This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

TR 97-6

TECHNICAL REPORT

COMPRESSOR ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN

By P. J. Pantermuehl A. J. Smalley Mechanical and Fluids Engineering Division Southwest Research Institute December 1997

© 1997 Gas Machinery Research Council

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

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Winston A. Johnson, II, Chairman El Paso Natural Gas Co. Jack W. Hotzel, Vice Chairman Duke Energy Corp.

**RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
**

John P. Platt, Jr., Chairman Amoco Corp. Barry G. Selke Williams Natural Gas Co.

**SGA GMRC STAFF
**

Larry Everett, CAE President Marsha Short Director, Operating & Member Services

Bruce L. Hopper, Treasurer Chevron Research & Technology Co. John W. Fulton, Secretary Exxon Research & Engineering Co. Larry Everett, CAE Southern Gas Association/GMRC Frank Sims Cooper Energy Services Rick Craig Enron Gas Pipeline Group K. Frederick Wrenn, Jr. Columbia Gas Transmission John P. Platt, Jr. Amoco Corporation Orin Flanigan, Director Emeritus Adobe Enterprises

Sam Clowney Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. Hans Mathews Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. Greg Phillippi Ariel Corp. Steve English Lone Star Pipeline Co. Larry Rogers Peerless Mfg. Co. Don Crusan Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. F. Douglas Stover PMC/Beta Limited Partnership Walter J. Tuymer Hoerbiger Corp. of America Dick Eimers Solar Turbines Michael P. Whelan Gas Research Institute

**SGA Board of Directors & Transmission Sec. Com. Liaisons
**

Terrance L. McGill Columbia Gulf Trans. Co.

and the difference between linear and nonlinear treatment of the concrete. Lengthening the anchor bolt moves the region of high tensile stress and potential local cracking down into the block. while rebar stops cracks growing. and nearby rebar.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents information on selection and design of anchor bolt installations in concrete foundations for reciprocating compressors. however. out of sight! The report analyses the effects of grout layer compression. it shows an epoxy grout layer can creep more than an epoxy chock. and away from dynamically varying stress. ii . The model includes the compressor base. bolt length. concrete) which accompanies bolt stretch. epoxy grout layer. retightening anchor bolts at operating temperature can reduce the influence of this problem. the use of rebar. soleplate. grout. It further shows how an increase in epoxy grout layer temperature after bolt tightening can reduce bolt tension as a result of reduced material compression modulus. away from oil sources. chock. and quantifies the compression of the stack (base.5 bolt diameters. It investigates both termination geometry. It shows the benefits of a termination with axial extent of at least 1. soleplate. and how layer thickness and anchor bolt length combine to influence the associated creep loss of bolt tension. chock. It makes clear the desirability of long anchor bolts. The report uses finite element analysis of a preloaded anchor bolt and immediately surrounding concrete. and for bolt termination in the mat. bolt termination. it does not inhibit cracks starting under high local tensile stress. It shows that. and diameter equal to 3 or 4 bolt diameters. The report shows that epoxy chocks of the three materials tested and documented in another GMRC report (TR 97-5) will not creep sufficiently for concern.

. . ... .. ...2 EFFECTS OF REBAR .. . . .. ... . . ... ... . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . 17 4. . ... . 3... ..... .... . .. .. ... . ... . .. ... . .. ... 46 6. . .. ..1 6 4. .. iii . . .. . . .. ... . .... .... . ..... . . . . . ... .. ... .. .. ..TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES 1. ... . ... ...000 HOUR CREEP RATIO .. . ..... ... .. . ... .... .. . . .... . ... ..4 3 6. . . .... . ... ... . . . .. .. . ... .. ... . . . . .. . .. . . . ... ....... . . .. 1 SUMMARY... .. . ... ... . .. .. . .. . . ... . . . .. ... ..3 NONLINEAR MODEL... .. . . . ..2 10.. . ... .. ... .... . . .... . .. ... 16 4. ..... .... 2. . .... .. .. .. . .. ... . 5 RESULTS . .. ....... .. . .... .... .... .. ... ....... ... .... iii iv INTRODUCTION. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. 6.. .1 INFLUENCE OF TEMPERATURE ON CHOCK AND GROUT COMPRESSION... .... . . .. .. . . .. .... . .. ... . .. . . .... . . . .. .. .. ....... .. ... . . . ..... ... 17 4.. . . . . . .. .. ...4 LINEAR ANALYSES VERSUS NONLINEAR ANALYSES .. . .. . ... . .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. . 3 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING APPROACH ... . .. .. .1 PARAMETRIC STUDIES OF TERMINATION PLATE GEOMETRY . . .. . . ... 46 5. . . ... . . ... . ... . . 4. . . .. .. ...... . . . . .. . .. . . ..... . .. . . . . .. . .. .... . .3 5 INFLUENCE OF CHOCK AND GROUT PARAMETERS.. .. .... .. . ... .. .. .. 17 INFLUENCE OF BOLT LENGTH .. .

......... Plate Diameter = 6").. Table 5-1...........................LIST OF TABLES Page Table 3-1........................... Initial Bolt Strain = 1500 Microstrain) ..... 19 Summary of Concrete Compressive Stresses Vs.................... Case 8 Without Rebar)........ t = Plate Thickness) . Table 4-4...........................1500 Microstrain.... Plate Diameter and Thickness (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload ... Table 4-6........... 21 Linear Analyses Vs.. Table 4-2... Finite Element Model Parametric Variables..... Table 6-1.............. 37 Geometry and Material Properties for Figure 6-4...1500 Microstrain)................................. Table 4-5......................................... (Termination Plate = 3" Thick.............Principal Stress (S1).1500 Microstrain................................. 6" Diameter. 20 Nonlinear Analyses With and Without Rebar (Case 7 With 1% Rebar......1500 Microstrain...................1500 Microstrain................ Table 4-7..... 20 Concrete Tensile Stresses With and Without Rebar (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload ...................... 48 iv . Anchor Bolt Length (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload .... 19 Summary of Concrete Tensile Stresses Vs............ (Plate Thickness = 3"......................7 Concrete Block Stress Vs.................. Bolt Length .......... 21 Concrete Tensile Stresses Vs.. Case 7 Nonlinear)................... Termination Plate Geometry and Bolt Preload ... Nonlinear Analyses (Case 6A Linear......... t = 1.... Plate Diameter and Thickness (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload ..........................5") ................... t = Plate Thickness) ....... 20 Concrete Compressive Stresses With and Without Rebar (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload .5") .................. Table 4-3.................... Vertical Component Stress (Sy)........................ 37 Stack Deflection Vs............ Table 5-2... Table 4-1.......... (Termination Plate = 3" Thick.......... t = 1.. 6" Diameter. Initial Bolt Strain = 1500 Microstrain).........

. 40 Maximum Local Stress as a Function of Radial Distance from the Bolt Centerline (Starting at the Outer Limit of the Termination Plate) ........................................... Steel Chock.............. Figure 4-6.....................................000 psi)..... 24 S1 Stress (Concrete) . 52 Grout Layer Compression and Percent Loss in Bolt Tension with Increase from 70 to 130°F at 1 Hour and No Bolt Retightening.. 23 UY Deflection (Total) .......... 15 S1 Stress (Total) ................ 30 Comparison of Concrete Tensile Stresses Near Bolt Termination (With and Without Rebar) Vs....Case 1A . 14 Model ............ Figure 3-5............................. 12 Model ....... Figure 4-10........................... Figure 4-4...... 25 Stress (Concrete) ................................................. v ........Anchor Bolt Tension ...................................LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 3-1..............................Anchor Bolt..........5" Thick......................... 39 Maximum Local Concrete Stress as a Function of Distance Up From the Bottom of the Bolt Termination at a Wide Range of Bolt Lengths... Figure 6-1. Chock..... 26 UY Deflection (Concrete) .... Figure 4-8........ Figure 6-3........Case 1A........................... Termination Plate Diameter and Thickness (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload .. 33 Extent of Cracking with No Rebar.............. 28 Concrete Tensile Stress Near Bolt Termination Vs....... 34 Tensile Concrete Stress at Termination as a Function of Bolt Length ....... 41 Stack Compression Vs................. Figure 4-9.... 42 Epoxy Chock Compression Vs.............1500 Microstrain).............................Case 1A................................... Termination Plate Diameter....... 50 Epoxy Chock Compression Vs............... Figure 3-3.... Grout...... 27 Sy Stress (Anchor Bolt) .................. Rail.................... 11 Model . 29 Concrete Compressive Stresses at Bolt Termination Vs.......... Figure 3-2..................................................................... Figure 4-7........................ Young's Modulus (2"x12"x12") Chock with 1000 psi Surface Load.................Case 1A ..... Figure 5-4...... Grout Layer = 4..................... Figure 5-3.... Plate Termination Diameter (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload .. 32 Extent of Cracking with Rebar ................ Nut... Termination Plate Thickness = 1.................... Rebar ..Case 1A ............. Figure 4-5............. 51 Loss in Bolt Tension (% as a Function of Bolt Length...................................... 53 Figure 4-11........................................ 38 Compressive Concrete Stress at Termination as a Function of Anchor Bolt Length............. Ratio of Side Width to Chock Thickness .......................... Figure 3-4.. Figure 4-12..... Figure 6-5........... Figure 6-2......................Case 1A ........ Initial Bolt Strain = 1500 Microstrain)...........1500 Microstrain)................................................. Schematic of Configuration Modeled.. 49 Shape Factor Vs.......................................Cross Section of Block...... Figure 5-1.Isometric of Block with Rebar ............................... Bolt Yield Strength = 105................. Figure 4-1.... Bolt Length ...........Case 1A.. Figure 6-4.... Bolt Length = 48".................. 13 Model ........... Figure 4-13............... Figure 4-2................................................................. Chock Width (1000 psi Compressive Pressure)......... Figure 5-2...................Anchor Bolt....5"....... Termination Plate..................................... Figure 4-3.............. 22 Sy Stress (Total) ......................................................... Figure 5-5.. 31 Comparison of Compressive Stresses (With and Without Rebar) .........................

In general. epoxy. mounting system characteristics and foundation integrity. the foundation adds needed structural rigidity. The studies have included finite element analysis of an entire concrete foundation. Previous GMRC research has made clear that mounting systems must sustain horizontal forces based on local forces for individual cylinders (as opposed to forces inferred from global shaking forces and moments). the presence of significant compressive stresses in the concrete around the anchor bolt.1. INTRODUCTION A number of industries make essential or critical use of reciprocating compressors for services which include natural gas. For the mounting system to achieve high rigidity and long term integrity. including anchor bolts and their interaction with the concrete. and a number of positive reasons for moving the anchor bolt termination far down in the concrete block (to reduce sensitivity to creep. Past GMRC research has addressed various aspects of load generation. the anchor bolt must impose sufficient downwards force at the mounting interface to resist (through Coulomb friction) the highest expected horizontal loads. hydrogen. While the compressor frame partially supports these forces. carbon dioxide. including the anchor bolts. This “stack” under goes stresses and deformations as a result of the anchor bolt tension. and ethylene. The reciprocating pistons and rotating crankshaft produce significant gas and inertia forces. this demands higher bolt tensions than typical past practice. This requirement demands significant attention to the mounting system. 1 . and a significant fraction of the individual cylinder forces must be transmitted horizontally through the compressor mounting system to the foundation. A layer of foundation grout. These past investigations have made clear the potential for tensile stresses and cracking at the anchor bolt termination point. or composite material. The anchor bolt compresses a “stack” consisting of: • • • • • A thick flange at the base of the compressor frame. load transmission. A mounting chock of steel. A steel soleplate. Several feet of concrete.

typical overall graphic distributions of stress and deflected shape. and incorporate the above features with enough surrounding concrete to eliminate sensitivity to boundary conditions. it does not significantly control the initial formation of these cracks. together with graphical displays showing how critical stresses and deflections vary with influential loading. The present investigation seeks to address this limitation by modeling a single tie-down (which incorporates the “stack” listed above).and to separate it from areas of high dynamic stress and oil leakage). geometry. The report presents modeling details. for these foundations. and with sufficient detail to allow meaningful investigation of the above parameters. a lack of fine detail in the model inhibited focused analysis of mounting system integrity and structural response near the anchor bolt. Past investigations indicate that. while rebar resists propagation of cracks through the concrete. 2 . to help investigate how the following influence relevant stresses and deflections: • • • • • • • Preload (bolt tension) Bolt Termination Details Mounting System Details Concrete Characteristics Rebar Bolt Length Chock/Grout Moduli The majority of studies reported here have used the ANSYS Finite Element program. and material properties. Because previous research considered the compressor and foundation as a structural system.

Decreasing Young’s Modulus of the epoxy material (corresponding to increasing compliance) or thickening the foundation grout layer increases the ratio of chock and grout compression to anchor bolt extension.5 bolt diameters thick beneficially reduces tensile stresses in the concrete for a relatively small termination diameter. creep deflection in a year should be less than 2. Reducing this ratio reduces sensitivity to creep. Rebar density does not significantly influence the tendency for cracks to occur at the termination point. Lengthening the anchor bolt does not significantly affect the magnitude of local tensile stresses in the concrete at the end of the anchor bolt. loaded to 1. Anchor bolts at least 48 inches long coupled with a grout layer 4.5 mils for the chocks alone. increasing termination plate diameter pushes the location of high tensile stresses further from the bolt centerline -. At the same time. They also attenuate rapidly with horizontal distance from the termination. but moves them further from other sources of high stress.5 inches thick or less are needed to keep creep loss in bolt tension below 5 percent in a year. there exists a tradeoff on termination plate diameter. and thereby increases the desirability of a long anchor bolt. even longer anchor bolts are desirable to minimize grout creep effects. this report shows the following: • • • • • • High tensile stress tends to induce cracking in the concrete around the bolt termination point. • • • • • • 3 . A termination 1. Lengthening anchor bolts also beneficially reduces the ratio of chock and grout compression to anchor bolt extension for a given preload. hence. SUMMARY In summary. and from sources of oil. These tensile stresses in the concrete near the bolt termination attenuate rapidly with distance above the termination. A termination plate diameter of 3 or 4 bolt diameters reduces local tensile stresses in the concrete.2.potentially joining with other sources of tensile stress. For the three epoxy chock materials tested (in a separate study).000 psi or less. and moving them closer to the outer surface of the concrete block.

• The combination of bolt geometry. • • • 4 . preload. Operator's should retighten the anchor bolts at operating temperature to correct for this loss in tension due to heating. an independent analysis using the methods described in this report should be considered for any reciprocating compressor installation which will use epoxy chocks or an epoxy grout layer. gas loads and inertia loads make for a complex system. Heating the epoxy by running the engine after bolt tightening under cold conditions can induce an immediate increase in compression of the epoxy. and a loss in anchor bolt tension. Foundation grout layers can contribute more to creep loss of anchor bolt tension than epoxy chocks. grout and chock parameters.

Linear analysis (Solid45 element) shows the effect of local tensile stresses which would be present around the termination plate. strongly indicating that this lack of bonding occurs. The anchor bolt nut bears on a thick section of foot pad representing the compressor base. and at the top to a Solid45 nut (Figure 3-2). As mentioned. but provides a confirmation of observations from the linear runs. and is unbonded to the concrete on its sides and under surface. compressor base. and bolt termination. Nonlinear analyses (Solid65 element) shows the “after” effects on those stresses. Figure 3-1 shows a schematic of the configuration modeled which includes bolt. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING APPROACH ANSYS 5. expressed as initial bolt strain (change in length divided by the zero strain length). as modeled.3 was used to construct a parametric finite element model of a compressor foundation in the vicinity of the anchor bolt with a termination plate embedded in the concrete. The model utilizes ANSYS Link8 3D spar element for the anchor bolt. The 5 . and concrete foundation (Figure 3-3 isometric view. chock. rebar was modeled. The concrete foundation was modeled using Solid45 elements for the linear model. has no connectivity to the concrete. The benefits of linear analyses include speed of execution and indication of severity in terms of predicted tensile stress level. The nonlinear runs indicate severity by the extent of cracking. and displacement constraints along the axis of the foot pad and rail to simulate continuity beyond the domain of the model. The Link8 spar (which simulated a 2 inch diameter bolt in this model) is connected at the bottom to a 3D element Solid45 termination plate. epoxy grout. rail or soleplate. but does not allow for sequential cracking of concrete. soleplate. grout. except on its top surface. as shown in Figure 3-5. which has the capability for bolt preload. initial strain was input into the Link8 anchor bolt element causing a tensile preload that pulls up on the termination plate embedded in the concrete and down on the nut. loading would immediately distort and deform the plate and break these bonds. which is less precise and takes longer to execute. Included in the model below the nut are portions of epoxy chock. where cracking of the concrete is predicted in the area by the analyses. and Figure 3-4 cross-sectional view). The boundary conditions include displacement constraints in all directions at the base of the concrete block. Several model variations were run. In both cases. using Link8 spars (representing number 7 rebar) interlaced in the mesh (instead of the “smeared” rebar technique previously used in the Solid65 elements). The termination plate. The results clearly show deformation of the termination plate. compressing the elements in between.3. if the sides and underneath surface of the plate were initially bonded to the concrete. and Solid65 elements for the nonlinear model. concrete.

the analyses also included a 100 psi pressure load on the chock.000 psi. a typical value for high strength bolts in compressor installations. termination plate thickness and diameter. The cases labeled “Chock 1” to “Chock 7” involved variation in chock size and modulus of elasticity. Cases 1 through 6 involved linear analyses with no rebar and with 1% rebar (1% of the volume of concrete). epoxy chock size. as listed in Table 3-1. The analyses included initial bolt strains of 500. 6 . to approximate the percentage of compressor weight on the portion of block being modeled. the final strain in the bolt was around 1200 microstrain.model was run both with and without rebar. Table 3-2 lists all of the case studies. In the solution. 1000. anchor bolt length. Parameter studies included variations in initial anchor bolt strain. indicating a bolt preload of about 36. and Young's Modulus of the epoxy chock. Cases 7 and 8 are nonlinear analyses comparing no rebar and 1% rebar. The cases labeled “Chock 8A” to “Chock 8D” involved variation of modulus of elasticity of a 12 inch square chock block with a 1000 psi surface load. For the initial preload strain of 1500 microstrain. and 1500 micro-inches per inch of length. the anchor bolt strain fell to about 78 percent of its initial value due to deformation of the stacked layer of mixed components. In addition to anchor bolt preload.

2. 7. Anchor Bolt Initial Strain Anchor Bolt Diameter. 5. Length Termination Plate Thickness. Rail. and Block Dimensions Chock Young's Modulus Rebar Presence and Density Concrete Tensile Strength and Cracking Stress 7 . 3. Finite Element Model Parametric Variables 1. 4.Table 3-1. Diameter Chock. 6.

Plate Thickness (1.0). Diameter (8.5). Diameter (10. Initial Strain (1000 microstrain) Linear (no rebar).0).5).5). Initial Strain (1500 microstrain) Linear (no rebar). Diameter (4.0).5). Plate Thickness (1.0). Plate Thickness (1. Initial Strain (1500 microstrain) Linear (no rebar). Initial Strain (1500 microstrain) Linear (no rebar).0).0).0). Plate Thickness (1. Initial Strain (1000 microstrain) Linear (no rebar). Plate Thickness (1.0). Plate Thickness (3. Initial Strain (1500 microstrain) 8 . Plate Thickness (1. Diameter (10.Table 3-2. Diameter (6. Diameter (10. Diameter (4.0). Diameter (10. Plate Thickness (1. Diameter (6. List of Case Studies ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 CASE NO. Initial Strain (1500 microstrain) Linear (no rebar).5). Initial Strain (500 microstrain) Linear (no rebar).0).5).5). 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C DESCRIPTION Linear (no rebar).5). Initial Strain (1000 microstrain) Linear (no rebar). Plate Thickness (1. Plate Thickness (1.5). Plate Thickness (1. Initial Strain (500 microstrain) Linear (no rebar).0).5). Diameter (8. Diameter (6. Plate Thickness (1.5). Initial Strain (1000 microstrain) Linear (no rebar).5). Plate Thickness (3. Initial Strain (500 microstrain) Linear (no rebar). Initial Strain (500 microstrain) Linear (no rebar). Initial Strain (1500 microstrain) Linear (no rebar). Initial Strain (1500 microstrain) Linear (no rebar). Diameter (8.0). Diameter (4.5). Diameter (6.0).0). Plate Thickness (1.5). Plate Thickness (3.0).5). Diameter (8.

Plate Thickness (3. Plate Thickness (1. Initial Strain (1500 microstrain). Diameter (4.5).0"). 4D 5A 5B 5C 5D 6A 6B 6C 6D 6E 7 8 Chock 1 Chock 2 Chock 3 Linear (no rebar).5).0"). List of Case Studies (Continued) DESCRIPTION ITEM 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 CASE NO. Plate Thickness (3.5). Plate Thickness ( 3.0"). Initial Strain (1500 microstrain) Linear (1% rebar).0").0"). Bolt Depth (18") Linear (1% rebar). Initial Strain (1500 microstrain). Initial Strain (1500 microstrain) Linear (1% rebar). Diameter (6.0"). Diameter (6. Diameter (6.0). Bolt Depth (30") Chock Size (2" x 4"x 4").0"). Plate Thickness (3.0). Plate Thickness (3. Initial Strain (1500 microstrain).0"). E=1E6 9 . Initial Strain (1500 microstrain). Diameter (6. Plate Thickness (3.5).0"). Diameter (8. Initial Strain (1500 microstrain) Linear (1% rebar).Table 3-2.0"). Plate Thickness (1.0"). Diameter (6. Plate Thickness (1. Bolt Depth (24") Linear (1% rebar). Bolt Depth (30") Nonlinear (no rebar). Strain (1500 microstrain). E=1E6 Chock Size (2" x 8"x 8"). Diameter (6. Initial Strain (1500 microstrain) Linear (1% rebar). Strain (1500 microstrain). Diameter (6. Initial Strain (1500 microstrain) Linear (1% rebar).0"). Plate Thickness (1. E=1E6 Chock Size (2" x 12" x 12"). Diameter (4. Plate Thickness (3.0"). Bolt Depth (36") Linear (1% rebar). Plate Thickness (3.0).0"). Initial Strain (1500 microstrain). Bolt Depth (18") Nonlinear (1% rebar). Diameter (10.0).5).5). Bolt Depth (30") Linear (1% rebar). Diameter (6.

Table 3-2.

List of Case Studies (Continued) DESCRIPTION

ITEM 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

CASE NO. Chock 4 Chock 5 Chock 6 Chock 7 Chock 8A Chock 8B Chock 8C Chock 8D

Chock Size (2" x 2"x 2"), E=1E6 Chock Size (2" x 1" x 1"), E=1E6 Chock Size (2" x 0.5" x 0.5"), E=1E6 Chock Size (2" x 24" x 24"), E=1E6 Chock Size (2" x 2" x 2"), E=2E5 Chock Size (2" x 12" x 12"), E=5E5 Chock Size (2" x 12" x 12"), E=1E6 Chock Size (2"x 12" x 12"), E=5E6

10

VAR DIM VAR DIM

VAR DIM

NUT THK

NUT COMP BASE CHOCK Y2 Y3 Y1 RAIL GROUT RELIEF FOUNDATION

PAD THK Y3

DISCRETE REBAR Y4 BOLT PRELOAD IN TENSION

NUT/ PLATE

MAT

Figure 3-1.

Schematic of Configuration Modeled

11

Figure 3-2. Model - Anchor Bolt, Nut, Termination Plate

12

Isometric of Block with Rebar 13 . Model .Figure 3-3.

Figure 3-4.Cross Section of Block 14 . Model .

Rebar 15 . Grout. Model . Rail.Anchor Bolt.Figure 3-5. Chock.

diameter. which are restrained through other concrete elements attached to the foundation base. and the rails. and Figure 4-9 presents concrete compressive stresses as a function of plate diameter. Figure 4-8 presents concrete tensile stresses as a function of plate diameter. and the compressive stresses are summarized in Table 4-3. Figure 4-7 shows stresses in the anchor bolt. and Figures 4-4 through 4-6 show stresses and deflections for the concrete only. increased bending of the plate over its radius appears to reduce its tensile influence in the concrete near its outer edge. in these figures. with minimum and maximum stresses or deflections printed on each. and anchor bolt final strain. As the plate outer edge moves outwards. Additional data printed out in the string of output plots (not shown in the examples) included individual component stresses and deflections for the epoxy chock. Deformation of the components and termination plate is evident in Figures 4-1 through 4-7. 1 P ARAMETRIC S TUDIES OF T ERMINATION P LATE G EOMETRY Table 4-1 summarizes the concrete stresses and bolt strains for the variations in termination plate geometry (Cases 1 through 5) in which plate thickness. 4. RESULTS Direct results from the analyses consist of graphical representations of stress and deflection distribution in the concrete block and various independent components. Figures 4-1 through 4-3 show stresses and deflections for the total block and assembly. The tensile stresses in Table 4-1 are summarized in Table 4-2. where they could cause cracks which join up 16 . The disadvantage of extending the termination plate is to move high tensile stresses further from the bolt. for the different plate diameters (concrete with no rebar. and Sy is the component stress in the vertical direction (Y). Cases 1 through 4 were run with no rebar. After compression of the stacked components.4.75 bolt diameters). High tensile stresses in the concrete surrounding the termination plate appear to result from the top edge of the plate pulling upward on the concrete elements. Data from the output plots is transferred to spreadsheets for analysis and display of trends. although the trend is more gradual for a 3 inch thick plate (1. as presented in Figures 4-1 through 4-7. Cases 5A to 5D were run with 1 percent rebar. and initial bolt strain were varied. and constant initial bolt strain of 1500 microstrain). the epoxy grout. the initial strain in the anchor bolt reduced to levels around 78 percent of the initial values. S1 is maximum principal stress. Tensile stresses clearly roll off with increasing plate diameter.5 inch thick plate (0.5 bolt diameters). compared to a 1.

an anchor bolt depth of 18 inches (25 inches total length).with cracks from other locations. the model adjusts the stresses after cracking.5inch thick termination plate and initial bolt strain of 1500 microstrain. The cracked elements are identified by the light colored elements near the bolt termination. Both were performed with 17 . and an initial bolt strain of 1500 microstrain. These cases were run with a 1. The prediction of cracked elements for the two cases is displayed in Figures 4-12 and 4-13. 3 N ONLINEAR M ODEL Cases 7 and 8 are nonlinear analyses that show differences in stresses where cracking is predicted in the concrete in the vicinity of the termination plate. and Case 8 was run with no rebar. The nonlinear analysis solves the problem repeatedly. termination diameter does not appear to influence compressive stresses. The cases were run using a termination plate 3 inches thick. A “cross-over” point occurs in Figure 4-8 at around 8 inches diameter (4 bolt diameter). 4 L INEAR A NALYSES V ERSUS N ONLINEAR A NALYSES Table 4-7 compares stresses calculated by linear analyses (Case 6A) against stresses calculated by the nonlinear method (Case 7). 2C. Figure 4-9 shows compressive stresses (Sy) are higher (more compressive) for the thinner plate. 2 E FFECTS OF R EBAR Tables 4-4 and 4-5 compare the tensile and compressive stresses for cases without rebar (1F. The tensile stresses surrounding the termination plate are very localized and tend to decay rapidly before extending to areas where rebar could control stresses.5 and 3. adjusting the extent of cracking until the loads can be carried by uncracked elements. which indicate rebar has very little influence on stresses predicted by linear analysis. 1C. where tensile stresses are equivalent for both the 1. confirming the limited influence of rebar on crack initiation. 4. 4.0 inch thick plates. In these analyses. Table 4-6 compares stresses for the two runs. The data is plotted in Figures 4-10 and 4-11. 4. Case 7 was run with 1 percent rebar. and 3C) to Cases with 1 percent rebar (Cases 5A to 5D). The two plots are essentially identical. or penetrate the block outer surface. 6 inches in diameter. and indicates little significant difference in maximum tensile or compressive stresses. Above 8 inches (four times bolt diameter).

As a result of the reduced tensile strength. 18 . elements under compression pick up more of the load with resultant increases in maximum compressive stresses for the nonlinear case with cracking. and of 6-inch diameter. Tensile stresses fall substantially in the nonlinear model. reflecting the inability of the concrete to sustain tension above about 290 psi. and 18-inch depth anchor bolts with 1500 microstrain initial bolt strain.plates 3 inches thick.

5 1.5 387 -41 -925 1B 6 1.5 1. Summary of Concrete Tensile Stresses Vs. Termination Plate Geometry and Bolt Preload .5 1172 -95 -2838 Cases 1-4: No Rebar Case 5: 1% Rebar Tensile Strs S1 Sy 404 395 842 825 1280 1254 341 336 720 709 1098 1082 260 258 563 559 867 860 177 177 408 406 638 636 1094 1045 1000 956 875 840 732 708 1230 1209 1073 1051 869 856 646 638 Table 4-2.5 1169 -93 -2903 3A 10 1.4D 1C.5 775 -55 -1898 3C 10 1.5 1179 -100 -2779 2A 8 1.5 1174 -108 -2892 5D 10 1.5 783 -70 -1852 1C 6 1. Vertical Component Stress (Sy) Case Plate Dia. Concrete Block Stress Vs. (inches) 4.5 1193 -111 -2673 5B 6 1.4B 3C. (inches) (inches) Bolt Strn S1 Sy 1D 4.5 776 -66 -1934 2C 8 1.5 3 1199 -263 -2360 4A 6 3 1212 -172 -1947 4B 8 3 1219 -85 -1806 4C 10 3 1223 -73 -1768 5A 4. Plate Thk Final Compressive Strs No. t = Plate Thickness) Case No.5 1184 -113 -2762 5C 8 1.5 384 -39 -965 2B 8 1.5" 1280 1098 867 638 Tensile Stress (psi) Sy S1 t=1.4A 2C.5 389 -42 -899 1E 4.5 1.1500 Microstrain.5 788 -70 -1798 1F 4.4C Plate Dia.Table 4-1.5 1.5 383 -33 -946 3B 10 1.5 1168 -78 -2850 4D 4. Plate Diameter and Thickness (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload . 1F.5" t=3" 1254 1094 1082 1000 860 875 636 732 Sy t=3" 1045 956 840 708 19 .Principal Stress (S1).5 1187 -96 -2698 1A 6 1.5 6 8 10 S1 t=1.

Concrete Compressive Stresses With and Without Rebar (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload .5") Case No.5" t=1.5A 1C.4A 2C.Table 4-3. (inches) 4.5" t=3" -96 -2698 -263 -100 -2779 -172 -93 -2903 -85 -78 -2850 -73 Sy t=3" -2360 -1947 -1806 -1768 Table 4-4. Plate Diameter and Thickness (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload . (inches) 4. t = Plate Thickness) Case No.1500 Microstrain. 1F. 1F. t = 1.1500 Microstrain.5C 3C.5 6 8 10 S1 (w/o Rebar) -96 -100 -93 -78 Compressive Stress (psi) Sy S1 (w/o Rebar) (1% Rebar) -2698 -111 -2779 -113 -2903 -108 -2850 -95 Sy (1% Rebar) -2673 -2762 -2892 -2838 20 .5C 3C.4B 3C.5D Plate Dia.5 6 8 10 S1 (w/o Rebar) 1280 1098 867 638 Tensile Stress (psi) Sy S1 (w/o Rebar) (1% Rebar) 1254 1230 1082 1073 860 869 636 646 Sy (1% Rebar) 1209 1051 856 638 Table 4-5.4C Plate Dia.5") Case No.4D 1C. t = 1.5B 2C.5A 1C. (inches) 4.5D Plate Dia.5 6 8 10 Compressive Stress (psi) S1 Sy S1 t=1. Summary of Concrete Compressive Stresses Vs.5B 2C. 1F. Concrete Tensile Stresses With and Without Rebar (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload .1500 Microstrain.

Table 4-6. Nonlinear Analyses With and Without Rebar (Case 7 With 1% Rebar. Case 8 Without Rebar). 6" Diameter. Nonlinear Analyses (Case 6A Linear. Linear Analyses Vs. (Termination Plate = 3" Thick. Initial Bolt Strain = 1500 Microstrain) Case No. Initial Bolt Strain = 1500 Microstrain) Case No. Case 6A Case 7 Final Strain 1217 1187 Maximum Compressive Stress S1 Sy -160 -1925 -409 -2160 Maximum Tensile Stress S1 Sy 1001 942 289 103 21 . (Termination Plate = 3" Thick. 6" Diameter. Case 7 Nonlinear). 7 8 Rebar 1% None Final Strain 1192 1187 Compressive Stress S1 Sy -409 -2160 -417 -2181 Tensile Stress S1 Sy 289 103 277 122 Table 4-7.

Case 1A 22 .Figure 4-1. S1 Stress (Total) .

Sy Stress (Total) .Case 1A 23 .Figure 4-2.

Case 1A 24 .Figure 4-3. UY Deflection (Total) .

S1 Stress (Concrete) .Figure 4-4.Case 1A 25 .

Case 1A 26 . Stress (Concrete) .Figure 4-5.

Case 1A 27 . UY Deflection (Concrete) .Figure 4-6.

Case 1A 28 .Figure 4-7. Sy Stress (Anchor Bolt) .

0) Sy(3.5) S1(3. 1.1300 1.5) Sy(1.55 Inch Thickness Termination Plate 1200 1100 3 Stress (psi) 1000 900 S1(1.0) 3 Inch Thick Termination Plate 800 700 600 4.5 6 8 Plate Dia. Termination Plate Diameter. Inch 10 Figure 4-8. Termination Plate Diameter and Thickness (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload .1500 Microstrain) 29 . Concrete Tensile Stress Near Bolt Termination Vs.

Plate Diameter.0) -1500 -2000 -2500 -3000 4.5 6 8 Plate Dia. Concrete Compressive Stresses at Bolt Termination Vs.5) Sy(1.0) Sy(3. Inch 10 Figure 4-9.5) S1(3. Plate Termination Diameter (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload .0 -500 -1000 Stress (psi) S1(1.1500 Microstrain) 30 .

1400 1200 1000 Stress (psi) 800 600 400 200 0 4. Termination Plate Thickness = 1.5". Inch Diameter. Initial Bolt Strain = 1500 Microstrain) 31 .5) S1(rbar) Sy(rbar) Plate Plate Dia. Comparison of Concrete Tensile Stresses Near Bolt Termination (With and Without Rebar) Vs. Termination Plate Diameter. Figure 4-10.5) Sy(1.5 6 8 10 S1(1.

Figure 4-11.5) S1(rbar) Sy(rbar) -1500 -2000 -2500 -3000 Plate Diameter. Comparison of Compressive Stresses (With and Without Rebar) 32 .0 4.5) Sy(1.5 -500 6 8 10 -1000 Stress (psi) S1(1. Inch Plate Dia.

Extent of Cracking with Rebar 33 .Figure 4-12.

Figure 4-13. Extent of Cracking with No Rebar 34 .

5. soleplate.5 mils at 25 inches bolt length to about 11. Table 5-2 summarizes stack compression resistance. The shape and extent of the tensile stress region shows little dependence on bolt length. The corresponding anchor bolt stretch is 35 . Figure 5-2 shows that concrete compressive stress decreases by about 20 percent between a 25-inch and a 120-inch bolt length. how does length (and thereby depth of the termination) influence local stresses at the termination. falling to zero within 6. In considering these desirable features.5 inches. it is worth reviewing whether the compression of the “stack” also increases significantly with anchor bolt length. Moving the termination right into the mat under the foundation block ensures that any cracks developed are unlikely to grow to the extent where they become visible and unsightly or contribute to any deterioration of installation strength. INFLUENCE OF BOLT LENGTH As previously discussed.5 inches of the bolt/plate axis. the study has also looked for any hidden technical or performance disadvantage of long anchor bolts -. Figure 5-3 plots maximum tensile stress in the concrete as a function of distance up from the bottom of the bolt termination for a 6-inch diameter plate. this tensile stress region simply occurs in the concrete wherever the bolt ends.in particular. it shows how the tensile stress peaks then reduces rapidly with this distance -. it also moves the point of termination away from locations of high stress induced by horizontal shaking forces (which tend to concentrate near the top of the block) and away from the leaking oil. The scale of this region is such that rebar affects it little. frame base)? Table 5-1 summarizes results of length investigations.000 lb anchor bolt tension. grout. starting at the radius of the plate (3 inches). Figure 5-1 shows that concrete tensile stress increases slightly with increasing bolt length.5 mils for the longest anchor bolt (120 inches) considered in this parametric investigation.to zero at 3 or 3. and the total amount of compression of the “stack” (concrete. Figure 5-5 shows how “stack” compression (based on finite element analysis) increases as a function of anchor bolt length under 120. and using a long anchor bolt to move the termination point as low as possible in the block has the benefit of moving this “hot spot” away from where it can cause trouble. Figure 5-4 shows how rapidly maximum tensile stress reduces with radial distance. The local high stresses will tend to cause local cracking. a long anchor bolt reduces sensitivity to creep. Thus each termination creates a small localized region of high stress in the surrounding concrete. but only by 20 percent for a factor of five increase in bolt length from 25 to 120 inches. Since the anchor bolt stretch tends to increase in direct proportion to length. chock. Figure 5-5 shows that the total compression increases gradually with anchor bolt length from 7.

36 .a desirable target. With an anchor bolt length of 72 inches or more.approximately 1. the ratio of bolt stretch to stack compression approaches 10:1 -.3 mils per inch or 156 mils for the longest anchor bolt considered.

6A 6B 6C 6D 6F 6G Bolt Len (in.Table 5-1. Anchor Bolt Length (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload .1 11.2 8.) 0 25 31 37 43 80 120 Stack Defl(mils) 0 7.1500 Microstrain).2 8.5 Table 5-2.1 11.6 10. (Plate Thickness = 3". 6A 6B 6C 6D 6F 6G Bolt Len(in. Stack Deflection Vs.) 25 31 37 43 80 120 Final Bolt Strn 1217 1254 1282 1306 1375 1405 Tensile Strs S1 Sy 1001 942 1055 997 1088 1032 1138 1088 1183 1123 1202 1142 Compressive Strs S1 Sy -160 -1925 -92 -1618 -79 -1405 -62 -1240 -85 -1628 -76 -1503 Stack Defl (mils) 7. Bolt Length Case No.6 10.4 7. Plate Diameter = 6") Case No. Concrete Tensile Stresses Vs.4 7.9 8.9 8.5 37 .

1400 1200 1000 Tensile Stress. Tensile Concrete Stress at Termination as a Function of Bolt Length 38 . psi 800 S1 Sy 600 400 200 0 0 20 40 60 Bolt Length 80 100 120 Figure 5-1.

0 0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000 -1200 -1400 -1600 -1800 -2000 S1 Sy 20 40 60 80 100 120 Figure 5-2. Compressive Concrete Stress at Termination as a Function of Anchor Bolt Length 39 .

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 -200 -400 -600 Vertical Position (inches) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Stress Sy (psi) 120"depth 73"depth 36"depth 18"depth Figure 5-3. Maximum Local Concrete Stress as a Function of Distance Up From the Bottom of the Bolt Termination at a Wide Range of Bolt Lengths 40 .

Maximum Local Stress as a Function of Radial Distance from the Bolt Centerline (Starting at the Outer Limit of the Termination Plate) 41 .1200 1000 800 Stress Sy (psi) 600 400 18"depth 36"depth 73"depth 120"depth 200 0 0 -200 Horizontal Position (inches) 2 4 6 8 10 12 Figure 5-4.

Bolt Length . Stack Compression Vs.) 80 100 120 Figure 5-5.Anchor Bolt Tension 42 .12 10 Deflection (mils) 8 6 4 2 0 0 20 40 60 Anchor Bolt Length (in.

[6-2] 43 . the material near the middle has less freedom to deform horizontally. the grout layer at the top of the block may be similarly analyzed. the height of the column. K col under a vertical load is: Kcol = E A / h where: E A H = = = Young’s Modulus. The stiffness of a slender elastic column. because the partially incompressible material further out constrains it. [6-1] The material in a slender column is free to deform at right angles to the applied load. and the role that time and temperature may play in this deflection. Thus. how chock and grout geometry and material properties influence the deflection. compressed area. When the column goes from slender to broad. An appealing approach to calculating deflection of a thin layer under normal compressive load over its surface is to treat it as a short. the effective material Young’s Modulus (inverse of creep compliance for the time of interest). but does not enter into the formula for column stiffness. Of interest is how much the chock and grout layer compress under load. broad “column”. specifically: Klayer = F1 Eeff A / h where: Klayer Eeff = = the stiffness of the chock or loaded layer of foundation grout. a chock has a higher stiffness than the above formula would give. INFLUENCE OF CHOCK AND GROUT PARAMETERS Finite element results show that an epoxy chock deflects with sufficient uniformity over its extent in the horizontal plane that its compressive deflection characteristics can be modeled with one dimensional analysis. Poisson’s ratio quantifies this deformation.6. Provided it has uniform thickness.

the thickness of the chock or layer. for a given value of effective Young’s Modulus. For higher loadings to 1000 psi. which may cut the effective modulus in half. even after creep has occurred over one year. indicating that the contribution of chock creep alone will generally be significantly less than 5 percent.A h F1 = = = the loaded area.2 x 106 to 5 x 106 psi. a shape factor (typically between 1 and 2 for the configuration and materials under consideration). varies with effective Young’s Modulus in the range 0. as predicted by finite element analysis. for a material with Young’s Modulus of one million and a Poisson’s ration of 0. The figure shows that deflection falls by a factor close to 2 over the range of side length considered. From this data. This implies an epoxy chock generally has a higher stiffness than that based on a simple column model. This side length goes from “slender” (one-quarter of the chock thickness) to “broad” (twelve times the chock thickness). The shape factor effect discussed above adds 50 percent or more to the stiffness of typical chock geometries. Based on these observations. Review of higher temperature results indicates little increase in this deflection even up to 140°F. The tests used a pressure loading 200 psi. geometry. loaded to 1000 psi. This shape factor approaches 1.5 mils. loaded at 1000 psi. we expect chock deflections to lie below 2. 2 inches thick.5 x 106 psi (accounting for creep) for loading periods of 104 hours and nominal temperatures up to 120°F. Thus. even after a year of creep for the tested chock materials for operation at temperatures up to 140°F. Figure 6-3 shows how compression of a 12-inch by 12-inch square chock. with a range of 0.75 for typical chock dimensions. The deflection varies inversely with Young’s Modulus.2 mils to 5.5 mils for most combinations of material. and loading for temperatures up to 120°F. The chock grouts tested tend to incur an initial deflection after one hour. 44 . some nonlinearity is observed. Figure 6-1 plots compression of a 2-inch thick square chock as a function of the length of one side. A GMRC supported test program to determine time and temperature deflection characteristics of epoxy materials provided by three suppliers has shown that effective Young’s Modulus for chock materials ranges from about 106 to 2. Figure 6-2 replots the deflection data non-dimensionally as stiffening “shape” factor (F1) versus the ratio of side length to chock thickness.4. any bolt stretch greater than 50 mils will not likely deflect the chock more than about 5 percent of the bolt stretch. a 12-inch square chock with thickness of 2 inches and an effective modulus of one million psi has a stiffness of over 1 x 108 lbs/inch. which exceeds the additional creep deflection over the next year.

45 . thicker grout layers. and by checking the anchor bolt tension with a frequency that ensures acceptably low tension loss over the period between checks. Figure 64 should be treated as a broad guideline and representative of the sort of analysis which should be specifically undertaken for each installation to help ensure integrity. slightly on the high side of the median test values. The initial bolt tension (40 percent of yield) and chock area combine to give a pressure loading of 585 psi (bolt tension = 75.000 hours. Application of the available data for specific selections of these parameters is straightforward enough that it should be considered for any new or repaired compressor. In addition to the bolt tension.000 lbs).another loaded layer of material subject to deformation and creep. and providing a comprehensive set of curves to address all ranges of material properties and geometry is not attempted here.a relatively high value for an epoxy chock. each 1. or shorter bolts. higher temperatures. as tested. by maximizing the length of anchor bolts. There is quite a spread in both values. and effective Young’s Modulus is the inverse of compliance selected at the longest time of interest (one year -. Test data shows foundation grouts tend to creep more than chock grouts. these are representative values. so foundation design should ensure that foundation grouts do not introduce significant creep loss of bolt tension that the chock itself avoids. Table 6-1 lists the geometry and material properties selected for Figure 6-4. The chock modulus and grout modulus. Figure 6-4 shows percentage loss in bolt tension due to creep as a function of anchor bolt length and grout layer thickness. The creep tests actually generated values for compliance. are reasonable median values for materials tested at an accelerated test time of 10. A high strength bolt material has been chosen with a yield of 105.000 lbs has been added in the analysis to account for the compressor’s weight. The 10.000 hour creep ratio is the ratio of compliance at 10. Again. This is accomplished by keeping the thickness of all grout layers subject to anchor bolt loading below a few inches (6-inch suggested maximum). Some quantities in Table 6-1 deserve discussion or further definition. The chock thickness chosen is 2 inches -.000 psi (ASTM A-193).000 hours is suggested). The potential for foundation grout creep must be considered with steel chocks just as with epoxy or composite chocks. particularly with higher loads.5 million lb/in2. The majority of installations use additional epoxy material on the top of the concrete and under any soleplates or rails -.~10.The above discussion addresses deflection and creep specifically for chock materials. a per chock load of 10.000 hours to compliance at one hour for constant temperature.

2 10. then heated to 130°F. It shows that for the specific parameters of this analysis a bolt length of at least 48 inches coupled with a grout layer no thicker than 4. A bolt tightened at a temperature of 70°F or below will immediately experience some loss in tension when heated to 110°F because of the temperature dependent Young’s Modulus of epoxy. provides a measure of the relative contributions of “initial deflection. thus foundation grout creep dominates even when it is acceptably low.5 inches are needed to keep the creep loss in bolt tension below 5 percent at 110°F. and the results presented included the effect of bolt loosening for temperatures up to 110°F.000 HOUR C REEP R ATIO This quantity referred to in the preceding sections of this report. and operated at that temperature for 10.Figure 6-4 confirms the desirability of thin grout layers and long anchor bolts. 1 INFLUENCE OF T EMPERATURE ON C HOCK AND G ROUT C OMPRESSION By the nature of epoxy materials. It is further important to note that interpretations of the preceding examples may become less conservative when the operating temperature exceeds 110°F. and that retightening at operating temperature becomes even more significant if that operating temperature exceeds 110°F. an increase in temperature also causes an increase in compression. the passage of time causes an increase in compression of an epoxy layer under compressive load. and emphasize the need for bolt retightening at operating temperature.” and creep to the deflection after about one year: RC10K = 104A [6-3] 46 . where the bolt is tightened at 70°F. the contribution of chock creep was 10 percent or less of the total loss in bolt tension.000 hours continuously. The step increase in compression and loss of bolt tension as a result of the step increase in temperature are apparent. While the analysis of grout creep presented in Figure 6-4 was for 110°F. it is recommended that any anchor bolt be retightened at operating temperature. Figure 6-5 presents a plot of chock compression and anchor bolt tension versus time for a combination of anchor bolt. 6. In all results presented in Figure 6-4. chock and foundation grout. 6.

Where we define RC10K as the deflection under-load (or compliance) after 10.000 hours divided by the deflection under load after one hour.53 at 140°F. and between 1. the effective Young's Modulus may fall as low as one-third the values in Table 6-1. the initial deflection contributes more than the creep resulting from the passage of one year provided the bolt is tightened hot.34 at 140°F.000 hour creep ratio lies between 1.18 and 1.63 at 110°F. the 10.67 at 110°F.6 and 6. and in this case.37 and 3. creep contributes more than the initial deflection. Since all chock epoxies tested exhibit RC10K values of less than 2 at all temperatures between 110°F and 140°F. We find that for the three chock grouts tested. For the three foundation grouts tested. Some of the foundation grouts exhibit R C10K values greater than two. the total deflection under load increases with temperature because temperature “softens” the material and at 140°F. Even though the relative contribution of creep to lateral deflection appears to fall with increasing temperature.06 and 1. 47 . and between 1. it lies between 1. it can be inferred that for these chock materials.

inch squared Grout Thickness.000 Hour Grout Creep Ratio Time in Hours at which Compliance Values Apply 60 1.5 40 2. Grout Compliance.3 3 10.000 Hour Chock Creep Ratio 10. inches Bolt Diameter. inches Initial Bolt Stress.667E-6 1.667E-6 0. lb 10. psi Grout Modulus. % of Yield Bolt Modulus.000 1.Table 6-1.5E+6 1.000 2 144 3 0. inch squared/lb Chock Modulus. psi Bolt Yield Stress. psi Compressor Weight Per Bolt. inches Time Dep.5E+6 10.000 48 . inch squared/lb Time Dep. psi Chock Thickness. Geometry and Material Properties for Figure 6-4 Bolt Length. inches Chock Area. Chock Compliance.80E+07 105.

6 1.4 0. Epoxy Chock Compression Vs.2 1 0.2 0 0 4 8 12 Side.4 Deflection.6 0. Chock Width (1000 psi Compressive Pressure) 49 .8 1.2 1. Mils 1.8 0. Inches 16 20 24 Figure 6-1.

Ratio of Side Width to Chock Thickness 50 .2 1.2 F1 1 0.8 0.2 0 0 2 4 6 Width/Height Ratio 8 10 12 Figure 6-2.4 0.6 0.6 1. Shape Factor Vs.8 1.4 1.

00E+06 Young's Modulus Figure 6-3.00E+06 3.6 5 4 Deflection.00E+06 2.00E+06 5. Young's Modulus (2"x12"x12") Chock with 1000 psi Surface Load 51 . Mils 3 2 1 0 0. Epoxy Chock Compression Vs.00E+06 4.00E+00 1.

Inches 3 Inch Grout 4. Bolt Yield Strength = 105. % 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Bolt Length. Loss in Bolt Tension (% as a Function of Bolt Length.5 Inch Grout 6 Inch Grout Figure 6-4.000 psi) 52 .14 12 Loss in Bolt Tension.

Compression in Mils & Percent Loss in Bolt Tension 4.00 Compression T Loss % 0.5" Thick 53 .00 3.50 0.50 1.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Time in Hours Figure 6-5. Grout Layer Compression and Percent Loss in Bolt Tension with Increase from 70 to 130°F at 1 Hour and No Bolt Retightening. Grout Layer = 4.50 2. Bolt Length = 48".50 3. Steel Chock.00 2.00 1.00 0.

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd