See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289631685

Design of table top structures with soil - Structure interaction

Article · January 2003

CITATION READS

1 250

2 authors, including:

Yingcai Han
Goldwind Sciences. Beijing. China
93 PUBLICATIONS   453 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Offshoe Engineering View project

TCO oil chemical project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yingcai Han on 03 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DESIGN OF TABLE TOP STRUCTURES WITH SOIL - STRUCTURE
INTERACTION
Yingcai Han and Nigel Histon
Fluor Canada Ltd., Calgary, Alberta

ABSTRACT: A detailed dynamic analysis of compressor table top structures is carried out in this study to
illustrate the relationship between the dynamic response and the soil conditions. Two engineering cases
are studied. One table top structure is constructed on clay soil and the other is on bedrock. The dynamic
behavior of each structure is shown to be differently affected when the characteristics of its particular
foundation soil is included.

The soil-structure interaction is accounted for by means of the substructure method wherein the
superstructure (table top) and foundation (concrete base, piles and soil) are considered separately.
Stiffness and damping of the foundation are generated by the DYNA program and are then input into a
finite element model. Different types of element are used, including frame, shell and solid (three
dimension) elements. Those cases in which the soil-structure interaction must be considered and those
in which it may be ignored are investigated. The concept of "the larger the structural mass, the safer" is
shown to be not true for dynamics. A reasonable design can reduce vibration and save cost.

1.1NTRODUCTION

"Table top" structures are often used to support elevated rotating machinery. The dynamic response of
such structures is complex, since any part of the soil, the foundation (including piles), or the
superstructure may play an important role. The foundation on which a structure is constructed may
interact dynamically with the structure itself to the extent that the maximum deflections and stresses in
the system are significantly different from values that would have been developed if the structure were on
a rigid foundation.

Years ago the soil-structure interaction effect on the dynamic or seismic response of a structure was
considered of little consequence, and ignored. Even in recent years, the effect of foundation flexibility on
the dynamic response of a superstructure is still not considered to be important by various authorities or
engineers when analyzing vibrating machine foundations. For instance, the following quote is by the Task
Committee on Turbine Foundations, (1987). "If the dynamic load is a high-frequency force such as a
rotating unbalance, the effect of vibration of the base mat is small. That is, the base mat acts as a fixed
base for the foundation. Therefore, the foundation may be adequately analyzed by using a model where
the columns are assumed to be fixed at the mat (no translation and no rotation)." According to such
specifications, the effects of the "base mat" portion of the structure seem unimportant and only the
superstructure needs to be considered when subjected to the high-frequency unbalanced forces. In some
cases, however, the soil-structure interaction causes significant effects on the dynamic response even for
the high-frequency forces.

GCC-327-1
For design of compressor table top structures, it is important to know in which cases the soil-structure
interaction must be considered and in which it may be ignored. To demonstrate the significance of this,
two engineering cases are studied. One such table top structure is constructed on clay soil and supports a
recycle gas compressor at Strathcona, Alberta. The other is on bedrock, supporting a compressor at
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. The dynamic behavior of each structure is shown to change differently when the
foundation soils are included in the analysis. One indicates a strong soil-structure interaction, and the
other shows a weak interaction.

The soil-structure interaction is accounted for by means of the substructure method. In this method,
stiffness and damping of the soil-foundation system are considered to be frequency dependent. The
parameters are generated by the DYNA program and are then input into the finite element model. A finite
element program, SAP2000, is used to generate the dynamic response of the superstructure.

Two types of finite element model are used in the dynamic analysis. One model is a combination of shell
and frame elements. The shell elements are used for the top slab and mat foundation and frame elements
are used for the columns. In another model, three dimension (solid) elements are used. This is considered
to be appropriate, since the cross-sections of concrete columns, top slab and mat foundation are quite
large. Comparing results from the two models, the dynamic responses are shown to closely agree with
each other.

2. STIFFNESS AND DAMPING OF FOUNDATION

The determination of stiffness and damping of the foundation is the first step in obtaining the dynamic
response of the table top structure. Both theoretical and experimental studies have shown that the
dynamic response of piles is very sensitive to the properties of soil in the vicinity of the pile shaft (Han and
Novak, 1988). A rigorous approach to the nonlinearity of the soil-pile system is extremely difficult and
therefore approximate theories have to be used. Novak and Sheta (1980) proposed including a cylindrical
annulus of softer soil (an inner weakened zone or so called boundary zone) around the pile in a plane
strain analysis. One of the simplifications involved in the original boundary zone concept was that the
mass of the inner zone was neglected to avoid the wave reflections from the interface between the inner
boundary zone and the outer zone. Some of the effects of the boundary zone mass were investigated by
Novak and Han (1990) who found that a homogeneous boundary zone with a non-zero mass yields
undulation impedances due to wave reflections from the fictitious interface between the two media. The
ideal model of the boundary zone should have properties smoothly approaching those of the outer zone to
alleviate wave reflections from the interface. Consequently, such a model of boundary zone with a non-
reflective interface was proposed by Han and Sabin (1995). The model of the non-reflective interface
assumed that the boundary zone has a non-zero mass and a smooth variation into the outer zone by
introducing a parabolic variation function, which may be best fit with use of experimental data. Dynamic
investigations of piles indicated that the boundary zone model is suitable to both granular and cohesive
soils (Han, 1997). To generate the stiffness and damping of the foundation, both DYNA4 program
(developed by Novak) and DYNAN program, (developed by Han) are used. Thus, the mass in the
boundary zone is accounted for in this study. The group effect of piles is considered using the dynamic
interaction factor method.

The soil where the compressor is installed at Strathcona, Alberta is clay. The upper stiff clay is dark
brown and 3 to 4 m thick underlain by a very stiff clay till. No bedrock is found. Short piles are used, with
length of 3.5 m, diameter of 0.914 m and belled bottom diameter of 2.28 m. 8 drilled cast-in-place
concrete piles are used and the spacing ratio for the group reduction effect is 3.0 pile diameters.

Three conditions of soil are considered in the dynamic analysis of the structure.
(1) A fixed base is assumed; that is, no deformation of the foundation soil.
(2) Lower shear wave velocities of the soil are used. The top 0.5 m soil layer is considered to be a void
since the confining pressure is quite low so near to the ground surface. The shear wave velocity of
soil increases with depth from 160 m/s to 250 m/s (below the pile tip).
(3} Higher shear wave velocities are used. There is no void beneath the pile cap, and the shear wave

GCC-327-2
 velocity increases from 160 m/s to 350 m/s (below pile tip).

The soil where the compressor is installed at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, consists of loose to compact
heterogeneous fills underlain by slate bedrock. The fill thickness is less than 3.0 m and unsuitable for
support of foundations. Spread footings on the bedrock are the most common foundation system. Here, a
mat foundation with thickness of 0.9 m is used. The fills beneath the mat are dug out to the bedrock and
filled with lean concrete. It is considered a shallow foundation resting on an elastic half-space.

Three conditions of the mat - bedrock system are considered in the dynamic analysis of the structure.
(1) Fixed base is assumed; that is, no deformation of mat- bedrock system.
(2) Surface bedrock is considered to be fractured and weathered and a shear wave velocity of Vs=630
m/s is used.
(3) Shear wave velocity of bedrock is increased to V5 = 1,260 m/s.

The stiffness and damping of the foundation systems were calculated for vertical, horizontal and rocking
vibrations corresponding to six degrees of freedom. The stiffness and damping are frequency dependent.
It is reasonable that the stiffness and damping vary with the frequency, since the machine operating
speed is quite high. When the dynamic response of the table top structure is calculated against a specific
frequency, then the values input for stiffness and damping of the foundation for vertical, horizontal and
rocking vibrations are those corresponding to the same specific frequency.

3. TABLE TOP STRUCTURE ON SOIL

The initial geometry of the concrete table top structure was estimated based on experience and published
guidelines, such as suggested by Arya, et al, (1981) and by Han, et al, (1999). Usually, the height of such
a table top is not over 6 m and column spacing should be less than 3.6 m. The thickness of the deck (top
beams) should not be less than one fifth of the clear span. Owners and other general guidelines require
that the mass of the top half of the structure should not be less than the mass of the supported machine,
and the total mass of the structure including the mat should be no less than three times the mass of
machine.

The concrete table top structure at Strathcona, Alberta is shown in Fig.1. The piled mat is 10.21 m x 6.10
m, with thickness of 1.22 m. The top slab is 8.86 m x 3.25 m, with thickness of 0.76 m. The top slab is
supported by 6 columns. The cross-section of each column is 0.61 m x 0.61 m, and clear height is 2.54
m. The lateral centerline to centerline spacing between columns is 2.64 m. The longitudinal centerline to
centerline spacing of columns is 3.94 m under the motor and 4.32 m under the compressor.

The compressive strength of concrete is 30 Mpa, and the dynamic modulus of elasticity is 35,900 Mpa,
Poisson's ratio is 0.25, and the damping ratio is 0.03. Minimum reinforcement ratio was used for most
beams and columns, since the cross-section is large.

The finite element program SAP2000, nonlinear version, was used for dynamic analysis of the table top
structure, with both stiffness and damping parameters of the pile foundation input. The centrifugal
machine produces harmonic excitation on the table top structure, so the dynamic response can
conveniently be solved in a frequency domain. Although the harmonic steady-state analysis can be done
with the program, the structural damping is assumed to be zero. This is a limitation imposed by SAP2000.
However, structural damping should be accounted for. Therefore, time history analysis had to be used for
the harmonic vibration. Sine and cosine time functions are used for the dynamic vertical loads and
horizontal loads respectively, with a phase difference of 90 degrees.

The computer model of the table top structure is a combination of different types of element, as shown in
Fig.2. The columns are modeled by frame elements, the mat foundation and top slab by shell elements,
and the damping parameters of soil - pile system are input by using nllink elements. The stiffness and
damping of piles each vary with frequency, so the values at operating speed are used and input at the
eight pile locations.

GCC-327-3
 Fig.1 Concrete table top structure

Fig.2 Computer model of table top structure using combined frame and shell elements.

GCC-327-4
The unbalanced forces of rotating machinery are calculated based on Newton's second law.

[1] F =m.e. m 2
in which, m is the rotor mass, e is the eccentricity and m is the circular frequency.
With the following relationship, m = WIg, e = Q9 lm and m = 2 ". n I 60, Eq. 1 can be written as

[2] F =W. Q9 .2 ". n I 60 g

in which, Wis the rotor weight, g is the acceleration of gravity, n is rotor speed in rpm (revolutions in per
minute),"= 3.14, and Q9 is the quality grade. (See ISO 1940 for description of "quality grade" of balanced
rotating machines.)

When the quality grade Q9 = 0.615 inch/second,

[3] F= W. nl6,000

When the quality grade Q9 = 0.2 inch/second,

[4] F = W. nl 18,450

Eq. 3 is commonly used and conservative. The unit of force F is consistent with the unit of weight W In
this case, the compressor operating speed is 9,667 rpm, the compressor rotor weight is 7.65 KN, and the
dynamic force from Eq. 3, F = 7.65 x 9,667/6,000 = 12.32 KN. The motor operating speed is 1,800 rpm,
motor rotor weight 46.7 KN, "quality grade" of the motor Q 9 = 0.2 inch/second (per vendors data), and the
dynamic force is calculated based on Eq. 4, F = 46.7 x 1,800/18,450 = 4.56 KN. The high speed gear
weight is 0.91 KN, so F = 0.91 x 9,667/6,000 = 1.47 KN; and the low speed gear weight is 16.6 KN,
therefor F = 16.6 x 1,800/6,000 = 4.98 KN.

The maximum amplitudes at shaft elevation of the machine are calculated as shown in Table 1, and the
natural periods of vibration for the first 11 modes of the table top structure are shown in Table 2.

Table 1. Maximum peak to peak amplitude on machine ~~m).

Condition of Footing Fixed Base Higher Shear Wave Lower Shear Wave
Velocity of Soil Velocity of Soil
Compressor (9,667rpm) 6.2 - in lateral 5.1 - in vertical 3.9- in lateral
Motor (1 ,800 rpm} 15.0 - in lateral 9.0 - in lateral 8.8 - in lateral

Table 2. Natural period of vibration modes of table top structure (second)

Natural Period Fixed Base Higher Shear Wave Lower Shear Wave
Velocity of Soil Velocity of Soil
T1 0.0563 0.1088 0.1243
T2 0.0560 0.1064 0.1189
T3 0.0430 0.0871 0.0974
T4 0.0202 0.0589 0.0722
T5 0.0162 0.0568 0.0674
T6 0.0141 0.0511 0.0664
T7 0.0126 0.0441 0.0459
T8 0.0114 0.0418 0.0454
T9 0.0089 0.0301 0.0340
T10 0.0074 0.0214 0.0218
T11 0.0072 0.0184 0.0191

GCC-327-5
The vibration criteria given by the vendor limits peak to peak vibration amplitude to 5 Jim for the
compressor and 15 Jim for the motor. From the results shown in Table 1, the vibration calculated is
shown to meet the vibration limit, except in the case of the fixed base. The higher order analysis, which
more properly includes the effects of the surrounding soils, clearly shows in this case that the foundation
is not a "fixed base".

From Table 1 and 2, it can be seen that the soil - structure interaction gives significant effects to the
dynamic response and dynamic behavior when the table top structure is built on soil, although the
dynamic loads are of the "high-frequency force" type.

4. TABLE TOP STRUCTURE ON BEDROCK

The concrete table top structure at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, has a similar shape to that at Strathcona.
However, the structure is built on bedrock not on soil. The mat is 9.75 m x 5.56 m, with thickness of 0.914
m. The top slab is 8.74 m x 3.81 m, with thickness of 0.914 m. The top slab is supported by 6 columns.
The cross-section of each column is 0.61 m x 0.61 m, and clear height is 2.74 m. The lateral centerline to
centerline spacing between columns is 3.05 m. The longitudinal centerline to centerline spacing of
columns is 3.99 m.

The compressor operating speed is 10,899 rpm, and the compressor rotor weight 4.02 KN, thus the
dynamic force, F = 4.02 x 10,899/6,000 = 7.30 KN. The motor operating speed is 1,800 rpm, and motor
rotor weight 28.7 KN. The "quality grade" of the motor Q9 = 0.2 inch/second (per vendors data). The
dynamic force is calculated based on Eq.4, F = 28.7 x 1,800/18,450 = 2.80 KN. The high speed gear
weight is 0.81 KN, so F = 0.81 x 10,899/6,000 = 1.47 KN; at low speed gear weight is 13.3 KN and F =
13.3 X 1,800/6,000 = 3.99 KN.

The maximum amplitudes at the machine shaft elevation (all in lateral vibration) are calculated as shown
in Table 3. The natural periods of the structure are shown in Table 4.

Table 3. Maximum peak to peak amplitude on machine (J.lm).

Condition of Footing Fixed Base Higher Shear Wave Lower Shear Wave
Velocity of Bedrock Velocity of Bedrock
Compressor (1 0,899rp_m) 4.2 4.0 4.0
Motor (1 ,800 rpm) 4.8 4.8 4.7

Table 4. Natural period of vibration for first 6 modes of table top structure (second)
Natural Period Fixed Base Higher Shear Wave Velocity Lower Shear Wave Velocity
of Bedrock of Bedrock
T1 0.0822 0.0838 0.0863
T2 0.0814 0.0830 0.0851
T3 0.0638 0.0650 0.0666
T4 0.0174 0.0182 0.0195
T5 0.0148 0.0152 0.0165
T6 0.0130 0.0132 0.0144

The machine vendor limited the peak to peak vibration amplitude to 4 J.lm for the compressor and 15 J.lm
for the motor. From the results shown in Table 3, the vibration calculated meets the vibration limit.

It is interesting to note from Table 3 that the maximum amplitude is almost the same for each of the
different foundation-soil conditions examined. The natural periods of vibration are also similar for the
different footing conditions, as shown in Table 4. The effect of soil- structure interaction on the dynamic
response is quite weak when the table top structure is built on bedrock. In such cases, the soil-structure
interaction can be ignored to simplify the calculation and structural analysis.

GCC-327-6
5. COMPARISON USING DIFFERENT TYPES OF FINITE ELEMENT

The finite element models used in above dynamic analysis are combinations with frame and shell
elements as shown in Fig.2. Since the cross-section of the structure is quite large, the overlapping mass
in the frame elements was accounted for by reducing the mass density of concrete. An analysis based
upon the centerline-to-centerline (joint-to-joint) geometry of frame elements may overestimate deflections
in some structures. This is due to the stiffening effect caused by overlapping sections at a connection. It
is more likely to be significant in concrete than in steel structures. A rigid-end factor can be specified to
assume the connection to be rigid for bending and shear deformation. Typically the value for "rigid" would
not exceed about 0.5. In this study, a rigid-end factor of 0.4 is specified.

To model a concrete structure with large cross-sections, solid elements (three dimension) may be
appropriate as shown in Fig.3. Take the case of the table top structure on soil as an example, to compare
the 3D-element model with the combined element model. The foundation condition is assumed to be the
lower shear wave velocity of soil.

The size of solid element is 0.3048 x 0.3048 x 0.3048 (m), except the height of elements to be 0.2533 m
for top slab (the thickness of top slab is 0.76 m). The size of shell element is 0.3048 x 0.3048 (m) in the
combined element model. For convenience of modeling, the dimension of the table structure is modified a
little. The length of mat is changed to 10.06 m from 10.21 m. The top slab is changed to 8.84 m x 3.048
m from 8.86 m x 3.25 m. The clear height of columns is changed to 2.44 m from 2.54 m.

The dynamic responses of the top slab calculated from the two models are shown in Table 5. The natural
periods of vibration for various modes of the table top are shown in Table 6.

Table 5. Maximum peak to peak amplitude at machine shaft level (all in lateral vibration) (~m).
Finite Element Model Solid Element (30) Combined Element
Compressor (9,667 rpm) 4.4 4.2
Motor (1 ,800 rpm) 8.7 10.3

Table 6. Natural period of vibration modes (second)

Natural Period Solid Element (30) Combined Element
T1 0.1317 0.1226
T2 0.1178 0.1148
T3 0.0944 0.0961
T4 0.0658 0.0695
T5 0.0656 0.0675
T6 0.0619 0.0647
T7 0.0389 0.0464
T8 0.0369 0.0443
T9 0.0283 0.0338
T10 0.0204 0.0209

It can be seen from Table 5 that the maximum amplitudes calculated from the two types of element agree
very closely. The natural periods of vibration calculated from the two models are also similar as shown in
Table 6. The difference of results is within 10 %, except the amplitude at the motor is a little larger.

It may be concluded that the solid element model is appropriate to model concrete structures with larger
cross-sections. However, the analysis with three dimension elements takes more time than that with two
dimension elements (frame and shell). The combined element model, with frame and shell elements, is
good enough to generate the dynamic response accurately. With the rigid-end factor assigned, the
stiffening effect caused by overlapping sections at a connection can be simulated in the two dimension
element model. For practical design purposes, the combined element model (frame and shell) is
recommended.

GCC-327-7
Fig. 3 Computer model of table top structure using solid elements ( 3D ).

Fig. 4 Dynamic forces and additional mass placed at gravity centers.

GCC-327-8
6. SOME PROBLEMS IN DESIGN OF TABLE TOP STRUCTURES

6.1 Location of dynamic loads and additional mass

In above dynamic analysis, the dynamic loads and additional mass of machines are distributed to the
chockblocks that support them. The amplitudes calculated are also referred to the concrete table top
(chockblock locations). As matter of fact, the elevation of machine shaft is 0.9 m above the concrete table
top.

To account for the effects of the locations, a computer model in which the dynamic loads and additional
mass of machines are input at the locations of center of gravity of machine is shown in Fig. 4. This model
is the table top structure on bedrock with lower shear wave velocity at Dartmouth. "No mass links" (rigid
links) are used to keep the forces and mass at the reallocations. The maximum peak to peak amplitude
at the chockblock location of motor is calculated to be 5.3 J.lm. From Table 3, the amplitude of the motor
is 4.7J.lm when the forces and mass are input at the concrete table top. The difference of the results is
within 15°/o, which is not considered excessive.

6.2 Effects of structural mass

The effects of structural mass on the dynamic response are examined. The dynamic response is
calculated for different cross-sections. In the case of the table top structure on soil at Strathcona, it is
assumed that the thickness of top slab is changed to 1.52 m from 0.76 m, and the cross-section of
columns is increased to 0.914 m x 0.914 m from 0.61 m x 0.61 m. With the larger structural members,
the maximum peak to peak amplitude at the compressor is calculated to be 5.0 J.lm. Compared with the
value of 3.9 Jim shown in Table 1, the vibration amplitude is not reduced but increased with the larger
structural mass.

In the case of the table top structure on bedrock at Dartmouth, if the cross-section of the columns is
changed to 0.914 m x 0.914 m from 0.61 m x 0.61 m, then the maximum peak to peak amplitude is
calculated to be 5.0 J.lm at the compressor and 6.4 J.lm at the motor. Compared with the values of 4.0 J.lm
and 4.7 J.lm as shown in Table 3, the vibration amplitude is not reduced but again increased with the
larger structural mass.

It can be understood that more vibration modes participate since the operation speed is quite high. For
example, the machine speed is 9,667 rpm in the first case, so the period is 0.0062 second. 40 vibration
modes participated in the dynamic response, and T4 0 =0.0053 second. So it is concluded that the
concept of "the larger the structure mass, the better" is not true for dynamics. A reasonable design can
reduce vibration damage and save cost.

6.3 Material damping

Material damping, also called internal or hysteretic damping, is the energy loss within the material due to
interparticle friction. The range of material damping ratio for concrete structures is 0.02 to 0.05.

Where structures rest on soil, the effect of material damping on dynamic response is not significant. Due
to the soil-structure interaction, the energy of vibration is dissipated into the soil in three dimensions and
the energy loss is called "radiation damping". The radiation damping is more important than the material
damping in the case with the soil base. The value of the material damping ratio is taken as 0.03 in this
study.

Where structures rest on bedrock, material damping does play an important role. The maximum
amplitude may change 30o/o as the material damping ratio varies from 0.02 to 0.05. In such cases the
soil-structure interaction is quite weak and is similar to the idealized "fixed base".

GCC-327-9
 7. CONCLUSIONS

(1 ). Where "table top" structures are built on soil, even for high speed rotating machines, the soil-
structure interaction must be accounted for. Where the table top structures rest on bedrock, the soil-
structure interaction can be ignored to simplify the structural analysis.

(2). The solid element (3D} model is appropriate to model concrete structures with larger cross-
sections. The combined element model, including frame and shell elements, is good enough to accurately
generate dynamic responses. A rigid-end factor can be specified to assume the connection to be rigid for
bending and shear deformation. The method of using combined elements saves time.

{3}. More vibration modes participate for table top structures supporting high speed rotating
machinery. The concept of "the larger the structural mass, the better" is not true for dynamics. A
reasonable design can both reduce the vibration and save cost.

Acknowledgements

Ming Chan in Fluor's Calgary office and Anish Kumar in Fluor's New Delhi office were both involved in the
design of the structures presented in this paper.

References

Arya, Suresh C., O'Neill, Michael W ., and Pincus, George, (1981 ). "Design of structures and foundations
for vibrating machines". Gulf Publishing Company.

Han, Y.C., Wang, S., Chan, P., and Sprinkhuysen, A., (1999). "Design of an elevated compressor table
top structure considering soil-pile-structure interaction." Annual Cont. CSCE, Regina,
Saskatchwan, 291-300.

Han, Y.C. and Cathro, D. (1997). "Seismic behavior of tall buildings supported with pile foundations",
Seismic Analy. and Design for Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction, ASCE Annual Conv., Minneapolis,
MN; Geotechnical Special Publication No. 70, 36-51.

Han, Y.C. (1997). "Dynamic vertical response of piles in nonlinear soil", J. of Geotechnical and
Geoenvirnmental Engineering, ASCE, 123(8), 710-716.

Han, Y.C. and Sabin, G. (1995}. "Impedances for radially inhomogeneous soil media with a non-reflective
boundary'', J. of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 121 (9), 939-947.

Han, Y.C. and Novak, M. (1988). "Dynamic behavior of single piles under strong harmonic excitation",
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 25(3), 523-534.

ISO 1940, (1986}, "Mechanical vibration- Balance quality requirements of rigid rotors",
International Organization for Standardization,

Novak, M. and Han, Y.C. (1990}. "Impedances of soil layer with boundary zone",
J. Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 116(6), 1008-1014.

Novak, M. and Sheta, M. (1980}. Apprroximate approach to contact problems of piles",

Proc. Geotech. Eng. Dvi., ASCE National Convention, Florida, 53-79.

Task Committee on Turbine Foundations, (1987). "Design of large steam turbine- generator foundations",
Fossil Power and Nuclear, Energy Division, ASCE, pp75.

GCC-327-10

View publication stats