if it
does not represent the true behavior. The difference between the fully flexible frame
assumption and the rigid frame assumption is that the fully flexible frame assumption is
conservative, in terms of its maximum force estimates. The rigid frame assumption is not
conservative and tends to under estimate the maximum forces. Figure II-5 illustrates this
graphically and shows how maximum force transmitted to the support varies with the
flexibility of the frame for a horizontally opposed four-cylinder compressor. For this
example, the fully flexible frame assumption gives a maximum transmitted force almost
eight times as large as the rigid frame assumption!
14
FIGURE II-3. DISTORTED COMPRESSOR SHAPE EVERY 30° OF
CRANKSHAFT ROTATION — PLAN VIEW — LEVEL OF BEARING
CENTERLINE — EIGHT CYLINDERS HORIZONTALLY OPPOSED HIGH
PRESSURE (“HYPER”) COMPRESSOR2
2 Smalley, A. J., “Dynamic Forces Transmitted by a Compressor to its Foundation,” Energy-Sources

Technology Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, January 10-14, 1988.
15
FIGURE II-4. 3-D ANIMATED DISPLAY OF FRAME AND BLOCK
DISTORTION TRANSMISSION COMPRESSOR WITH DETERIORATED
FOUNDATION BLOCK
16
FIGURE II-5. ILLUSTRATION OF VARIATION OF MAXIMUM TIE-
DOWN FORCES WITH FRAME FLEXIBILITY FACTOR, KS —
K S = RATIO OF FRAME TO SUPPORT FLEXIBILITY 3

17
The effect of frame flexibility illustrated in Figure II-5 is not always fully
appreciated by those who share responsibility for compressor installations. Compressor
manufacturers validly report shaking forces and moments on a combined basis for the unit.
The designer of the compressor mounting system may well assume it is adequately
designed, if the total strength of the multi-point tie-down system is sufficient to carry the
combined shaking forces and moments specified. As Figure II-5 emphasizes, this may not
be the case. An alternative approach (the fully flexible assumption) is to calculate forces
acting at individual main bearings, and to design each individual tie-down so that it is (with
all other uncertainties accounted for) capable of carrying that maximum force. This
approach has advantages if a full analysis of block and frame flexibility is not undertaken.
Applying this concept further to the design of the foundation block, all
individual main bearing forces would be applied with appropriate phasing to each tie-down,
and the tie-downs and block would be designed for the maximum stress induced by this
discrete loading system at any point in the cycle. Typically an analysis every 30 degrees of
crankshaft rotation is likely to provide enough definition to indicate the most severe loading
condition and associated stresses. Mandke, Smalley, and Troxler[2] (1992) present a
spreadsheet approach for calculating overall shaking forces as a function of crankshaft
rotation angle, which may be adapted to give individual main bearing forces.
The extent to which considering separate individual load components at each

tie-down point produces internal block stresses significantly different from those predicted
based on the combined unit shaking forces and moments is not presently well understood,
and is expected to be the subject of future research. Future sections will show also that the
process of analyzing horizontal dynamic forces due to reciprocating and rotating inertias
should not be considered in complete isolation from analyzing the effects of gas loads. In
summary, the horizontal inertia forces are a major factor in determining the dynamic tie-
down forces which must be restrained by the anchor bolt induced friction. These, therefore
are a direct factor in determining the anchor bolt requirements.
Horizontal Gas Loads
The first job of the compressor is to compress gas, and the time varying
pressure in head and crank end of each cylinder produces an alternating net load on the
piston or plunger, which must be carried by the piston rod, the cross head, the connecting
rod, the crankshaft, and the compressor frame. Since pressure at any instant is essentially
18
uniform within each cylinder cavity, the pressure acting on one piston face is exactly
reacted by the pressure on the cylinder head or crank end head. Simple analysis therefore
suggests the gas loads self equalize within the compressor assembly; if all elements of the
compressor frame and cylinder are rigid, then no gas loads are transmitted outside the
compressor cylinder assembly. In actuality, compressor structures (cylinder, frame, and
supports) are flexible; the most obvious demonstration of this is cylinder stretch. An
accelerometer mounted on the head of a compressor cylinder will show dynamic motion
each revolution which may range from 8 to 12 mils in normal applications. The implication
is that if the cylinder and compressor frame are both rigidly connected to the same
foundation block, without any flexibility at the connections, the gas loads will now be
carried by the block as well as the frame, and will impose a stretching deformation on the
block between frame and cylinder supports. Of course, this is not normal practice -
cylinder supports are normally flexible in the direction of the cylinder axis so the cylinder is
free to stretch. Some cylinder supports take the form of a wobble plate which restrains all
but axial motion; others are in the form of a pipe, or a vertical plate free to bend in the
direction of the cylinder axis. At the same time, occasional examples have been found
where the cylinders' need to stretch without restraint under gas loads by the concrete
structure is neglected. This will usually lead to tensile stresses and problems in the block.
Even with cylinders free to stretch unrestrained, the stretching flexibility of

the compressor frame itself can create problems. The webs that provide structural strength
and carry the main bearings have finite flexibility. Gas loads tend to stretch or compress
the frame between crankshaft and cross head guide (“dog house”). Such crosswise
stretching of frame and dog house is most significant when stretching flexibility is high and
when the distance between tie-down points in the direction of stretching is a also high.
Reported problems tend to occur when phasing between axially close cylinders on opposite
sides of the compressor (horizontally opposed) produces concurrent outwards gas forces
on the ends of opposed cylinders. This condition tends to stretch the frame from one side
to the other. Sufficient tolerance must be provided in the block to tolerate this imposed
crosswise stretching.
Establishing the specific value of the stretching load imposed on the block,
is not easily done with precision, but one consequence of its neglect, when observed, is
cracks in the concrete running vertically in the direction of the crankshaft centerline.
19
The fact that gas loads increase apparent frame distortion beyond that
resulting from reciprocating and rotating inertia loads, is evidenced by Figure II-6, which
presents relative deflection of a hyper reciprocating compressor frame in ethylene service at
various levels of discharge pressure. Bending deformation clearly increases with discharge
pressure.
In calculating gas loads, it is important to consider flow resistance in valves

and orifices; these depress the minimum cylinder pressure below nominal suction pressure,
and elevate the maximum cylinder pressure above nominal discharge pressure.
Handling the redundant system aspects of this loading mechanism requires,

first of all, a definition of the cylinder forces. This is relatively straightforward, provided
cylinder pressure variation for the range of suction and discharge conditions can be
predicted, accounting for any perturbing effects; external flow resistances, valve flutter
effects, and external pulsation effects, can all add to the nominal cylinder pressure
differential based on ideal gas expansion gas compression and valve behavior. The
cylinder and frame must carry the time-varying differential force (between head and crank
end) for each cylinder. If the frame stretches significantly under this load in the cross wise
direction, the block now carries part of the load. Some form of analysis which accounts
for the combined contributions of frame stiffness and concrete block stiffness must be
undertaken to provide the net effect of the two restraints and to calculate the loads,
deformation, and stresses in the concrete. In other words, the gas loads on the cylinder can
be easily defined, but resultant loads on the concrete are a complex function of the relative
stiffness of the frame and block under action of the cylinder loads.
Vertical Gas Loads
An integral engine compressor normally has power cylinders in either a

vertical in-line or a V-arrangement located above the crankshaft. Vertical cylinders
contribute in part to the horizontal forces previously discussed. While vertical stretching of
the compressor frame can occur under vertical gas loads (similar to that described for
horizontal compressor cylinder loads), the impact on the block should be small; vertical
frame stretching is liable to take place above the crankshaft. To the extent that axial
variation of cylinder forces at any instant produces differential loading and bending of the
frame, there may be small differences in the vertical load at the anchor bolts as a result of
gas loading. Actual accounting for any such effects is liable to be complex and to require a
20
FIGURE II-6. MEASURED INFLUENCE OF GAS DISCHARGE
PRESSURE ON MAIN BEARING MISALIGNMENT FOR A HIGH
PRESSURE COMPRESSOR: 4,000 PSI (27.6 MPA); 14,500 PSI (100
MPA); 25,000 PSI (173 MPA)4
(NOTE: MISALIGNMENT = MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT
AT BEARING RELATIVE TO A STRAIGHT LINE JOINING BEARINGS 1
AND 5.)

21
detailed model of the complete engine structure. While such a model would be instructive,
it appears likely that the significance of vertical gas loading on the frame/block interface is
likely to be small. The dominant vertical effect is liable to come from the reciprocating
inertia and rotating inertia forces.
Vertical Inertia Loads
The subject of horizontal shaking forces and moments due to reciprocating

and rotating inertias was discussed earlier. Reciprocating pistons/rods with vertical
components to their motion (typically from a vee power cylinder arrangement) will cause
time-varying unbalanced forces in the vertical plan to act on the frame (they also contribute
to the horizontal unbalanced forces). For each vertical power piston, or pair of pistons in a
vee, there is a locally applied inertia force with phasing relative to other cylinders dictated
by the crankshaft throw geometry.
Even in the absence of power cylinders, the unbalanced rotating forces of

each crank throw can combine to cause large net vertical forces or moments acting on the
compressor frame and its block. There is sometimes a trade-off between horizontal plane
balancing and vertical plane balancing which leaves a large shaking moment in the vertical
plane.
As with horizontal forces, the state-of-the-art assumption is that the frame

and foundation act as a rigid body in restraining these vertical inertia forces. The rigid
body assumption may be slightly better in the vertical direction, because there exists a path
for load support down to the soil, so vertical loads are carried in part by
compression/tension of the frame and block. However, the assumption is not perfect and
the potential effect of individual forces acting at individual tie-down points needs to be
considered. The calculation of zero or small net vertical force or moment for the entire set
of individual forces must be questioned critically in terms of how much that depends on
load sharing and what the magnitude of forces transmitted locally might be if the
assumption is less than perfect; as with horizontal forces an alternative exists - that of
considering the individual forces transmitted to the block from the frame via the main
bearings. Neglect of these local forces may significantly underestimate the potential for
local tension in the block.
22
When acting downwards, a vertical inertia force will add to the interface
forces attributable to weight and anchor bolt, with a beneficial effect of increasing joint
friction force capacity, and adding to compressive stresses in the grout and block. When
acting upwards, the vertical inertial force will tend to reduce these interface forces, reduce
joint friction capacity, and potentially cause some local tension. It will usually be possible
to show that the net unbalanced forces for the entire compressor do not overcome the
downwards weight load. Whether this is the case when analyzed on a local basis requires
additional analysis with numbers for the individual vertical forces in hand.
A comprehensive analysis will consider the block as a body subject to local

forces at each main bearing. Anchor bolt tension must be sufficient to overcome the local
dynamic load contributors when all other uncertainties are accounted for. Estimating the
local forces is most easily and conservatively accomplished using the individual main
bearing vertical forces.
B. Interaction of Dynamic Loads and Block-Soil Dynamic

Response
Since the shaking forces are applied dynamically to the block, the potential
for excitation of resonance of the block on the soil must be considered. A complete
analysis will calculate resonances of the block on the soil of appropriate shear modulus in
horizontal and vertical planes, and the response of the block-soil system dynamic loads at
first and second orders of rotational speed. Excessive dynamic motion in response to the
dynamic loads can cause misalignment loads on cylinders and nozzles. The most
significant uncertainty in block-soil dynamics is normally the soil modulus.
Even if the block-soil system is non-resonant, high shaking forces or

moment can cause significant response amplitudes, simply because the ratio of force or
moment to impedance of the frame-block-soil system is high. The ability of the entire
system to support dynamic forces and moments, and the implications of resultant response
amplitudes on cylinders and nozzles should be considered.
23
Thermal Loads
A reciprocating compressor is a heat source. The compressor base forms an

oil sump which assumes the oil temperature. In a typical compressor at thermal
equilibrium, this temperature ranges between 140 and 160°F. The oil typically achieves
this temperature 4 to 5 hours after start-up as illustrated in Figure II-7 for a transmission
compressor. Typically, the temperature will vary slightly from day to night, and between
hot and cold days. There is also some indication of this during the time period covered in
Figure II-7; close examination reveals 24-hour cycles in the sump temperature.
This temperature source heats the foundation block. Heat transfers

predominately by convection across the air gap between sump and block and by conduction
through any points of physical support (e.g., soleplates or chocks). In general, this tends
to make the top of the block hotter than the bottom. The block tends to act as a beam with a
temperature differential across it and bends towards the hotter face (the top). Thus, the
generally accepted response of a foundation block to a hot compressor is to form a hump.
In actuality, the distribution of temperature developed in the block is more complex than a
simple top to bottom linear temperature gradient. If the top of the block is hot, the bottom
of the block is at the temperature of the ground. If the compressor has cylinders on just
one side then the “non-cylinder” or “back” side of the block will convect heat to ambient air
at a temperature somewhere between ground and sump. On the side of the block with
cylinders, most applications will have discharge bottles located close to the concrete, whose
temperature is that of the discharging gas. The result is a complex temperature distribution
within the block.
The thermal response of the block naturally “lags” the heat source inputs, as
illustrated in Figure II-8, which shows how a block responds to the thermal input of
Figure II-7.
Depending on the compression ratio of the compressor, the discharge bottle

may be at a temperature between 120°F and 300°F. For compressors in transmission
service, the number will generally be in the 120°F to 140°F range. The discharge bottle will
often be close to the side of the foundation block, and represents a “boundary condition”
which may either provide heat input to the block or locally change the temperature to which
the block convects.
24
FIGURE II-7. RUN 2 TEMPERATURES AT BEARING 5 AND IN SUMP
AS A FUNCTION OF TIME FROM START OF RUN —
FULL BED GROUT — HBA-85
5 Smalley, A. J. “Topical Report: Misalignment and Temperature Measurements on a Fully Grouted

Reciprocating Compressor,” Project PR15-174, Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas
Association, May 1985.
25
FIGURE II-8. RUN 2 TEMPERATURES IN BLOCK AS A FUNCTION
OF TIME FROM START OF RUN — FULL BED GROUT — HBA-86
6 Smalley, A. J. “Topical Report: Misalignment and Temperature Measurements on a Fully Grouted

Reciprocating Compressor,” Project PR15-174, Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas
Association, May 1985.
26
The temperatures to which the block is exposed are essentially a load. The
resultant temperature gradients in the block induce deformations, strains, and stresses. If
the concrete block is capped with an epoxy layer (typically 4 to 12 inches thick), there is an
epoxy - concrete interface with two significantly different coefficients of thermal
expansion. Changes in temperature will induce differential expansion and stresses. The
approach most often used to manage this phenomenon is to limit the dimension of the
interface by use of expansion joints. Figure II-2 discussed earlier, clearly shows such
joints.
This technology assessment does not attempt to treat the problem of epoxy
grout installation and curing. This an important subject, which must be managed
appropriately, but the quantitative effects tend to be product specific. Data and technical
bulletins on the product in use or under consideration should be consulted on the subject.
There is also potential for differential thermal expansion between

compressor frame and mounting locations if there is a layer of grouting material whose
coefficient of thermal expansion is significantly different from that of steel (typically the
case with epoxy grouts). The use of chocks or other mounts which separate the
compressor frame from the epoxy cap will tend to reduce this effect. A flat interface
between mounts and frame, without lips, allows for relative thermal growth by static
sliding at the interface. Again, the existence of long contiguous layers of epoxy,
particularly with no expansion joint between adjacent tie-downs tends to make interfacial
loads between frame and epoxy grout the largest. Failure to account for differential growth
between frame and cap by controlling the length of contiguous epoxy, and by using
expansion joints can lead to grout cracking.
Loss of Block Integrity
When a block deteriorates, it can have several load implications. For

example, if it becomes more difficult to maintain tight anchor bolts, then the compressor
frame will receive less effective location and load restraint; frame flexing will increase and
the crankshaft will be subject to increased dynamic misalignment loads. Loose anchor
bolts, as previously discussed, are also likely to increase cracking potential within the block
and thereby accelerate the process of crack initiation and propagation. If the weight support
offered by the block deteriorates, then the crankshaft may be subject to increased static
misalignment, higher web deflections, and higher dynamic bending stresses. The rationale
27
is that when the block or mounts become worn or damaged, and therefore unable to hold
the compressor base in its originally aligned condition, the action of re-torquing may force
the frame and crankshaft into an increasingly misaligned condition. Observations of web
deflections as high as .01" have been observed as a result of this phenomenon.
C. Summary
Table II-1 presents the main points of this report section in simplified
summary format for convenient reference. The points in this table are backed up with more
specific details in the text of this section.
TABLE II-1. SUMMARY OF COMPRESSOR LOADS
Load Implication Analysis/Design/Procedures

Gravity • Distributed downward load • Use reasonable load
on block. distribution.
• Provides some compression • Consider flywheel, cylinders,
in block to offset other shaft, and pistons.
tensile stresses.
Drive Torque • Significant for separable • Calculate and account for
units. equivalent vertical forces at tie-
downs.
Anchor Bolts • Must keep interface tight • Use Equation (1).
under all other load • Account for variability,
variations. uncertainty, creep, etc.
• Must restrain local • A regular bolt checking program
horizontal forces through is always important.
friction. • Support design should allow for
• Only have limited ability to sliding under differential thermal
restrain differential growth. growth.
• Help keep block in
compression.
• Tend to work loose.
28
(continued)

Horizontal • Dictate tie-down needs. • Include all reciprocating and
Inertia Load • Always cause frame rotating forces.
bending. • Rigid frame assumption is
• Can Excite resonance on inadequate.
block-soil system. • Use fully flexible frame
assumption.
• Apply local forces at each tie-
down.
Vertical Inertial • Influence variability of • Apply at individual bearings and
Loads vertical loads on block. tie-down to assess influence on
• High vertical shaking block internal stresses.
moments are possible as • Consider dynamic response of
trade-off with reduced frame-block-soil system to
horizontal loads. shaking moments.
Horizontal Gas • Act to “stretch” frame and • Assess impact on block tensile
Loads block. stresses.
• Particularly important in • Design axially flexible cylinder
horizontally opposed units. supports.
• Include flow resistance of
valves and orifices in
determining gas loads.
Vertical Gas • Will predominantly self-
Loads equilibrate in frame.
Thermal Loads • Create interface stresses: • Use enough expansion joints.
frame-to-grout, grout-to- • Assess and allow for thermal
concrete. humping.
• Cause block to hump. • Allow freedom to accommodate
high differential thermal loads
with sliding.
29
(continued)

Block Soil • Resonances can amplify • Get best possible soil shear
Dynamic block and frame response modulus data.
Interaction motion. • Calculate range of natural
• Even non-resonant response frequencies - horizontal and
to high shaking forces and vertical.
moments can be damaging to • Calculate dynamic response of
nozzles, cylinders, dog- frame-block-soil system.
house and distance piece.
Loss of Block • Loose anchor bolts. • Check anchor bolts.
Integrity • Loss of block compression. • Check web deflections.
• High vibration of frame. • Monitor frame vibration levels.
• Potential high misalignment. • Check alignment.
D. References
1. Green, W. G., “Theory of Machines,” Blackie & Sons, Ltd.,

Glasgow, 1955.
2. Mandke, J. S., Smalley, A. J., and Troxler, P. J., “Dynamics of

Compressor Skids,” PCRC TR92-2.
30
III. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE BLOCKS
A. Introduction
Reciprocating compressor foundation blocks have to support not only the

dead weight of the compressor components, but the additional loads imposed due to anchor
bolts and the dynamic shaking forces imposed by the machine. Also, the temperature
gradient across the block height, from top to bottom, results in thermal stresses in the
block, in addition to the static and the dynamic stresses due to loads imposed by the
machine. Cracking of concrete foundation block is a very expensive and inconvenient
problem faced by the industry. In order to develop a better understanding of the
reciprocating compressor foundation block behavior, it is necessary to analyze the stresses
in the concrete block. A preliminary evaluation of the methodology available for analysis
of foundation blocks using finite element method (FEM) is presented below. The
advantages and limitations of different modeling techniques are discussed and applied to
solve a sample problem.
B. FEM for Reinforced Concrete
Although the finite element methods are accurate for predictions of stresses
and displacements in a homogeneous structure, they encounter several difficulties when
applied to reinforced concrete structures. Some of the notable problems are the non-
homogeneous behavior of concrete due to presence of rebars, cracking and crushing of
concrete, bond slip between rebar and concrete, effects of multi-axial stress on concrete
failure, material behavior across a cracked region, etc.
There are two basic methods of modeling reinforced concrete structure for
finite element analysis. In the first approach, both the concrete and the rebars are modeled
as separate elements. In a three dimensional structure, the concrete can be represented by
an assembly of brick (8 node or 20 node) elements with one dimensional spar elements
along the edges of the brick to represent rebars. These spars are capable of transferring
only axial tension or compression. Whereas this method facilitates accurate representation
of the reinforcement and modeling of disbonding between concrete and the rebar, the
overall model size becomes very large and the computational efficiency suffers.
Alternatively, the reinforcement can be modeled as a “smeared” effect through the concrete
element. In this method, the mechanical and geometrical properties of the plain concrete
31
and rebars are integrated over the finite element to provide a stress state dependent element
stiffness matrix. The combined element can account for both the rebar behavior and the
cracking or crushing of concrete. This method does not permit bond slip between the rebar
and the concrete.
The most difficult part of analyzing concrete structure is the modeling of

crack opening and its subsequent propagation. In some programs, concrete cracking is
included by introduction of a crack plane oriented normal to the maximum principal stress.
One simple approach is to assume the crack to open whenever the maximum principal
stress exceeds the allowable uniaxial tensile strength of the concrete. For multi-axial stress
conditions, various models have been proposed which predict the onset of concrete failure
(cracking or crushing). Once the crack is opened, the stiffness matrix for concrete needs to
be modified to prevent any transfer of tensile load across the crack plane. Both methods of
modeling reinforced concrete that have been described earlier were explored using
ANSYS[1] Finite Element Program.
C. ANSYS Model of Foundation Block
The ANSYS program has an 8-node isoparametric element which is capable

of modeling both the unreinforced and the reinforced concrete structure. When the
reinforcements are included in the model, they are assumed to be “smeared” throughout the
element. The concrete is assumed to be an isotropic material with linear stress-strain
relationship within the range of tensile and compressive strengths of concrete. Beyond the
tensile strength, cracking of concrete is permitted in three orthogonal directions at each
integration point whenever the failure criteria is satisfied. The element effectively treats
cracking as a “smeared band” of cracks, rather than discrete cracks. The reinforcement in
three different directions can be specified by volume ratios with linear or nonlinear material
properties in the axial direction.
The stress-strain matrix [D] for this element is defined as:
3 3
D = 1- Vi Dc + Vi Dr i (1)
i= 1 i= 1
32
where:
Vi = ratio of the volume of the reinforcing material

in direction 'i' to the total volume of the
element.
[Dc] = stress-strain matrix for concrete.
[Dr]i = stress-strain matrix for reinforcement in

direction 'i'.
All three rebars can have independent section and material properties.
The criterion for failure of concrete due to multi-axial stress state is

expressed as:
F - S≥0 (2)
fc
where:
F = a function of the principal stress state (σxp,

σyp, σzp).
S = a failure surface expressed in terms of

principal stresses and concrete material
parameters.
Generally, the failure surface can be defined by specifying two constants, ft

and fc, which are the uniaxial tensile and crushing strength of the concrete, respectively.
The concrete failure model follows the development by William and Warnke[2]. The
function F and the failure surface S are expressed in terms of principal stresses σ1, σ 2, σ 3,
where:
σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3
33
along the directions 1, 2, and 3. If the failure criterion is satisfied in the directions 1, 2, or
3, then cracking occurs in the plane perpendicular to principal stresses σ1, σ2, and σ3.
The presence of a crack at an integration point is accounted for by

modification of the stress-strain matrix. These modifications are such that if the crack is
open, then the tensile forces cannot be transmitted across the crack plane and if the crack is
closed, then the compressive forces can be transmitted across the crack plane. Also by
specifying shear coefficients ßc and ß t, the user can control the amount of shear load
transferred across the crack in compression and tension, respectively. Due to the nonlinear
nature of the element, an iterative solution requiring small increments in the loading is
required. This can result in cracks which opened in earlier step to close in the subsequent
iteration. Depending on the stress state there are 16 possible combinations of the crack
arrangement. For example, the crack may open in direction 1, but remain closed in
directions 2 and 3. An arbitrary strain parameter, εck called the crack strain is used to
define the final status (open or closed) of the crack at each integration point.
If the principal stresses at the integration point exceed the allowable

uniaxial, biaxial or triaxial compressive strength, then the material is assumed to crush at
that point.
Example Problems
A fictitious foundation block was analyzed for static stresses using the
ANSYS program. The block parameters and other relevant data used are given in
Table III-1.
34
TABLE III-1. FOUNDATION BLOCK PARAMETERS
Block Size - 14 ft. Wide x 20 ft. Long x 7 ft. High
Cylinder Arrangement - Horizontally Opposed
Concrete Strength - 100 psi in Tension
- 3000 psi in Compression
Rebar Density - 0.17% of Area
Elastic Modulus - 3 x 106 psi for Concrete
- 30 x 106 psi for Rebar
Using the symmetry conditions, only half of the block was modeled for the analysis
(Figure III-1). Both methods of modeling the reinforcement were followed. In the first
case, rebars were modeled as discrete spar elements placed along all twelve edges of each
8-node isoparametric concrete element. In the second case, the rebars were modeled as
smeared through the concrete element along three principal directions. Arbitrarily high
values of the shaking forces were selected as listed in Table III-2. and imposed as
concentrated forces at nodal locations shown in Figure III-1. By plotting the integration
point status at each integration point within the element, the overall cracked and uncracked
regions of the structure are identified. Figure III-2 shows the status of the first integration
point (out of eight) within each element. All elements except those in red color have
cracked at this location in one of the principal stress directions. By collecting all elements
which have cracked at one of the eight integration points, the cracked region of the block is
plotted in Figure III-3. The stresses in the rebar cannot be plotted when the rebars are
represented as a smeared effect, but they can be printed. When both the rebar and the
concrete are modeled separately, the rebar stresses can be plotted directly as shown in
Figure III-4.
35
FIGURE III-1. FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF FOUNDATION BLOCK
36
FIGURE III-2. CONCRETE ELEMENTS CRACKED AT FIRST
INTEGRATION POINT
37
FIGURE III-3. CRACKED CONCRETE REGION IN THE BLOCK
38
FIGURE III-4. REBAR STRESSES
39
TABLE III-2. STATIC SHAKING FORCES
ON THE BLOCK
Force (lbs.)
Node Fx Fy
a -20,000
b -40,000
c -40,000
d -40,000
e 20,000 20,000
The preliminary evaluation of both modeling techniques has resulted in the

following conclusions:
1. Both modeling methods give results which correlate reasonably

well.
2. Modeling rebars separately provides a more accurate representation

of the geometry and the stiffness of the actual reinforcement. Other
advantages of this method include the ability to model of bond slip,
tie rod connections, local reinforcement details, etc. But the overall
model size tends to become very large and is penalizing on the
computational efficiency.
3. Modeling reinforcement as a smeared effect provides conservative

predictions for the cracked concrete region.
4. The present methodology for modeling concrete using finite

elements does not provide capability to predict discrete crack
geometry in the structure. The cracks are to be treated as smeared
bands or as an identification of the failed region.
40
5. The method can be used to investigate effects of thermal loads,
shaking forces, and anchor bolt preloads on the integrity of the
foundation block concrete.
6. Representing rebars as smeared effect provides a cost effective tool

to investigate effects of the various parameters that influence
foundation block behavior.
D. References
1. ANSYS: Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc., Houston,

Pennsylvania.
2. William, K. J. and Warnke, E.P., “Constitutive Model for the

Triaxial Behavior of Concrete,” Proceedings, International
Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Vol. 19, 1975,
ISMES, Bergamo, Italy, p. 174.
41
IV. CONDITION MONITORING AND ASSOCIATED
INSTRUMENTATION
A. Introduction
Reciprocating compressor foundations in gas transmission service which

have been in place for many years tend to develop pronounced evidence of deteriorated
conditions. Cracks in the concrete, oil seepage in to the concrete, increasing difficulty in
maintaining tight anchor bolts, high web deflections, observable relative motion at the
frame foundation interface, and higher than desirable vibration are some of the symptoms.
An operating company with a significant number of foundation blocks exhibiting these
symptoms faces a dilemma. Repair of a foundation block is costly and makes the
compressor in question unavailable for the duration of the repair process. System-wide
repair must be staged over a number of years to enable the primary revenue generating
business which uses the compressors to continue, while selectively replacing blocks at a
rate which can be tolerated from the points of view of cost and lost production. Scheduling
and sequencing the compressor blocks to be repaired from purely operational
considerations requires no technology, but could well overlook critical requirements for
repair based on block condition. There is a need to measure condition, either on an
absolute or comparative basis, and to factor condition into the decision-making process for
block repair scheduling.
Clearly, the item most in need of protection from block deterioration is the
crankshaft. When a crankshaft breaks, either a spare has to be used, an unused crankshaft
has to be borrowed, or the unit is out of commission until a new shaft is fabricated. A
shaft replacement cost alone can be a quarter of a million dollars; the loss in production,
cost of investigation, labor for disassembly, and reinstallation are less tangible, but
significant.
The most likely direct cause of a crankshaft failure from block damage
would be excessive bending stress superimposed on the torsional stresses required for
normal operation. Excessive bending may arise both from static misalignment (typically
evidenced by high web deflections) and/or dynamic bending of the crankshaft under load as
a result of compressor frame dynamic motion. Criteria for excess bending from either
source are likely to be a complex function of geometry and operating conditions. The
42
Caldwell criterion of 0.18 mils web deflection per inch of stroke is a widely used reference
for static misalignment limits. A limited amount of analysis by Smalley and Palazzolo[1]
has shown that the criterion is generally conservative, but not unduly so.
There is no such direct measure of dynamic crankshaft bending; however,

vibration of the compressor frame and the foundation is a measurement which can be made
quite readily and effectively; should it show itself to correlate with reasonable consistency
to condition of the foundation, vibration could provide a basis and motivation for
developing such criteria; even if absolute criteria are incompletely defined, vibration may
provide a useful ranking criterion. With this background, some initial investigation of
vibration as a basis for assessing block condition has been undertaken. With the assistance
of the Williams Natural Gas Company, detailed vibration was gathered on four units: two
at Williams North Ulysses and two at Williams West Ulysses stations. Two of the blocks
were in deteriorated condition, and two had been repaired. Using this data, various
alternative means of assessing severity were investigated. As will be shown, results
indicate that maximum peak-to-peak vibrations at any point on the level of bearing
centerlines provides an effective basis for comparing block condition, and appears to
account for other symptoms such as bending of the compressor frame.
Vibration monitoring addresses the second cause of crankshaft bending

identified above, namely compressor frame dynamic motion. The use of web deflection
previously discussed as a means of assessing the first cause - static misalignment - has its
limitations; in particular, it cannot be used when the unit is operating. In fact, the unit must
have cooled enough to allow access to the crank case before the method can be used; it is
also a laborious measurement method, limited in its precision, and inappropriate for
continuous monitoring. In the last few years, various other methods of alignment
monitoring have evolved - in particular, laser methods and fluid level probes. While these
do not share the directness of web deflections for assessing crankshaft condition, they are
less laborious and more appropriate for continuous monitoring. The laser has been
effectively used in alignment monitoring, but tends to require sustained attention and must
have a clear line of sight. Simmons, Smalley, Frischmuth, Lapini, and Robinson (1992)
describe application of a fluid level based device - the “ADE” probe - to gas turbine
alignment monitoring. This present report describes conceptually how the same probe
could be used to monitor alignment of a reciprocating compressor.
43
On all blocks, a very fundamental component of condition monitoring is to
check for proper bolt tension. This is important right from the startup of a new installation.
Maintaining bolt tension is often more important than just restraining the motion of the
frame; it may also be critical to avoiding cracks in the most “tension-prone” sections of the
block. Bolts with a built-in tension indicator make such condition monitoring particularly
straightforward.
B. Preliminary Evaluation of Vibration as a Basis for Block

Condition Assessment
An investigation of vibration on four compressors at Williams North and

West Ulysses stations was undertaken. Vibration was measured at a significant number of
points on each compressor, as a function of crankshaft rotation phased to No. 1
compressor cylinder top dead center. Vibrations were measured with a matched set of PCB
accelerometers at three levels on compressor and block, specifically:
• Bearing centerline,
• Compressor base, and
• Top of block.
A complete survey consisted of horizontal vibration at each of these three

levels on each side of the compressor at each of six bearing locations, together with vertical
vibrations at compressor base and top of block on each side of the compressor for each of
six bearing locations. This represents a total of 60 measurement location/direction
combinations per compressor. For each measurement, 512 values of instantaneous
vibration were recorded for one revolution of crankshaft rotation, triggered at equal
intervals of crankshaft rotation and initiated at top dead center of compressor cylinder
No. 1. This 512-point data set is the average of data for 16 revolutions. Data was stored
in files for each set of six bearing locations; thus, there were typically six similar sets of
data per file, and 10 files per compressor.
Complete sets as described were obtained for Ulysses North Unit 5 and
Ulysses West Units 6 and 7. A partial set of data was obtained for Ulysses North Unit 4.
In addition to the data described, several records of cylinder pressure data and cylinder
44
transverse vibration were recorded. Table IV-1 summarizes the relative condition of the
blocks on the four units. Figures IV-1, IV-2, and IV-3 present photographs showing the
compressors and some of the measurement locations.
TABLE IV-1
RELATIVE CONDITION OF BLOCKS
Unit Condition
N4 Good
N5 Deteriorated
W6 Good
W7 Deteriorated
C. Data Reduction
A number of raw data records had noise superimposed on them as shown in

Figure IV-4. Figure IV-5 shows the result of filtering this data to pass frequencies only at
or below the 16th order. It can be seen that a typical wave form has a clear first order
component with a number of higher orders. The lines on the graph are identified as F1
through F6, which correspond to bearing numbers 1 through 6.
D. Animated Displays
As one approach to observing the nature of block vibration and comparing

good and bad blocks, 3-D animated displays have been used. Figure IV-6 typifies these
displays and shows the block in isometric form at eight successive angular rotations of the
crankshaft, each incrementing by 45 degrees from zero. Figure IV-6 applies to West
Ulysses Unit 7 which is a deteriorated block. It is clear that the base of the compressor
frame is moving significantly relative to the foundation. Figures IV-7 and IV-8 make
similar displays for Units 5 at North Ulysses and 6 at West Ulysses. The foundation in the
best condition of these three is Unit 6 at West Ulysses. All plots are presented on the same
vibration amplitude scale so that the relative motion of the three can be compared. It is
apparent that the relative vibration between compressor base and block is less for Unit 6
and that the absolute vibration at the bearing centerline is also less for Unit 6 than for either
of Units 5 or 7.
45
FIGURE IV-1. GMV COMPRESSOR - ONE OF THE FOUR TESTED FOR
VIBRATION EFFECTS OF BLOCK CONDITION
46
FIGURE IV-2. INSTRUMENTATION FOR BLOCK/FRAME VIBRATION
ANALYSIS
47
FIGURE IV-3. ENCODER USED TO TRIGGER DATA ACQUISITION AT
512 COUNTS PER REVOLUTION
48
49
50
FIGURE IV-6. UNIT W7
3-D ANIMATED DISPLAY
51
FIGURE IV-7. UNIT N5
52
FIGURE IV-8. UNIT W6
53
E. Direct Measures Based on Full Vibration Records
Figure IV-9 presents for Units N4, N5, W6, and W7, the following
measures of vibration and spatial block distortion (bending):
CLB1 Maximum peak-to-peak displacement of a bearing relative to

a straight line through bearings 1 and 6 on the shaft
centerline.
CLB2 Maximum peak-to-peak displacement of all bearings relative

to their immediate neighbor on the shaft centerline.
CLVIB Maximum peak-to-peak vibration on the shaft centerline.
CBB1 Maximum peak-to-peak displacement of a bearing relative to

a straight line through bearings 1 and 6 on the compressor
base.
CBB2 Maximum peak-to-peak displacement of all bearings relative

to their immediate neighbor on the compressor base.
CBVIB Maximum peak-to-peak vibration on the compressor base.
FNB1 Maximum peak-to-peak displacement of a bearing relative to

a straight line through bearings 1 and 6 on the top of block.
FNB2 Maximum peak-to-peak displacement of all bearings relative

to their immediate neighbor on the top of block.
FNVIB Maximum peak-to-peak vibration on the top of block.
The following observations can be made from this figure:
54
55
1. All these measures provide consistent correlation with observed
block condition indicated in Table IV-1.
2. The measures of frame bending (deviations from straight lines

passing through end bearings; and deviation from immediate
neighboring bearing locations) indicate that block deterioration leads
to frame bending.
3. The maximum peak-to-peak vibration at the shaft centerline or

compressor base, appears to offer as consistent a correlation with
block condition as any other vibration based measure, including
acting as an indicator of bending.
Figures IV-10, IV-11, and IV-12 show how peak-to-peak vibration varies
with bearing location and with level on the compressor. It is clear the highest vibration on
the compressor frame shaft centerline or compressor base is consistently at bearing one.
On the block (Figure IV-12), the vibration levels at each bearing are much closer to each
other, and the maximum vibration location shifts between bearings 1, 5, and 6, according
to condition.
Figure IV-13 compares peak-to-peak vertical vibration on the compressor

base for Units W6 and W7. Clearly, the deteriorated foundation leads to much higher
vertical vibrations (3 to 4 times higher) on the base.
Figure IV-14 compares peak-to-peak vertical vibrations on the top of the

block for Units W6 and W7. There is much less difference between the two units for
vibration at this level. Although at most locations, the block vertical vibration levels are
slightly lower for Unit W7 than for Unit W6, the highest vibration (bearing 6) is from the
deteriorated block (W7).
F. Discussion of Vibration Results
The vibration data clearly shows that the measured vibration was influenced
by foundation block condition on all four units tested during this investigation. The
condition of the tie-downs may have been a contributory factor. If a deteriorated block
56
57
58
59
60
61
causes the compressor frame tie-downs to loosen, the centerline and base vibration may
have been higher in part as a result. The vertical vibration data seems to emphasize this -
there is much more difference between good blocks and deteriorated blocks in the vertical
vibration on compressor base than on the foundation block itself. The horizontal vibration
also correlates more strongly with block condition on the frame than on the foundation
block itself.
In spite of this possible complicating factor, a deteriorated block's

propensity to cause tie-downs to deteriorate or loosen, would still provide a valid cause and
effect relationship for crankshaft distress caused by frame bending at the bearing centerline
level.
The analysis has shown with some consistency that a deteriorated block
causes evidence of increased frame bending, and also causes increased peak-to-peak
vibration at the bearing centerline level. Thus, the simplest way to monitor for severity of
block condition as a cause of crankshaft distress, would appear to be in terms of maximum
peak-to-peak vibration at the bearing centerline level. With a reliable, cost-effective data
logger and a vibration transducer which can accurately measure vibration at the 5 Hz of
interest, a user company would have a basis for ranking frame vibration severity and for
periodically monitoring condition. This comparative evaluation would appear to be most
effective for units of the same model and number of bearings; however, development of a
body of comparative data using the same measure of vibration on units of different model
should help the development of more universal criteria.
G. Alignment Monitoring
In a paper entitled “Tools for Diagnosing Case Deflections in Alignment on

a Power Utility Combustion Turbine,” Simmons, Smalley, Frischmuth, Lapini, and
Robinson described various methods for monitoring misalignment and its effects in a gas
turbine. One of the tools is the ADE sensor (described in more detail by Lapini, Vadali,
Zippo, and Bernante). It was developed to measure vertical bearing and casing alignment
variations in turbo generators, and is used quite extensively in Italy at power plants and on
civil structures such as dams. The system works by the communicating vessel principle
where a number of small vessels (cups) are interconnected by horizontal channels.
Figure IV-7 illustrates the concept. The cups are mounted on a surface whose alignment is
to be monitored and partially filled with a special low surface tension liquid; channels allow
62
the levels to equalize between all cups. Each cup has a floating target and a proximity
probe that produces a signal proportional to its liquid level. Compensation for liquid
density variation is provided by a built in temperature sensor and appropriate electronics.
The ADE sensors have a full measurement range of 5 millimeters (.197 inches) with an
accuracy of +0.02 millimeters (.001 inches).
A number of these sensors were mounted at a gas turbine engine horizontal

centerline. Data was acquired with a data acquisition system typically at 15 minute
intervals. The system operated successfully for two years with only an occasional minor
adjustments. The probe nearest the turbine combustor eventually failed due to high
temperatures.
Figure IV-15, in addition to showing the details of the ADE probe system,
shows conceptually how a series of six probes would be installed on a five cylinder
compressor to monitor alignment on the top of the foundation block on the cylinder side of
the compressor. As an alternative, the probes could be arranged on the back side of a
compressor which has compressor cylinders on only one side. With such an arrangement,
changes in block alignment under the following conditions could be investigated:
• Changes in alignment following a cold start.

• Long-term changes in alignment due to subsidence.
• Variations in alignment as a result of day and night temperature
variations.
• Changes in alignment as a result of differences in day time
temperature, from one day to the next.
• Seasonal changes in alignment.
• Effects of extreme temperature excursions on alignment.
• Variations in alignment of a cold unit from hour-to-hour and day-to-
day.
If alignment readings from the ADE probes and from web deflection
measurements are coordinated under various different conditions relationships can be
established between web deflections and alignment. Smalley and Palazzolo have shown,
for an HBA-8 compressor, an approximate 9:1 relationship between changes in level of
compressor mid point relative to its ends and changes in web deflection. It is to be hoped
that similar relationships could be developed for other units.
63
64
By making measurements at a series of points along the compressor,
typically one per bearing, more detailed profile information can be obtained than was
possible in the work reported by Smalley and Palazzolo (based on laser alignment
measurement).
After a crankshaft failure, postmortem analysis will normally include optical

and wire line alignment checks of reference machined surfaces in the compressor. Even
though the unit may be cold, it has been observed that results of such alignment checks
may vary from day-to-day or hour-to-hour, making results more difficult to interpret and
sometimes raising credibility questions. Natural variability in alignment due to changes in
ambient and ground temperature could be the major cause of such uncertainty, but have not
been carefully and quantitatively documented. Monitoring a unit over days, weeks, and
months which include start-up, shutdown, cool-down, and sustained cold conditions could
provide documentation of the uncertainty to be expected, and could help guide interpretative
approaches.
The results of Smalley using a laser alignment monitoring method are

reproduced in Figures IV-16a and IV-16b. Plotted here over 100 hours following a cold
start are changes in vertical alignment and changes in ambient temperature. The quantity
alignment is the change in height of the mid point of the compressor relative to points on
the frame opposite the bearings at the ends of the crankshaft. Several observations are
notable:
1. There is significant modulation in alignment and temperature with

approximately 24 hours period.
2. The variation in alignment over the four days is over 10 mils.
3. Alignment and temperature track each other quite closely. High

ambient temperature causes the center of the compressor to move up
relative to its ends and cold temperatures tend to make the center of
the compressor move down.
65
FIGURE IV-16a. VERTICAL DISTORTION OF BEARING 5 RELATIVE
TO A LINE JOINTED BEARINGS 1 AND 9
(CHOCK MOUNT TEST)
FIGURE IV-16b. VARIATION OF AMBIENT TEMPERATURE

(CHOCK MOUNT TEST)
66
There is a need to develop data over a broader base of units, using a more robust, versatile
long-term monitoring system. In summary, this device for alignment monitoring offers to
provide enhanced documentation of compressor block behavior and its influence on
compressor and crankshaft alignment.
H. Reference
1. Smalley, A. J. and Palazzolo, A. B., “Crankshaft Stress Reduction

Through Improved Alignment Practice,” 1984 Year End Report,
SwRI Project 04-7564, prepared for the Pipeline Research
Committee of the American Gas Association, A.G.A. Project PR15-
174, August 1985.
67
V. A REVIEW OF BLOCK REMOVAL METHODS
Once a block is scheduled for renovation, it is normally desirable to complete the

process in as short a time as possible, consistent with safety, reliability, control of
incidental damage during the renovation, and with sound practices for selection, pouring,
and curving of replacement concrete and grout. Many issues are relevant to the complete
renovation process, and this section provides information on one aspect of methods for
partial removal of the existing, deteriorated block. A number of methods have been used or
proposed in past block removals, and Section V is intended to provide an overview of most
of the alternatives, together with considerations and factors which should be taken into
account when planning or considering use of one or more of these methods. The
discussion is based on available literature coupled with knowledge of the particular
application.
A. Demolition Hammers
Demolition hammers are truly the "traditional" tools used for concrete
removal. They have been widely used in this capacity because of their speed, impact
energy, and versatility. Demolition hammers are also used for partial concrete removal in
the repair process for structures and foundations. In spite of their continuous, wide-spread
use over many years, demolition hammers have always presented certain inherent
disadvantages, some of which become much more significant in the case of partial concrete
removal.
In general, demolition hammers create high levels of noise and large

amounts of dust. These by-products can be hazardous to workers, and often prevent work
from continuing in adjacent areas. In the specific case of partial concrete removal, where
sound concrete is to be left in place, damage due to mechanical vibration is a major
concern. Vibrations from the repeating impact of the hammers can damage the remaining
concrete by creating microcracks along the surface. In the case of reinforced concrete, the
rebar can also be damaged or deformed by the impact of the hammers. Impact hammers
also tend to remove sound concrete along with the deteriorated concrete.
It is because of these drawbacks, that several alternative methods have been

developed (or are being developed) for the demolition and partial removal of concrete. It is
the aim of these new technologies to offer faster, more cost efficient removal of concrete
68
while eliminating or minimizing some of the disadvantages associated with impact
hammers. The majority of these alternative methods, however, do not actually eliminate
the use of impact hammers. It can be seen, as explained later in this paper, that most new
concrete removal methods still require the use of hand-held impact hammers for the
finishing steps of the process.
In contrast to viewing demolition hammers as an older outdated technology,

it is perhaps this very characteristic that is the greatest advantage to using them. Because it
is such a well established demolition method, equipment and contractors are readily
available at competitive costs. There is also a well established basis for computing time and
cost estimates when planning a job. Some operational companies which have used
alternative methods have concluded that because of the amount of preparation work
involved, and the use of impact hammers in the finishing stages, they might have been
better off by simply using impact hammers from the beginning.
If demolition hammers are to be used, selecting the best tools for the job is
perhaps the most critical factor involved. Consideration must be made for the type of
concrete to be removed, the amount of concrete to be removed, the available workspace,
the time allowed for the job, and the significance of damage to the remaining concrete.
There are both pneumatic and hydraulic hammers available, ranging in size and impact
energy. Boom-mounted hammers may be necessary for larger jobs, but hand-held, low-
impact hammers may be necessary to minimize vibration damage. One additional
consideration with the use of demolition hammers is that production rates are more
dependent on operator skill than many of the alternative methods.
B. Diamond Wire S a w
A diamond wire saw is capable of cutting through any thickness of

reinforced concrete, leaving a flat, smooth, ready-to-use surface. Wire saws are capable of
cutting vertically as well as horizontally, and can even be set up to cut specific sections and
shapes out of the concrete. A typical cut requires drilling preliminary holes, 1 to 2 inches
in diameter, at each corner of the area to be removed. The diamond wire is then fed
through two of the holes and joined to form a continuous loop which will cut along the
plane established by the hole centerlines. For cutting larger sections, such as the entire top
portion of a compressor foundation block, the wire can simply be looped around the
concrete and no drilling is required.
69
The actual cutting mechanisms are small beads, typically .4 to .5 inches in
diameter, with industrial diamonds either electroplated onto the surface or impregnated
throughout their cross-section. The beads are threaded onto a steel cable core and separated
by springs or plastic segments. Small steel sleeves are crimped onto the wire at uniform
intervals to limit the distance the beads can slide. Any number of wire segments can be
joined by steel couplings to produce wires of any length.
The wire loop is driven by a flywheel, which is in turn driven by a

hydraulic or electric motor. For cutting reinforced concrete, hydraulic motors are preferred
because they offer infinitely variable speed, and are reversible. The wire is guided from the
flywheel to the cut by a series of idler wheels, thus allowing the motor and flywheel to be
located wherever is most convenient (see Figure V-1). This flexibility of equipment
configuration offers the advantage of being able to work around existing structures or
piping.
The flywheel and motor are mounted onto a sliding carriage or rack and
pinion assembly which keeps tension on the wire as the cut progresses. The translational
movement of the motor and flywheel is provided by a hydraulic cylinder for the sliding
carriage system, or an electric motor for the rack and pinion system. When the motor and
flywheel reach the end of the carriage slide or pinion, cutting must be stopped to either
relocate the assembly or shorten the wire.
Cutting rates for diamond wire saws range from 5 to 50 square feet per
hour[1],[2], depending on the degree of reinforcement and the type of concrete. The life of
the diamond wire ranges from 1 to 10 square feet of concrete per linear foot of wire[1],[2],
depending on the type of wire, and again on the degree of reinforcement and the type of
concrete. Wire type is an important consideration, particularly when planning a large cut.
Impregnated wire typically has a longer life because new diamonds are continuously
uncovered as the beads wear down. At the same time, however, the bead diameter, which
controls the cut diameter, decreases. If replacement becomes necessary during a cut,
starting a new wire can be very difficult due to the difference in cut diameters. A large cut
should be started with an impregnated wire that definitely has enough life to finish the cut,
or an electroplated wire which will maintain its diameter throughout its life and can be
replaced.
70
FIGURE V-1. TYPICAL WIRE SAW CONFIGURATION7
7 Hulick, Robert M. and Beckman, Timothy R., “Diamond Wire Cutting of Concrete,” Concrete
International, March 1989, p. 30.
71
Diamond wire saws offer the advantages of low noise levels, no dust or
rubble, and very low vibration levels. The lack of noise, dust, and flying debris makes it
possible for other work to continue in the immediate vicinity. The low vibration levels
prevent vibration damage to the remaining concrete. One factor which may be of concern,
particularly near electrical equipment, is that the process requires water, at a rate of 5 to 10
gallons per minute[1], for cooling and washing away the slurry.
Cutting concrete with a diamond wire saw can be substantially faster and
cleaner than conventional methods, but there is still the task of physically removing the cut
portion of concrete. A diamond wire saw can sever an entire foundation block from its mat
with a single, smooth cut, but it may not be possible to move such a massive piece of
concrete. It may be necessary to cut the concrete into several smaller pieces which can be
handled by the available removal equipment. Multiple wire saws, or a combination of a
wire saw and anther demolition method, may be used to minimize down time. One
additional limitation of wire saws for partial concrete removal is that the option of reusing
the rebar is eliminated.
C. Hydraulic Splitters
Hydraulic splitters are used for controlled splitting of concrete structures.

They operate on hydraulic pressure provided by an external power unit. The power unit
can be either compressed air, gas, or electric, and can operate from one to five splitters
depending on its size. Smaller jobs require only one hydraulic splitter, but for more
massive concrete, several splitters should be used in tandem to better control the splitting.
In either case, splitting concrete by this method typically requires only one operator.
The hydraulic splitter itself consists of a command valve and two cylinders,
one of which consists of a tapered plug and two feathers (see Figure V-2). A control lever
opens the valve, which causes the piston in the upper cylinder to advance. The piston then
pushes the tapered plug through the lower cylinder which forces the feathers apart. As the
feathers spread apart, they exert a splitting force of up to 700,000 pounds[3]. Closing the
valve causes the piston and plug to retract, allowing the feathers to return to their original
position. This type of splitter is known as a downward-wedge splitter. Also available are
upward-wedge splitters. They operate like the downward-wedge type, except that the
tapered plug is reversed and advances upward into the cylinder to force the feathers apart
(see Figure V-3).
72
FIGURE V-2. DOWNWARD WEDGE HYDRAULIC SPLITTER 8
8 Suprenant, Bruce A., “Demolish Concrete Without Flying Debris,” Concrete Repair Digest,
August/September 1991, pp. 96-98.
73
FIGURE V-3. UPWARD WEDGE HYDRAULIC SPLITTER 9
9 Hendry, L. N., Concrete Repair Digest, January 1992, Vol. 2, No. 6, p. 204.
74
To use a hydraulic splitter, holes must first be drilled into the concrete along
the lines where splitting is desired. The holes are typically 1.25 to 1.75 inches in
diameter[3], and they must be straight and sufficiently deep. Curved or shallow holes can
cause damage to the tapered plug of a downward-wedge splitter when it advances. The
number and spacing of holes must be determined, based on the type of concrete and the
desired size of broken pieces. For reinforced concrete, preliminary hole spacing is
approximately 1 foot[3] on center. However, hole spacing will vary with each application,
and the manufacturer should be consulted before beginning.
Once the hydraulic splitter is inserted into a hole, the control lever is turned,
and the feathers exert the splitting force. Cracking usually occurs within 10 to 60
seconds[3], depending upon the strength of the concrete. The control lever is then turned
back, retracting the tapered plug, and the splitter is removed from the hole. This procedure
is then repeated in each consecutive hole, making sure to lubricate between the plug and
feathers before each break. As mentioned above, several splitters can be operated
simultaneously in adjacent holes to ensure that the crack progresses along the desired line,
and to speed up the process.
Hydraulic splitters offer the advantages of no vibration, no shocks, no

flying debris, and minimal manpower requirements. In addition, the actual splitting
process requires very little time. However, much more time may be required for drilling
the preliminary holes. Particularly in the case of reinforced concrete, which requires more
holes and closer spacing than ordinary concrete. The breaking forces from the splitters not
only have to crack the concrete, they must break the concrete-rebar bond. The resulting
cracks open to about .5 inches[3], but the concrete pieces must still be separated from the
rebar. If the rebar is to remain in place, jackhammers or chipping hammers are used to
break the concrete away from the exposed rebar. If the rebar itself is to be replaced,
however, torches or other cutting equipment can be used at this point to sever the existing
rebar.
D. Expansive Demolition Agents
Expansive demolition agents work on the principle of chemical expansion

within a fixed cylindrical volume to create large radial forces. For concrete demolition, the
application of these agents is very similar to that of hydraulic splitters. Holes, typically
75
1.25 to 1.75 inches in diameter[3], must be drilled into the concrete along the lines where
cracking is desired, specifically sized and spaced according to the type of concrete. The
expansive agent is then poured into the holes, where it expands and splits the concrete.
The expansive agent is actually a specially blended Portland cement, which

goes through a volumetric expansion when mixed with water. These agents can create
more than 12,000 pounds of breaking pressure[3]. The time required for breaking varies
greatly depending on the type of agent used. The two basic types are fast set, and slow set.
Fast set agents require mixing for approximately 20 seconds, placement into the holes
within 2 minutes, and breaking time is 1 to 3 hours[3]. Slow set agents require mixing for
approximately 2 to 3 minutes, placement into the holes within 5 minutes, and breaking time
is 10 to 20 hours[3]. The type of agent selected for a job depends largely upon the
temperature range where it is to be used.
Expansive demolition agents offer the advantages of no noise, no vibration,

no debris, and no damage to the environment. No special license is required to use these
demolition materials, and the entire process can be a one man operation. One precaution
that must be considered when working with expansive agents is to avoid contact with skin.
When mixed with water, these agents produce a high alkali solution, and it is advised to
wear rubber gloves when mixing and pouring them.
The primary disadvantage of using expansive demolition agents may be

down time. Just as with hydraulic splitters, much time may be required to drill the initial
holes. This is especially true in the case of reinforced concrete where more holes and
closer spacing is required. There is also the time required for mixing and pouring the
solution into the holes. Then, as stated earlier, depending upon the type of agent used,
cracking time can range from 1 to 20 hours.
There are several additional considerations to make when using expansive

agents to break reinforced concrete. First, the breaking force must be sufficient to both
crack the concrete and break the concrete-rebar bond. Expansive agents sometimes
produce inadequate force for heavily reinforced concrete. Second, after breaking occurs,
the concrete must still be separated from the rebar. As with hydraulic splitters, various
methods may be employed depending upon whether or not the rebar is to be replaced.
76
E. Shape Memory Materials
Shape memory materials are another potential tool for the controlled splitting
of concrete structures. The application of shape memory materials for this purpose is very
similar to that for hydraulic splitters and expansive demolition agents.
A shape memory material is an alloy that exhibits what is called the shape
memory effect. The material first experiences a martensitic transformation, after which it
appears to be permanently deformed. However, subsequent heating of the material causes
a reverse martensitic transformation and it literally "remembers" and returns to its original
shape. When cooled back down, though, it does not deform again. Some materials that
have this memory property can then be thermomechanically processed such that the
transformation becomes repeatable[4]. Upon repeated heating and cooling, the material will
spontaneously change from one shape to the other, and back again.
Japanese scientists have applied this mechanism to the splitting of rock and
concrete. Minoru Nishida, a metallurgist at Kumamoto University in Japan, and his team
have created devices using a titanium-nickel shape memory alloy for cracking rock and
concrete[5]. In attempting to return to its original shape when heated, this alloy exerts a
larger force than even rock can withstand.
The device consists of several small rods of the titanium-nickel alloy,

approximately 1 inch long and .5 inches across. The rods are manually compressed during
the martensitic transformation to shorten them. They are then fixed between two adjustable
plates. The apparatus is then inserted into predrilled bore holes. There, the rods are heated
and the reverse transformation takes place. As the rods "remember" their original shape,
they lengthen, exerting a force against the walls of the bore hole which cracks the concrete.
This method of concrete demolition offers the same advantages in partial

concrete removal as hydraulic splitters and expansive demolition agents. They are quiet,
clean, and safe. They produce no mechanical vibration, and therefore, do not damage the
remaining concrete. There is, however, the necessity of drilling the preliminary bore holes,
which can be noisy and time consuming. Also, just as with splitters and expansive agents,
jackhammers are required in the finishing stages to separate the concrete from the rebar.
77
F. Explosives
Miniblasting is a technique used to remove reinforced concrete by the

controlled blasting of minimal explosives. The explosives are placed in pre-drilled bore
holes in a pre-determined pattern. The explosives are then detonated by remote, and the
resulting dynamic bursting force splits the concrete.
There are two types of explosives used in this process, categorized as mild
or high based upon their blasting velocities. Mild explosives have blasting velocities as
low as 30 m/sec, while the high explosives range from 4000 to 7000 m/sec[6]. The mild
explosives produce less noise and vibration, but the high explosives are better suited for
partial demolition as they tend to rip the concrete from the rebar more cleanly.
The success and efficiency of concrete removal by miniblasting depends on

a number of factors, possibly the most important of which is the knowledge and experience
of the individual performing the blasting. Other important factors, such as the specific
charge required and bore hole spacing, can be determined by using empirical data. The
pattern of the bore holes must also be carefully planned to force the concrete to crack where
desired. Blasting is also controlled by detonating the divided charges at short time
intervals, usually 20 to 30 milliseconds[6]. This allows determination of the direction of the
blasting effect, and some control of vibration and flying debris.
Vibration damage is a major concern when using explosives. However,

damage to the remaining concrete can be minimized with careful planning and a good
understanding of concrete structures and materials. Dust and flying debris are another
major concern, and certain precautions must be taken. Textile fiber mats can be used to
lower dust levels, and Kevlar mats can be set up to stop rock projectiles[6]. It is usually
necessary to restrict access to the blasting area, but typically for periods of 2 minutes or
less. In extremely hazardous areas, even with all safety precautions considered, explosives
may not be a viable method of demolition. Special consideration must be made concerning
highly volatile materials, and with regard to the possible violation of certain codes or laws.
One additional consideration with miniblasting is that a special license is required in order
to use the explosives.
78
Miniblasting is a quick, cost effective method for partial demolition of
reinforced concrete. As stated earlier, the concrete is ripped cleanly from the rebar, thus
minimizing any additional hammering operations for final removal. Although high noise
levels are produced during blasting, the noise is short-term and more bearable than the
continuous noise produced by jackhammers. Miniblasting is a versatile tool, in that as long
as effective covering devices are used, it can be carried out under nearly any circumstances.
G. Water Jets
Water jet cutting is a unique technology that is very applicable to the

removal of deteriorated concrete. Depending upon the method used, the damaged concrete
can either be stripped away in layers, or cut through and removed in blocks. The process
basically consists of water from a pump being forced through a nozzle creating a high
pressure stream. The water stream transmits high levels of energy into a small surface
area, literally eroding away the material of the work surface.
Concrete is a composite material consisting of a very hard aggregate bonded

in a cement matrix. A water jet cuts the concrete by eroding away the softer matrix from
around the aggregate, then washing away the loose materials. A basic water jet will not cut
through the rebar in reinforced concrete, but thoroughly cleans it and removes rust without
damaging it[7]. The rebar is left clean and ready to be reused, thus eliminating one step
required by most other demolition methods.
If abrasive particles are added to a water jet, it will cut the concrete more
cleanly, and can even cut through steel rebar. When compared with other cutting methods,
these abrasive water jets, also called "water saws", offer the advantage of cutting deeper
than blades, and the ability to cut around corners and follow curves. They also leave a cut
surface that is better for bonding[8].
Another variation of jet cutting, which offers lower costs than abrasive
water jets, is a cavitating water jet. An obstruction placed in the orifice of the nozzle causes
millions of microscopic bubbles to enter the stream. The bubbles are carried by the stream
to the work surface where they create shockwaves as they implode against the hard surface.
The cost advantage of cavitating water jets comes from the fact that no abrasives are used,
and lower water pressure is required which in turn requires less expensive pumps.
79
In addition to a steady, continuous stream, water jets can be pulsed or
rotating. Also, depending on the application, a single jet, or multiple jets can be used.
Typically, the nozzles are either robot guided, or moved hydraulically along a beam. The
type of machinery required varies with the application.
Regardless of the specific type used, cutting concrete with water jets offers
several advantages over traditional methods. The lack of dust, and lower noise levels
produced, allow work to continue in nearby areas. Instead of dust, a sand-like material is
left over which can easily be vacuumed up. There is no mechanical vibration produced,
which prevents any damage to the remaining concrete. Also, as previously stated, the cut
surface on the remaining concrete is superior for bonding to the new concrete. In addition,
if the rebar is to be reused, it is left clean and free of rust.
The major disadvantage of water jet cutting is the large number of

operational parameters involved in the process. Some of the important parameters are
water pressure, water flow rate, type of abrasive, flow rate of abrasive, size of nozzle,
geometry of nozzle, transverse velocity of nozzle, stand-off distance (from nozzle to work
surface), and properties of the concrete to be cut. These and other factors will affect the
productivity, quality, and efficiency of the job. It may, therefore, be necessary to use an
experienced contractor to set up and carry out the cutting process. Finally, as with all other
mass concrete removal methods, the cut blocks of concrete must still be lifted and removed
from the area.
H. References
1. Hawkins, Alicia C. and Brauninger, G. H., “No Sawing Job Too

Big”, Concrete Repair Digest, December 1991/January 1992, Vol.
2, No. 6, pp. 196-199.
2. Hulick, Robert M. and Beckman, T. R., “Diamond Wire Cutting of

Concrete”, Concrete International, March 1989, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.
29-32.
3. Suprenant, Bruce A., “Demolish Concrete Without Flying Debris”,

Concrete Repair Digest, August / September 1991, pp. 96-98.
80
4. Wayman, C. Marvin and Harrison, John D., “The Origins of the
Shape Memory Effect”, The Journal of the Minerals, Metals, &
Materials Society, September 1989, Vol. 41, No. 9, pp. 26-28.
5. Pennisi, Elizabeth, “Mighty Material Breaks Boulders”, Materials

Science, December 1991, p. 399.
6. Lauritzen, Eric K. and Petersen, M., “Partial Demolition by Mini-

Blasting”, Concrete International, June 1991, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp.
43-46.
7. McGovern, Martin S., “Hydrodemolition Combines Quality, High

Production”, Concrete Repair Digest, December 1992/January
1993, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 247- 251.
8. Godfrey, Jr., K. A., “Water Jets: Concrete Yes, Tunneling

Maybe”, Civil Engineering, May 1987, Vol. 57, No. 5, pp. 78-81.
81

Ta-93-1 Reciprocating Compressor Foundations Loading, Design Analysis, Monitoring &amp; Repair

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ta-93-1 Reciprocating Compressor Foundations Loading, Design Analysis, Monitoring &amp; Repair

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Ta-93-1 Reciprocating Compressor Foundations Loading, Design Analysis, Monitoring &amp; Repair

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report No.

Mechanical and Fluids Engineering Division

This document may contain references to product(s) which may assist in

For additional copies of this report, please contact:

This technology assessment covers topics pertinent to the design, analysis,

The technology assessment finally addresses alternative methods of partial block

II. RECIPROCATING COMPRESSOR LOADS: THE

III. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE BLOCKS 31

IV. CONDITION MONITORING AND ASSOCIATED

V. A REVIEW OF BLOCK REMOVAL METHODS 68

II-1 Multiple Jack Bolt Torque Nut 9

II-2 Photograph Showing Head of Torque Nut with Multiple

II-3 Distorted Compressor Shape Every 30° of Crankshaft

II-4 3-D Animated Display of Frame and Block Distortion

II-5 Illustration of Variation of Maximum Tie-Down Forces

II-6 Measured Influence of Gas Discharge Pressure on Main

II-7 Run 2 Temperatures at Bearing 5 and in Sump as a

II-8 Run 2 Temperatures in Block as a Function of Time from

III-1 Finite Element Model of Foundation Block 36

III-2 Concrete Elements Cracked at First Integration Point 37

III-3 Cracked Concrete Region in the Block 38

III-4 Rebar Stresses 39

IV-1 GMV Compressor - One of the Four Tested for Vibration

IV-2 Instrumentation for Block/Frame Vibration Analysis 47

IV-3 Encoder Used to Trigger Data Acquisition at 512 Counts

IV-4 Unfiltered Vibration vs. Shaft Angle 49

IV-5 Vibration vs. Shaft Angle from TDC Cylinder 1, for 6

IV-6 Unit W7 - 3-D Animated Display 51

IV-7 Unit N5 - 3-D Animated Display 52

IV-8 Unit W6 - 3-D Animated Display 53

IV-9 Comparison of Relative and Absolute Vibration Measures

IV-10 Bearing Peak-Peak Vibration at Bearing Centerline as a

IV-11 Bearing Peak-Peak Vibration at Compressor Base as a

IV-12 Bearing Peak-Peak Vibration at Top of Block as a Function

IV-13 Vertical Peak-Peak Vibration at Compressor Base as a

IV-14 Vertical Peak-Peak Vibration on Foundation as a Function

IV-15 ADE Probes for Compressor Alignment Monitoring 64

IV-16a Vertical Distortion of Bearing 5 Relative to a Line Jointed

IV-16b Variation of Ambient Temperature (Chock Mount Test) 66

V-1 Typical Wire Saw Configuration 71

V-2 Downward Wedge Hydraulic Splitter 73

V-3 Upward Wedge Hydraulic Splitter 74

II-1 Summary of Compressor Loads 28

III-1 Foundation Block Parameters 35

III-2 Static Shaking Forces on the Block 40

IV-1 Relative Condition of Blocks 45

This report presents a start on meeting these needs in selected areas. It is

The report addresses the following topics:

The section on Condition Monitoring and Associated Instrumentation addresses the

PCRC members interested in exploring a particular topic in this report in additional

As subsequent discussions will make clear, the foundation block and

When design, operation, and maintenance of reciprocating compressor

• Crankshaft integrity and stress,

A major function of the foundation is to support gravity loads. The weight

To calculate, with precision, the gravity load distribution as carried on

The significance of gravity load is first to produce a generally downwards

Fmax = µ (WL + T) (1)

WL = local component of compressor weight,

The friction coefficient is a function of the materials in contact and the

Ta-93-1 Reciprocating Compressor Foundations Loading, Design Analysis, Monitoring & Repair

Ta-93-1 Reciprocating Compressor Foundations Loading, Design Analysis, Monitoring & Repair

Ta-93-1 Reciprocating Compressor Foundations Loading, Design Analysis, Monitoring & Repair