6 views

Uploaded by AH

Performance Evaluation of Vibration

- 4 Oscillations and Waves
- Dynamics Lab Report (Forced Vibration)
- Vibrations of Cantilever Beam (Continuous System) (2)
- ASTM D999
- Vibration Formulas
- Resonant generation and energetics of wind-forced near-inertial motions in a geostrophic flow
- Experimental Modal Analysis on a Rotating Fan-Printed
- Structural Labs Experiment No. 3
- lec15
- sdof-dyn
- Bridge Hill
- 4.Forced Damped Vibration
- 0596
- TTE Isolated or Onsoil Foundation Design.pdf
- docslide.us_dynamics-lab-report-forced-vibration.docx
- 2015_tutorial3
- 17871565_2
- Simple Harmonic Motion2
- Experiment 8
- Matlab Primer 7 Dec 09

You are on page 1of 18

598

equipment foundations under ground-transmitted

excitation

M. Hesham El Naggar

Abstract: The planning of foundations for equipment that is sensitive to vibrations requires a thorough dynamic investigation of the proposed location of the foundation with regard to the effect of already existing or additional vibration

sources. This paper discusses the analyses performed for a number of foundations supporting vibration-sensitive equipment that has been subjected to ground-transmitted excitations. These analyses considered the dynamic response of the

foundations resulting from the normal operation of the supported equipment or the ground-transmitted excitations. In

one case, the foundation of the Canadian Light Source, a third generation synchrotron that will be capable of generating electromagnetic radiation used in the study of the atomic and subatomic structure of materials, is examined.

Another case involves the vibration analysis of a magnetic resonance imaging unit affected by traffic excitation. In the

third case, a power plant facility that is subjected to blast-induced vibration from an adjacent quarry is investigated.

The last case involves the response analysis of a compressor foundation affected by the ground-transmitted vibration

from another compressor situated on a different foundation within the same facility. To assess the level of seismic excitation at the site due to traffic on an adjacent roadway in the first two cases and to blasting activity in the third case,

extensive green field ground vibration-monitoring programs were carried out. The ground accelerations due to traffic

and blasting were measured and recorded for three directions simultaneously: a vertical and two orthogonal horizontal

directions. The measurements with the most intense ground accelerations taken at the ground surface in the location of

the future equipment foundation were selected as the final design acceleration time-history. A Fourier analysis approach

was used to predict the response of the foundation to the ground-induced vibrations in the first three cases, and a

frequency domain analysis was used in the last case.

Key words: machine foundations, vibration, blasting, kinematic, soilstructure interaction.

Rsum : Planification de fondations pour de lquipement qui est sensible aux vibrations requiert un tude dynamique

complte du site propos pour la fondation en considrant leffet des sources de vibrations dj existantes ou additionnelles. Cet article discute des analyses ralises pour un certain nombre de fondations sur lesquelles reposent des quipements sensibles aux vibrations et qui ont t soumises des sollicitations transmises par le terrain. Ces analyses

considrent la rponse dynamique des fondations due lopration normale de lquipement quelles supportent ou aux

sollicitations transmises par le terrain. Dans un cas, on examine la fondation du Canadian Light Source, un synchrotron

de troisime gnration qui pourra gnrer des radiations lectromagntiques utilises dans ltude de la structure

atomique et subatomique des matriaux. Un autre cas implique lanalyse des vibrations dune unit dimagerie de

rsonnance magntique dues la sollicitation du trafic. Dans le troisime cas, on tudie une centrale lectrique qui est

soumise des vibrations induites par le dynamitage dans une carrire adjacente. Le dernier cas implique lanalyse de

la rponse de la fondation dun compresseur due la vibration transmise par le sol en provenance dun autre

compresseur situ sur une autre fondation lintrieur de la centrale. Pour valuer le niveau dexcitation sismique sur

le site, due au trafic sur une route adjacente dans les deux premiers cas, et lactivit de dynamitage dans le troisime

cas, on a ralis des programmes labors de mesures des vibrations du terrain naturel. Les acclrations du terrain

dues au trafic ou dynamitage ont t mesures et enregistres simultanment dans trois directions: une direction

verticale et deux horizontales orthogonales. Les mesures ayant les acclrations du sol les plus intenses prises la

surface du terrain sur le site de la fondation du futur quipement ont t choisies pour la conception finale de lhistoire

en fonction du temps de lacclration. On a utilis une approche danalyse de Fourier pour prdire la rponse de la

fondation aux vibrations induites par le terrain dans les trois premiers cas, et une analyse dans le domaine des

frquences dans le dernier cas.

Mots cls : fondations de machine, vibration, dynamitage, cintique, interaction solstructure.

[Traduit par la Rdaction]

El Naggar

615

Received 5 November 2001. Accepted 28 December 2002. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cgj.nrc.ca on

20 May 2003.

M.H. El Naggar. Geotechnical Research Centre, Faculty of Engineering Science, The University of Western Ontario, London ON

N6A 5B9, Canada. (e-mail: naggar@uwo.ca).

Can. Geotech. J. 40: 598615 (2003)

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:35 PM

doi: 10.1139/T03-014

Composite Default screen

El Naggar

Introduction

The main objective when designing a foundation for

vibration-sensitive equipment is to limit the response amplitudes of the foundation to the specified tolerance in all vibration modes. The tolerance is usually set by the machine

manufacturer to ensure satisfactory performance of the machine. The displacement of foundations subjected to dynamic loads depends on the type and geometry of the

foundation, the flexibility of the supporting ground, and the

type of dynamic loading.

The objective of this paper is to establish a rational approach for the evaluation of the dynamic performance of

foundations supporting vibration-sensitive equipment. This

approach incorporates the dynamic characteristics of both

the foundation system and the seismic excitation. It includes

the planning and execution of vibration monitoring programs

at the location of the proposed foundations, the evaluation of

the characteristics of the dynamic loading, the calculation of

the foundation impedance functions, and the response of the

foundation to the dynamic loads.

Design procedure

The vibration criteria stated by the manufacturer are always specified as floor vibrations. Before the facility is

built, no floor vibration can be directly measured. On the

other hand, the ground-transmitted excitation at the site due

to external sources of vibration could be, in many cases, an

important factor for designing the facility or even in deciding whether or not it will be built. Therefore, establishing

the relationship between measured ground vibrations and

expected floor vibrations is the first step in the evaluation

process. The procedure used to establish this relationship

includes the following steps:

(1) Evaluating the dynamic loads: this includes the determination of their magnitudes and characteristics, including

intensity and frequency content of the groundtransmitted vibration.

(2) Establishing the soil profile and evaluating the soil

properties required for the dynamic analysis (shear

modulus, mass density, Poissons ratio, and material

damping ratio).

(3) Selecting the type and trial dimensions of the foundation based on experience.

(4) Computing the dynamic response of the trial foundation

supported by the given soil profile due to the estimated

load and comparing the response with the performance

criteria. If the response is not satisfactory, the dimensions of the foundation are modified and the analysis is

repeated until a satisfactory design is achieved.

The dynamic response analysis is the major component

in the design process. The analysis essentially involves the

calculation of the vibration characteristics of the machine

foundationsoil system (i.e., the natural frequencies and the

vibration amplitudes due to all sources of vibration). The

complexity of the response analysis required depends on the

type of foundation system used. For flexible foundation systems (e.g., thin mat foundations), dynamic finite element

analysis may be necessary. For rigid foundations resting di-

599

analytical or numerical methods or both are commonly used.

The response of soils and foundations to dynamic excitation is frequency dependent and thus is a function of the

stiffness and damping parameters of the soil and the foundation. Therefore, the evaluation of the appropriate stiffness

and damping parameters (impedance functions) for the foundation soil or pilesoil system is a key step in the analysis.

functions

The evaluation of the dynamic response of foundations supporting vibration-sensitive equipment requires that proper values for the dynamic stiffness and damping of the foundation be

used. The variation of these values with dynamic soil characteristics is usually notable, and consequently their effect on the

foundations response is important. Both shallow and deep

foundations are commonly used to support machinery.

Several approaches are available for the analysis of foundation systems to account for dynamic soilstructure interaction. The analyses used to determine the impedance

functions of shallow and deep foundations are described

briefly below.

Shallow foundation

The stiffness and damping constants of shallow foundations resting on the surface of a linear viscoelastic halfspace

can be obtained using either three-dimensional or twodimensional continuum approaches. The analytical solutions

include the contribution of many researchers: Bycroft

(1956); Luco and Westmann (1971); and Veletsos and Verbic

(1973). Veletsos and Wei (1971) and Luco and Hadjian

(1974) introduced numerical solutions. For circular bases the

complex stiffness Ki associated with direction i is obtained

by determining the relationship between the harmonic force

acting on a massless disc that rests on the surface of the

halfspace and the resulting displacement of the disc. This

complex stiffness can be expressed in terms of the true stiffness constant, ki , and the damping constant, ci , as

[1]

Ki = ki [ ki (a 0) + ia 0 ci (a 0)]

dimensionless frequency, R is the disc radius, Vs = G

is the shear wave velocity of the soil, and G and are the

soil shear modulus and mass density, respectively. The

parameters ki and ci are stiffness and damping constants

k

V

normalized as follows: ki = i , ci = s ci (i.e., see Veletsos

ki

ki R

and Verbic 1973).

Embedment is known to increase both stiffness and

damping, but the increase in foundation damping is more

significant. The response of embedded footings can be approximated by assuming that soil reactions acting on the

base are equal to those of a surface footing and that the reactions acting on the footing sides are equal to those of an

independent layer overlying the halfspace assuming plane

strain conditions. Beredugo and Novak (1972) found that

this approximate approach yields reasonable results compared with the finite element predictions. In this study, the

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:36 PM

Composite Default screen

600

side reactions and the halfspace solution for base reactions

developed by Veletsos and Verbic (1973) were used to evaluate the stiffness and damping constants of the shallow

foundation.

A foundation resting on a shallow layer has increased

stiffness and reduced or even nil geometric damping (due to

wave propagation away from the foundation). Kobori et al.

(1971) showed that geometric damping might completely

vanish if the excitation frequency is lower than the first natural frequency of the soil layer. The first vertical and horizontal natural frequencies, v and u, respectively, of a shallow

layer are

[2]

v =

Vs

2H

2(2 )

1 2

and

u =

Vs

2H

soil layer. At frequencies lower than v and u, the only

source of damping is the material damping. For frequencies

below the first layer natural frequencies, it would be safe to

ignore geometric damping completely, and the damping can

be established as a fraction of stiffness giving c as

2

[3]

c = k k

Deep foundation

Stiffness and damping of piles are affected by interaction

of the piles with the surrounding soil. In groups of closely

spaced piles, the character of dynamic stiffness and damping

is further complicated by interaction between individual

piles. To account for pilesoilpile interaction effects, the

superposition approach was used in the analysis. In this approach, the stiffness and damping of single piles are calculated first, then group effect is accounted for using the

interaction factors.

The dynamic stiffness (impedance function) of piles can

be described as

[4]

Ki = ki (a 0) + i ci (a 0)

damping constants, ci , for individual motions of the pile

head can be evaluated as a function of the pile and soil properties using the approach developed by Novak and AboulElla (1978) for piles in a layered medium.

The dynamic group effects can be evaluated approximately using the interaction factors approach and the

approximate approach due to Dobry and Gazetas (1988) and

Gazetas and Makris (1991) in which the interaction problem

is reduced to the consideration of cylindrical wave propagation. A simplified approximate analysis for the dynamic

group effects is formulated on the basis of dynamic interaction factors, , introduced by Kaynia and Kausel (1982) who

presented charts for dynamic interaction. In this analysis, the

impedance functions of single piles and the interaction factors are calculated first, then the group impedance functions

are computed using the approach described in El Naggar and

Novak (1995). All of the techniques used to calculate the

impedance functions for the foundation are encoded in the

this study. The DYNA5 program is used to calculate the response of rigid foundations to all types of dynamic loads, including loads from centrifugal or reciprocating machines,

shock-producing machines, earthquakes, traffic, and other

sources of dynamic forces. The response to harmonic loading for a flexible, rectangular mat on elastic halfspace or on

a group of piles can also be calculated. The stiffness and

damping constants of the foundation (needed for the analysis) are evaluated within the program for surface foundations, embedded foundations, and piles accounting for the

interaction of piles in a group. For rigid footings, all six

degrees of freedom are considered as coupled.

Vibration monitoring

To assess the level of seismic excitation at a site caused

by ground-transmitted vibration from external sources, a

ground vibration-monitoring program should be carefully

planned and executed. This involves taking ground acceleration measurements at several stations situated across the site

prior to the start of construction. The evaluation of groundtransmitted vibration caused by the operation of vibrating

equipment in an adjacent facility involves vibration monitoring if the facility already exists or dynamic response analysis

of the proposed foundation system if it is to be constructed

in the future.

Vibration monitoring equipment

Components of the ground vibration monitoring equipment included sensors, mountings for the sensors, and a data

acquisition system. The monitoring system was designed

to provide the required sensitivity, minimize data sampling

errors, and achieve the robust performance necessary for the

anticipated environmental conditions.

In this study, ground vibrations were measured using ICP

model 393B31 seismic accelerometers supplied by PCB

Piezotronics Inc. (Depew, New York) with a sensitivity of

1.0 106g and a measurement range of 0.5 g, a frequency

range of 0.07300 Hz (at 10% gain), and an operational

temperature range from 18 to 65C. These accelerometers

were deemed to satisfy the stringent project requirements. In

addition, a mounted natural frequency in the order of 1 kHz

helped to minimize measurement bias in the frequency range

of interest.

The accelerometers were mounted directly on specially

fabricated aluminum posts installed in the ground at the

measuring stations. Mounting arrangements enabled the

simultaneous attachment of accelerometers in three mutually

orthogonal directions, with two oriented horizontally and the

third vertically. An embedded length of 0.6 m for the posts

was selected to enhance the rigidity of the system. At the

same time it was significantly smaller than the minimum

wavelength of soil vibrations for the maximum frequencies

considered. The sensors were protected from interference

from other factors such as wind, snow, and electromagnetic

fields.

Dynamic tests were conducted on the mounted sensor

assembly using an impact hammer apparatus. It was found

that the embedded posts exhibited a fundamental resonant

frequency ranging between 120 and 150 Hz with a single

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:36 PM

Composite Default screen

El Naggar

with three mounted accelerometers. Free vibration damping

was observed to be approximately 810% of critical damping.

A digital data acquisition system compatible with the sensors was used to record the acceleration time history. Proper

analog filtering ensured that no frequency interference occurred. The sampling frequency (1 kHz) was selected so that

the highest frequency component of interest could be properly identified. All of the measurement data were recorded

using the data acquisition system and stored in digital form

for subsequent analyses.

Vibration monitoring programs

Ground-transmitted vibration was the main design consideration in the four projects considered in this study. In two

cases, heavy traffic on a highway near the proposed facility

represented the external source of vibration. In the third

case, the vibration was caused by blasting in a quarry operation near a proposed power plant. The last case involved the

response analysis of a compressor foundation affected by its

own operating load as well as the ground-transmitted vibration from another compressor situated on a different foundation within the same facility. In the first three cases,

vibration monitoring programs were executed to assess the

level of vibration.

Canadian Light Source (CLS)

The CLS is a third generation synchrotron that will be

capable of generating electromagnetic radiation used in the

study of the atomic and subatomic structure of materials.

The accuracy required in aiming the electron beam and

the resulting radiation necessitates very stringent operational

tolerances on foundation vibrations, with peak dynamic displacements being limited to less than 0.35 m over the frequency range 050 Hz. Ground acceleration measurements

were taken at 10 stations distributed across the CLS site. At

each station, simultaneous readings were taken in one vertical and two horizontal directions for the various types of

excitation that were considered. Additional tests were also

conducted with corresponding measurements recorded at

three different stations simultaneously.

Vibration events caused by general automobile traffic,

buses, and loaded gravel trucks were recorded. Snow covered the site during the measurement period, and the ground

was at least partially frozen. In these tests, gravel truck

events were found to generate the largest ground vibrations

and therefore formed the basis for subsequent analyses.

Additional tests were also performed using a mechanical

tamper to estimate the correlation between stations for a

somewhat uniform excitation source. The corresponding horizontal and vertical accelerations at three stations located

along a straight line were measured simultaneously to characterize the attenuation of ground vibrations over the foundation area.

To ensure that the ground vibration measurements were

representative of the most severe anticipated loading conditions, including the effects of varying weather conditions

and the potential for significant bumps on the roadway, a

new set of ground vibration monitoring tests was performed

in the summer. These tests featured a loaded gravel truck

traveling at 4045 km/h (the speed limit on this road is

601

2 4 hollow structural steel (HSS) tube installed across the

driving lane). Several sets of measurements were taken, each

consisting of 10 truck events (five events with the truck

traveling in each direction along the roadway). The measurements with the most intense ground accelerations taken at

the ground surface in the location of the future machine

foundation were selected as the final design acceleration

time history.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) facility

The MRI is an advanced medical device that represents

a significant tool in the diagnosis of ailments. The device

is extremely sensitive to external vibrations. The vibration

tolerance specified by the manufacturer of the MRI unit

considered in this study is given in terms of acceleration

amplitudes as follows: 1 106g over the frequency range

010 Hz, 10 106g for the frequency range 1022 Hz; and

25 106g for the frequency range 2240 Hz.

The proposed site is situated 15 m from a busy roadway.

The soil profile at the site includes a shallow layer (5 m

thick) of silty sand underlain by weathered bedrock. Dry

conditions were encountered in the boreholes. The proposed

foundation system includes drilled shafts bearing on the bedrock. Therefore, the vibration-monitoring program included

vibration measurements in the soil layer and in the bedrock

(1.2 m below the surface of the bedrock). The accelerations

were measured along the vertical direction and two perpendicular horizontal directions. The vibration measurements

were taken at the centre of the future foundation because of

the small size of the foundation. Because of the random

nature of the traffic excitation, the vibration measurements

were represented in terms of the power spectra of the ground

acceleration measured over durations of 2, 8, and 25 s.

These power spectra were obtained by subjecting the measured acceleration time history to a Fourier transform.

The results of the monitoring program showed that the

maximum acceleration amplitudes measured in the soil layer

were 20 times greater than those measured in the bedrock.

Therefore, the soil accelerations were used in the subsequent

analysis.

Blast-induced vibration on a power plant

This case study involves a power plant facility that is subjected to blast-induced vibration from an adjacent quarry.

The proposed facility houses three turbine generator units,

each of which will be supported by an independent foundation. The blasting will occur up to 100 m from the proposed

foundations. Blasts occur on average two times a week and

last for about 0.5 s each time. The requirements of the facility dictate that the turbines must not be damaged during the

blast. The standard operational tolerances on foundation

vibrations for the turbine foundation are limited to peak

dynamic displacements of less than 0.075 mm.

The selected foundation option is a shallow foundation

system that consists of a rigid concrete slab. The soil profile

at the site consists mainly of extremely weathered bedrock.

The native soil beneath the concrete slab would be excavated

and removed to a depth of 6 m below the existing ground

surface and an engineered fill 4 m thick would be placed

prior to the foundation being constructed.

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:36 PM

Composite Default screen

602

future foundation resulting from blasting activities in the

quarry, an extensive ground vibration monitoring program

was carried out. This program included initial blastmonitoring of production blasts at the future turbine location

and the development of a final design acceleration time history. The ground acceleration time histories were measured

at the weathered rock in the location of the subject foundation. The acceleration time histories were measured in the

longitudinal, transverse, and vertical directions. The results

of the vibration-monitoring program showed the pattern and

vibration characteristics of the production blasts (i.e., duration of blasts, intensity of the ground vibration, and frequency content). The analysis of the results of monitoring

indicated that there was the potential for an unacceptable

foundation response.

Multiple closely spaced machine foundations

The last case study represents a fairly common situation.

It involves the response analysis of a compressor foundation

affected by its own operating load as well as the groundtransmitted vibration from another compressor situated on a

different foundation within the same facility. In this case, the

expected ground vibrations are computed rather than measured. The response analysis is discussed in the following

section.

Response analysis

The basic mathematical model used in the dynamic analysis is a lumped mass with a spring and dashpot. If the mass,

m, is able to move in only one direction, e.g., vertical, it is

said to have a single degree of freedom (SDF). The foundation block has six degrees of freedom, three translational and

three rotational. These are the displacements along the x, y,

and z axes and rotation about the same axes.

The response of the mass depends on the nature of the soil

reaction that is modeled by both the spring and the dashpot.

The stiffness and damping constants are calculated for different foundation types using the approaches described earlier. Due to the large resulting stiffness of the foundation

block or pile cap relative to that of the soil or the piles, the

foundation block can be assumed to vibrate as a rigid body.

The equation of motion for this rigid body in one direction

(i.e., SDF) when subjected to a dynamic excitation is

[5]

coefficient and stiffness constant, respectively, of the foundation along the direction considered; P(t) is the loading excitation; and &&, & and are the acceleration, velocity, and

displacement of the foundation, respectively. For basic harmonic loading, the response is given by

[6]

(t) =

P

( k m ) + 2 c2

2 2

cos( t + )

is the phase shift.

For ground-transmitted excitation, the forcing function,

P(t), is given by {m(t)} where (t) is the absolute ground

future foundation. In this case, there are two approaches

used to solve for the response of the foundation. In the first

approach, the Duhamel integral of (t) is used to calculate

the relative displacement of the foundation, i.e.,

[7]

(t) =

1

0 1 D

where 0 = k / m , D = c / 2 km and d = 1 D2 .

The response of the machine-foundation system is influenced by both its natural frequency and the frequency content of loading. The traffic loading is transmitted to the

foundation as a combination of seismic waves propagating

in the ground at different frequencies. While eq. [7] implies

that the stiffness and damping of the foundation system are

constant, they are, in fact, frequency dependent; the use of

eq. [7] to calculate the response may therefore compromise

the resulting accuracy.

Alternatively, a Fourier analysis can be used to calculate

the response of the foundation to the transient load in the

frequency domain. In this type of analysis, the load is represented by the sum of a series of harmonic components

obtained by subjecting the load time history to a fast Fourier

transform (FFT). In the FFT, the input function x(t)

(i. e., mu&&(t)) is given as an even number, N, of equidistant

points in the time domain. The number of frequency components is limited, and for N data points, N/2 frequency components are obtained. Thus, increased accuracy can only be

obtained by increasing the number of data points.

The response of a SDF system acted on by the nth harmonic component of the load would be governed by

[8]

m && + c& + k = x ei n t

k

harmonic component. The response of the system can be

related to the loading by

[9]

n(t) = H (n) x k ei n t

[10]

H(n) =

1

2

1 n + i 2D n

0

0

= H(n) ei

where |H(n)| is the modulus of the complex transfer function. For the current study, |H(n)| was defined using the

foundation model described in the section titled Design

procedure. The real part of the response due to the nth harmonic component is then

[11]

n(t) =

xk

H(n) cos(n t + )

k

(t) = n(t).

Kinematic soilstructure interaction

The kinematic interaction alters the free field motion by

virtue of the relatively stiff foundation and wave scattering

effects. When subjected to vertically propagating coherent

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:37 PM

Composite Default screen

El Naggar

shear waves, embedded foundations experience a modification in base-slab translational motions relative to the freefield, and rocking motions are introduced. These modified

foundation motions, named foundation input motions (FIM)

are used as the excitation in the analysis of inertial interaction of the equipment foundations to ground-transmitted

vibrations.

The significance of kinematic interaction depends on the

characteristics of the ground-transmitted vibration and the

size, embedment, and flexibility of the foundation. Roesset

(1980) suggests that these embedment effects are likely to be

significant for e/r (e is the embedded depth, r is the foundation radius or equivalent radius) greater than about 0.5.

Analytical and empirical studies have been performed to

examine embedment effects on foundation input motions.

Analytical studies of embedment effects have focused on

the evaluation of transfer functions expressing the amplitude

ratio of base-slab translational and rocking motions to

free-field motions (Elsabee et al. 1977; Day 1977). These

formulations are generally based on assumed vertically propagating coherent waves and the results are given in terms of

dimensionless frequency, a0. The results of these analyses

indicate significant filtering of translational motions for a0 >

0.5 and the development of a significant rocking component

for a0 > 1.0. At low frequencies, a0 < 1.5, the filtering of

foundation motions and magnitude of rocking motions increase with increasing embedment ratio, while at higher frequencies there is little sensitivity to this parameter. These

results can be contrasted with the behaviour of a surface

foundation that would have no reduction of translational motions and no rocking motions when subjected to vertically

incident coherent shear waves.

For a foundation embedded at depth e, with or without

sidewalls, and subjected to harmonic vertical and oblique

waves, the amplification functions for translational and rocking components of FIM, Iu() and I () can be estimated as

(Luco 1969; Elsabee et al. 1977; Tassoulas 1984)

[12]

e

2

cos a 0 a 0 a s

r

3

I u () =

2

0.457

a 0 > as

3

0.247

e

1 cos a 0 a 0 a s

r

I () = r

0.245

a 0 > as

r

soil stratum of thickness e. Empirical studies by Seed and

Lysmer (1980) and Chang et al. (1985) have documented reductions in ground motion with depth using both downhole

free-field arrays and comparisons of basement and free-field

motions. The results of their studies indicated reductions of

peak ground acceleration and high frequency spectral ordinates with depth.

Alternatively, the method proposed by Clough and

Penzien (1993) can be used to estimate the effect of kinematic interaction on the ground motion to the rigid foundation. In this method, the ratio of the amplitude of a harmonic

603

harmonic of the incident wave is given by

[13]

1

[ 2 (1 cos )]1 2

in which =

Df

2 D f

L

dation in the direction of wave propagation and L is the

wavelength corresponding to . The ratio varies between 1

and 0 as varies from 0 to 2. This means the -factor (i.e.,

kinematic interaction) could significantly lower the input excitation, thus reducing response accordingly.

Dynamic analyses were conducted to evaluate the performance of the machine-foundation systems under the

ground-transmitted vibration. These dynamic analyses involved calculating the frequency content of the ground motions, the dynamic characteristics of the foundation systems,

and the dynamic response of the foundation systems to the

ground motions. The following sections will summarize the

results of the analysis.

Response of CLS foundation

The proposed foundation system consists of a concrete

slab 78 m 78 m and 0.35 m thick supported by 400 concrete piles. Because of the large area of the foundation, the

ground vibration measurements at stations S4 (at the edge of

slab near the road) and S5 (at the centre of the slab) were

examined as they were deemed to be most representative

of the ground vibrations that would be experienced by the

foundation. Each event included the ground vibration measurements that lasted 12 s. Different segments of the ground

vibration time history were examined to identify the critical

loading.

Force Fourier amplitudes

The inertial force time history was calculated by multiplying the measured ground acceleration time history by the

mass of the equipment and its supporting structure (assumed

to be 1.0 106 kg). The force time history was subjected to

a FFT to transfer the load into the frequency domain. Figs. 1

and 2 show the variation of the force Fourier amplitudes

with frequency at stations S5 and S4 for a truck traveling

east. It can be noted from Figs. 1 and 2 that the force amplitudes at S4 are much higher (17 times higher) than those at

S5, because of the attenuation of the ground motion between

stations S4 and S5. It can also be seen that most of the

energy at S4 is concentrated in the frequency range 400

600 rad/s (6090 Hz). The winter tests showed an energy

concentration in the frequency range 10001500 rad/s

(160240 Hz). The shift in the frequency range may be attributed to the fact that the ground was not frozen during this

set of tests. At S5, however, the energy is concentrated in the

frequency range of 100400 rad/s (1560 Hz). This can be

attributed to the fact that waves with higher frequencies attenuate faster than waves with lower frequencies. Also, this frequency range is lower than that of the winter tests, which is

consistent with the measurements at S4. It was found that the

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:37 PM

Composite Default screen

604

in Figs. 1 and 2) was higher than it was in the winter measurements. This may be attributed to the fact that the ground was

still fully or partially frozen at the time of the winter tests.

The vibration measured at S5 (Fig. 1) was used as the

input excitation for the dynamic analysis. The vibration

the wave attenuation was considered subsequently.

Stiffness and damping

The foundation is supported by 400 prestressed concrete

piles 0.6 m in diameter and 10 m in length. The stiffness and

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:39 PM

Composite Default screen

El Naggar

605

Fig. 3. Stiffness and damping of the CLS foundation: (a) vertical stiffness, (b) vertical damping, (c) horizontal stiffness, and (d) horizontal damping.

damping of the foundation were calculated over the frequency range of interest. Figure 3 shows the horizontal and

vertical stiffness and damping of the foundation. It can be

noted from Fig. 3 that the stiffness and damping of the foundation vary considerably with frequency, and care should be

exercised in the selection of the stiffness value used in the

dynamic analysis. It should also be noted that the stiffness

115 Hz), but the damping increases slightly. Also, the important frequency range is 400600 rad/s (6090 Hz) based

on the vibration measurements at S4 and 100400 rad/s (15

60 Hz) based on the measurements at S5. Therefore, there

are no resonance conditions based on the measurements at

S5 and limited resonance based on the measurements at S4.

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:41 PM

Composite Default screen

606

Fig. 3 (concluded).

by its damping characteristics.

Response of foundation system to ground motion

The pile cap was assumed to be rigid and to sit above the

ground. It was also assumed that there was no contact between the bottom of the slab and the ground surface (void

base and along the sides of the slab as well as the -factor

were neglected. The piles were assumed to be fixed in the

pile cap. The inertial force due to the ground motion was

used as the dynamic excitation. Figure 4 shows that the proposed foundation would result in a satisfactory dynamic performance with maximum horizontal vibration amplitudes of

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:45 PM

Composite Default screen

El Naggar

607

Fig. 4. Canadian Light Source vibration amplitudes based on ground vibration measured at S5.

to be less than 1 107 m, which is much lower than the

specified tolerance.

The dynamic analysis was repeated with the vibration measurements at station S4 used as the ground input motion. The

maximum horizontal vibration amplitude is 1.75 106 m.

Although the vibration amplitudes obtained using the ground

vibration measurements at S4 are higher than the specified

tolerance value of 0.35 106 m, they represent satisfactory

dynamic performance for two reasons: the -factor was neglected, and the ground motion was assumed to have the

same value at all points under the slab area (i.e., ignoring the

attenuation effect). These two assumptions overestimated the

response by a factor of 20.

Response of MRI foundation

The vibration measurements showed that ground motions

in the overburden soil are an order of magnitude higher than

those measured in the bedrock. Therefore, the response analysis was based on the ground motion measured in the soil.

Forcing function

Because of the limited extent of the foundation, only the

measurements at the location of its centre were considered

in the analysis. The FFT analysis showed that the vibration

energy was concentrated in the frequency range 100

400 rad/s (1560 Hz). The natural frequency in the horizontal vibration mode was about 22 Hz. This represented partial

resonance in that vibration mode and increased response.

Foundation stiffness and damping

The foundation is a concrete slab 4.5 m 5.7 m 0.45 m

supported by four drilled shafts each 0.9 m in diameter and

5.4 m long. The piles penetrate through a silty sand layer

2000 m/s. Figure 5 shows the variation of the stiffness and

damping with frequency. Figure 5 shows that the stiffness

and damping of the foundation vary considerably and should

be accounted for in the analysis.

Response of the foundation system to the ground motion

The foundation was considered to be rigid. Because of the

random nature of the traffic loading, the response was calculated using the random vibration approach. Figure 6 shows

the horizontal response spectrum of the foundation system.

The maximum response in the frequency range 010 Hz was

found to be 1 109 m. This corresponded to slightly less

than 0.5 106 g, which represented a satisfactory performance. Similar results were obtained for other frequency

ranges.

Response of turbine foundation to blast loading

The proposed foundation system consisted of two rigid

concrete blocks. The first was 20.75 m 33.5 m 1.8 m

and the second was 21.5 m 35 m 1.8 m. Each block

would support a turbine generator. The inertial force due to

the blast-induced ground motion was used as the dynamic

excitation force. The ground accelerations measured at the

weathered rock in the location of the proposed foundation

were designated as the design acceleration-time history.

Force Fourier amplitudes

The ground acceleration-time history with its highest

acceleration measured during the vibration monitoring program was used as the input ground motion. Figure 7 shows

the variation of the force Fourier amplitudes with frequency

for the longitudinal (x), transverse (y), and vertical (z) directions. It is noted in Fig. 7 that the force amplitudes were

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:46 PM

Composite Default screen

608

Fig. 5. Stiffness and damping of the MRI foundation: (a) vertical stiffness, (b) vertical damping, (c) horizontal stiffness, and (d) horizontal damping (1 lb/ft = 14.59 N/m).

(1 ft2 = 0.093 m2 ).

transverse (y) direction and that the maximum Fourier amplitudes of the force in the longitudinal direction are almost

double those in the vertical direction. It is also noted in

Fig. 7 that most of the energy is concentrated in the frequency range 600780 rad/s (95125 Hz) for the longitudinal direction and 500920 rad/s (80150 Hz) for the vertical

direction. In the transverse direction, the energy is scattered

over the frequency range 2001000 rad/s (30160 Hz) with

a slightly higher concentration in the frequency range 680

780 rad/s (110125 Hz).

Stiffness and damping

The inspection of the frequency content of the forcing

function showed that it covers a wide range of frequencies.

Because of the uncertainty about the shear wave velocity, Vs,

of both the engineered fill after construction and the bedrock, different soil profiles were considered in the analysis.

Two main profiles were considered: a homogeneous halfspace with a uniform shear wave velocity (halfspace profile);

and a layer underlain by a homogeneous halfspace (composite medium profile). In the composite medium profile, the

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:49 PM

Composite Default screen

El Naggar

609

and less than the shear wave velocity of the halfspace. For

both profiles considered, the shear wave velocity of the soil

at the bottom of the foundation was assumed to be equal to

180, 240, or 300 m/s (600, 800, or 1000 ft/s). In the composite medium profile, the shear wave velocity of the halfspace

was assumed to be equal to 300 or 360 m/s (1000 or

1200 ft/s). The soil reactions along the top 1 m (3 ft) of the

foundation sides were ignored to account for any separation

between the foundation and soil along the sides.

The stiffness and damping of the foundation were calculated over the frequency range of interest. Figure 8 shows

the stiffness and damping of the foundation for the halfspace

profile. The strong variation of the vertical stiffness with frequency can be noted in Fig. 8. However, the vertical damping increases rapidly with frequency to a maximum value at

a frequency of about 140 rad/s. On the other hand, the horizontal stiffness and damping show a small variation with frequency in the frequency range of interest. Figure 9 shows

the stiffness and damping of the foundation for the composite medium profile and Vs = 180 m/s (600 ft/s) and the shear

wave velocity for the underlying halfspace is 300 m/s

(1000 ft/s). It can be noted in Fig. 9 that the vertical stiffness

could be considered constant for frequencies higher than

80 rad/s. However, the vertical damping decreases with frequency. Figure 9 also shows that the horizontal stiffness and

damping decrease quickly with frequency. Comparing the

vertical stiffness and damping from the two profiles, it can

be noted that the composite medium yielded higher vertical

stiffness values (almost double) and much smaller damping

values than the halfspace profile. Similar observations can

be made for the horizontal direction, especially for damping.

It should be noted that the stiffness assumes negative values

total stiffness (stiffness and damping) of the foundation system is positive.

Response of the foundation system to the ground motion

The foundation was assumed to be rigid and embedded in

the ground. It was also assumed that there was no contact

between the upper 1 m (3 ft) of the sides of the slab and the

adjacent soil. The inertial force due to the ground motion

was used as the dynamic excitation force.

The natural frequencies of the machine-foundation system

were found to be 6.7 and 10 Hz for the horizontal and vertical vibration modes, respectively. Therefore, resonance conditions would not occur. The response was calculated for

different values of shear wave velocities for both profiles.

The composite medium with Vs = 240 m/s and reduced

damping resulted in a maximum vertical displacement of

0.066 mm (0.00022 ft) as shown in Fig. 10.

The vibration amplitudes obtained using the ground vibration measurements are very close to the specified tolerance

value of 0.075 mm and the total vibration amplitudes (i.e.,

including the vibration amplitudes due to normal machine

operation) may exceed the specified tolerance. However,

they represent satisfactory dynamic performance. The analysis assumed that the entire foundation would vibrate in phase

under the effect of the ground vibration introduced at the

centre of the foundation. This assumption overestimated the

vibration of this specific foundation by an order of two to

three (i.e., the -factor). This factor depends on the wavelengths of the seismic waves relative to the dimensions of

the rigid foundation. It is expected that this effect will reduce the vibration amplitudes by about 50% resulting in a

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:51 PM

Composite Default screen

610

Fig. 8. Stiffness and damping of a foundation resting on a halfspace (1 lb/ft = 14.59 N/m).

less than 0.033 mm (0.00011 ft).

Response of two adjacent machine foundations

A common arrangement in cogeneration plants is to have

two or more units; each consisting of a generator, a compressor, and accessory equipment and each supported on a

separate foundation. If these units are closely spaced, the vibrations emanating from one unit would induce additional

vibrations on the other units. The case study considered in-

block 14 m 21 m 1.5 m supported by 130 concrete piles.

The soil profile at the site consisted of the following layers

starting from the ground surface: 1 m of engineered fill

(sand with Vs = 160 m/s), 2.7 m of sand clay (Vs = 165 m/s),

8 m of clay (Vs = 185 m/s), 6.5 m of clay till (Vs = 250 m/s)

and Empress dense sand (Vs = 450 m/s). The pile penetrated

the clay layers and rested on the Empress dense sand. The

top of the concrete block is 3.5 m below the finished floor

level. The distance between the two foundations is 3 m

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:53 PM

Composite Default screen

El Naggar

611

Fig. 8 (concluded).

under the harmonic loading from the operation of its own

supported equipment was calculated using eq. [6]. The vibration amplitude r , at a distance r from the vertical axis of

the foundation can be evaluated approximately by (Barkan

1962)

12

[14]

r

r = 0 0 e (r r0 )

r

the foundation edge from its vertical axis, and is the empirical coefficient ranging from 0 to 0.1 m1. The higher the

ability of the soil particles to slide against each other, the

better the damping characteristics of the ground at applied

cyclic loads. Therefore, the magnitude of is higher for

cohesionless soils (0.050.1 for sand), lower for cohesive

soils (0.020.04 for clay), and zero for rock. Equation [14]

was derived assuming surface waves whose vertical axis is

greater than its horizontal axis. However, the physical prop 2003 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:55 PM

Composite Default screen

612

Fig. 9. Stiffness and damping of foundation resting on a composite medium (1 lb/ft = 14.59 N/m).

properties assumed in the theory. Consequently, the motion

actually observed differs from the theoretical pattern

(Barkan 1962). Hence, for practical calculations the horizontal amplitude may be considered equal to the vertical one.

The vibration amplitudes at the edges and centre of the adjacent foundation were evaluated using eq. [14] (assuming =

0.05), and an average vibration amplitude, ave, in each

vibration mode was calculated.

There are two methods to account for the additional vibration from adjacent foundations. The calculated average

amplitude can be used to calculate the acceleration of the

ground motion as

[15]

&& = 2

ave

the mass of the foundation and supported equipment to cal 2003 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:27:58 PM

Composite Default screen

El Naggar

613

Fig. 9 (concluded).

be used in eq. [6] to calculate the additional vibration amplitudes due to the adjacent vibrating equipment. The total

vibration amplitude would be calculated as the sum of the

additional vibration amplitudes and the vibration amplitudes

of the foundation under its own load.

Alternatively, an upper bound on the total vibration amplitudes can be evaluated by superimposing the average vibration amplitudes directly on the vibration amplitude of

adopted in the case history reported herein. The average vibration amplitudes due to the adjacent foundation were approximately 50% of the foundation vibration amplitudes

under its own load.

The paper presents some rational approaches for the

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:28:00 PM

Composite Default screen

614

Fig. 10. Vibration of turbine generator foundation due to blast loading (composite medium) (1 ft = 0.3048 m).

response evaluation of foundations supporting vibrationsensitive equipment to ground-borne excitations, incorporating the dynamic characteristics of both the foundation system

and the seismic excitation. The analysis of four different case

histories that involved the response of foundations supporting

vibration-sensitive equipment to ground-transmitted excitation

was demonstrated. The following conclusions can be made:

(1) When designing a foundation for vibration-sensitive

equipment, a ground vibration-monitoring program

should be carefully planned and executed to assess the

level of seismic excitation at the proposed site caused

by ground-transmitted vibration from external sources.

(2) The stiffness and damping of a shallow foundation

should be based on proper modeling of the actual soil

profile. The stiffness functions of layers differ substantially from those of the halfspace because the geometric

damping vanishes below the first layer resonance. Thus,

the widely used halfspace model seriously overestimates

the damping and underestimates the stiffness. The halfspace model may lead to a gross underestimation of the

response of a foundation resting on a layer of limited

thickness underlain by a hard stratum.

(3) The effect of kinematic interaction on the ground motion to the rigid foundation (i.e., the -factor) should be

taken into consideration in the response analysis of large

foundations subjected to ground-transmitted excitations.

(4) In cogeneration plants with two or more units, the vibrations emanating from one unit would induce additional

vibrations on other units. If these units are closely

spaced, the additional vibration should be taken into

consideration when evaluating the dynamic performance

of the foundation.

Ackowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr. Bruce Sparling of

the University of Saskatchewan, Mr. Eric Norum and

Mr. Dan Lowe of the CLS management group, and

Mr. Nizar Dhanani of UMA Engineering Ltd., Saskatoon,

for their contributions in facilitating the study of the CLS

foundation.

References

Barkan, D.D. 1962. Dynamics of bases and foundations [translated

from Russian]. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.

Beredugo, Y.O., and Novak, M. 1972. Coupled horizontal and

rocking vibration of embedded footings. Canadian Geotechnical

Journal, 9: 477497.

Bycroft, G.N. 1956. Forced vibrations of a rigid circular plate on a

semi-infinite elastic space and on an elastic stratum. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 248:

327368.

Chang, C.-Y., Power, M.S., Idriss, I.M., Somerville, P.G.,

Silva, W., and Chen, P.C. 1985. Engineering characterization of

ground motion. Task 2: Observation data on spatial variations of

earthquake ground motion. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. Rpt. No. NUREG/CR-3805.

Clough, R.W., and Penzien, J. 1993. Dynamics of structures.

McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y.

Day, S.M. 1977. Finite element analysis of seismic scattering problems. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego, La

Jolla, Calif.

Dobry, R., and Gazetas, G. 1988. Simple method for dynamic stiffness and damping of floating pile groups. Gotechnique, 38(4):

557574.

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:28:02 PM

Composite Default screen

El Naggar

El Naggar, M.H., and Novak, M. 1995. Nonlinear lateral interaction in pile dynamics. Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake

Engineering, 14(2): 141157.

Elsabee, F., Morray, J.P., and Roesset, J.M. 1977. Dynamic behavior of embedded foundations. Research report No. R7733,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, Mass.

Gazetas, G., and Makris, M. 1991. Dynamic pilesoilpile interaction, Part I: Analysis of axial vibration. Earthquake Engineering

& Structural Dynamics, 20: 115132.

Kaynia, A.M., and Kausel, E. 1982. Dynamic behavior of pile

groups. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on

Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Institute of Civil Engineers, University of Texas, Austin, Tex., pp. 509532.

Kobori, T., Minai, R., and Suzuki, T. 1971. The dynamical ground

compliance of a rectangular foundation on a viscoelastic stratum. Bulletin Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, 20: 289329.

Luco, J.E. 1969. Dynamic interaction of shear wall with the soil.

Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 95: 333346.

Luco, J.E., and Hadjian, A.H. 1974. Two-dimensional approximations to the three-dimensional soil-structure interaction problem.

Nuclear Engineering and Design, 31(2): 195203.

Luco, J.E., and Westmann, R.A. 1971. Dynamic response of circular footings. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 95(5):

13811395.

Novak, M., and Aboul-Ella, F. 1978. Impedance functions of piles

in layered media. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 104(EM3): 643661.

Novak, M., Nogami, T., and Aboul-Ella, F. 1978. Dynamic soil

615

reactions for plane strain case. Journal of the Engineering

Mechanics Division, ASCE, 104(EM4): 953959.

Novak, M., El Naggar, M.H., Sheta, M., El-Hifnawy, L.,

El-Marsafawi, H., and Ramadan, O. 2002. DYNA5, v5.2, a computer program for calculation of foundation response to dynamic

loads. Geotechnical Research Centre, The University of Western

Ontario, London, Ont.

Roesset, J.M. 1980. A review of soil-structure interaction. In

Soil-structure interaction: the status of current analysis methods

and research. Edited by J.J. Johnson. Rpt. No. NUREG/CR-1780

and UCRL-53011, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,

Livermore, Calif.

Seed, H.B., and Lysmer, J. 1980. The seismic soil-structure interaction problem for nuclear facilities. In Soil-structure interaction: the status of current analysis methods and research. Edited

by J.J. Johnson. Rpt. No. NUREG/CR-1780 and UCRL-53011,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. and

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif.

Tassoulas, J.L. 1984. An investigation of the effect of rigid sidewall on the response of embedded circular foundations to

obliquely-incident SV and P-waves. In Dynamic soilstructure

interaction. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 5563.

Veletsos, A.S., and Verbic, B. 1973. Vibration of viscoelastic foundations. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2: 87102.

Veletsos, A.S., and Wei, Y.T. 1971. Lateral and rocking vibrations

of footings. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations

Division, ASCE, 97(SM9): 12271248.

I:\cgj\CGJ40-03\T03-014.vp

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:28:02 PM

- 4 Oscillations and WavesUploaded byVincent Vetter
- Dynamics Lab Report (Forced Vibration)Uploaded byWahiduzzaman Zaki
- Vibrations of Cantilever Beam (Continuous System) (2)Uploaded byWeam Elsahar
- ASTM D999Uploaded bypradelles
- Vibration FormulasUploaded bygemnikkic
- Resonant generation and energetics of wind-forced near-inertial motions in a geostrophic flowUploaded byKendra Kaiser
- Experimental Modal Analysis on a Rotating Fan-PrintedUploaded byRaysel Martinez
- Structural Labs Experiment No. 3Uploaded byMunkay
- lec15Uploaded byMaya Satih Kanteyan
- sdof-dynUploaded byAnkur Kurmi
- Bridge HillUploaded bynostromo1979
- 4.Forced Damped VibrationUploaded byAnonymous mXicTi8hB
- 0596Uploaded byTRUNG QUOC LE
- TTE Isolated or Onsoil Foundation Design.pdfUploaded byFandy Sipata
- docslide.us_dynamics-lab-report-forced-vibration.docxUploaded byfariskolej4946
- 2015_tutorial3Uploaded byAmy Leigh Williams
- 17871565_2Uploaded bysepidka
- Simple Harmonic Motion2Uploaded byRosmaya Mokhtar
- Experiment 8Uploaded bySalman ShaxShax Heiss
- Matlab Primer 7 Dec 09Uploaded byCindy Feng
- 08 Oscillations SolutionsUploaded bysqhaa
- Estimating Influence of Inertial Resistance of Throttle for Hydraulic Balancing Device on Rotor Axial Vibration 2012 Procedia EngineeringUploaded bysigit joko
- 4 Oscillations and WavesUploaded byAbbas Haider
- Poster about Modal IdentificatinoUploaded bySigurbjörnBárðarson
- VFD Pump MultiChannelCaseIVUploaded bypadminitt
- LESSON 6.1Uploaded byahmad sobri hamzah
- 1.1 Understanding WavesUploaded byEzhas Fauzi
- 0809.0358Uploaded bybursuc2
- C-09 231Uploaded byCesar Vasques
- wave actionsUploaded byapi-263830904

- Dyna5 Section 7.1Uploaded byAH
- Doc for UploadUploaded byAH
- 2003_IBC-5-ExtractUploaded byAH
- pds-cpd-Sikadur42GroutPak-us (2).pdfUploaded byAH
- Hi 9.6.8Uploaded byAH
- DIN Standard Foundation for Vibratory EquipmentUploaded byAH
- doc22201Uploaded byAH
- CraneBeam_v1_1(1).xlsUploaded byharry_1981
- Groat RoadUploaded byAH
- Pump FoundationUploaded byAH
- Short circuitUploaded byAH
- Din 4024Uploaded byAH
- motor+guide+gb+02_2005Uploaded byAH
- Eps MemoUploaded byAH
- CAPP Report 2015Uploaded byAH
- Secondary ContainmentUploaded byAH
- Storage TanksUploaded byfjkhan1
- 5714Uploaded byTissa1969
- Correcting Speed of Sound in PipesUploaded byAH
- Anvil Pipe Hanger CatalogUploaded byneversirender
- Prevention in PipelineUploaded bySantoplan
- 217 StiffnessUploaded byAH
- Vibration SettingsUploaded byAH
- 2 References 2Uploaded byAH
- Mono Pile in SandUploaded byAH
- Mj-1687-Us Surge Relief MjUploaded bysutanuprojects
- Process Design P-001Uploaded byYohanes Silaen
- 51-331_E_B07-30-10Uploaded byAH

- Works Branch Technical Circular No. 28-92Uploaded byhessian123
- International Economic DisintegrationUploaded byJohn Edmonstone
- Fast Seng Shui for Your Home OfficeUploaded bysandro
- Selected 3 p 9 (APP Inventor) Mobile App Design Tool for SmartphonesUploaded byKarthik Mathaven
- 2.BJO-0840Uploaded bychayanun
- SatelliteUploaded byManisha Makhija
- GNS3 Getting Started Guide 1.0 (1)Uploaded byMarco Tulio Holguín Tapia
- RubcoUploaded byJason William George
- OTDR TRAINING 83 slide.pptUploaded byFerry Kurniawan
- Final Eclipse Cross CatalogeUploaded byMedhat Merzek
- Asi Csr07 FinalUploaded byMarygrace C. Noveda
- CTC - Commissioning Certificate UPSUploaded byWahyu Ardiansyah
- Field Effect TransistorsUploaded byAbd Elhamed Ebrahem
- Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam LtdUploaded byShivam Sharma
- Asif CV UpdatedUploaded byRaja Faheem Khalid
- product lifecycle management basicsUploaded byRaviteja Vga
- SQA Components in the Project Life CycleUploaded byPramod Ugale
- 102012_steelwise.pdfUploaded byrohalestat
- [33] EA3539568D46504E3E74A04A516F87CF7B99659Uploaded bymohammadhassan2
- NPR030-Vertical Bladder Tank DeviceUploaded byPauLo Marez
- 30 - Chapter 27 - Labor Management RelationsUploaded byshahidawan
- Dth ServicesUploaded byanandkas2005
- FCC Framework FINALUploaded bysri
- Rail Wheel 1Uploaded byrajanjasu
- Loading Line in Agreement Using ExcelUploaded byNaveen Shankar Mauwala
- 0803 nanoxxUploaded byAlexander Wiese
- Datasheet H4 HD BulletUploaded byabishek_bhardwa8666
- mXtvwvs.pdfUploaded byLe Dung
- Internship Report on Askari insuranceUploaded bySajjad Hussain
- Hydrate Inhibition MethodsUploaded bykaitokidH3M