HIXTEAIEMCIE Teigarite Seminar Recesit Developincnts ih Lit Stowe Desigh for Geovclinieil Works Dynamic Analysis of Machine Foundai ‘When a Static Force cannot Give the full picture Gary Yung AECOM, Hong Kong E-mail; Gary, WT.Y wng@aecom com ABSTRACT Machine foundations provide a rebust platform for machinery to operate in a smooth manner with rinimal ovaintenance: requirements. An unexpected, vibration can be detrimental to:the: machine components, ground seitlement, structural integrity of foundation, and other machines or working personne! adjacent to it. IF vibrations become excessive and uncontrollable, a machine van be Forced to shut down or a catastrophic failure can result from fatigue failures of machine components. To avoid this, the serviceability it state design takes into account of vibration control. Machine vendors usually specify different levels of foundation performance and serviceability vibration limits depending ‘on the machine types for engincers to design the machine foundation, However, in design office, dynamic design is often considered as a secondary check or sometime even fted due to the lack of time and budget allocated to the project. ‘This puper will present various design approaches from a rule of thumb static design-1o a comprehensive dynamic analysis and discuss their limitations. A case sihidy Of large machine foundation with sttingent vibration limits will be preseiited to demonstnite the necessity ain! complexity of a full dynamic analysis, This study aims to deliver the sessaue thal a static force does not aways give the full pictute, Project managers and engineers cati achieve a better insight inte dyniainié analysis for those machine foundatiéns that ate sensitive (6-vibration, arid then be uptront with the clients about the design time and budget required for the dynamic analysis and evaluation. L.INTRODUCTION Machine foundations provides a robust platform for machinery to aperaie efficienity and relizbly. Vendors continuously improve the productivity: and efficiency of their machine by increasing the machine size and operdting speed. On the other hand, the requirements of vibration control can become more stringent due to higher machinery specifications. Consequently, inodern snachine feuthdations are required to resist tanger dynamic forces at higher operating speeds while contrilling. vibrations Unexpected vibrations can te detrimentil to the machine components, Foundation settlement, structural integrity of foundation, and other machines or working persontiel adjacent to it, If vibration becomes ‘exuessive snd tinconttallable, the machine may be reed to shut down, and even lead to fatigue failuse in the machine components resulting in a catastrophic incident, Dynamic analysis of machine foundation is a racial justification step to ensure the performance and safety of the machine, ‘The vibration of foundation subjected to machine load can be assessed by differen xpproaches cluding the pseudo-static approach with rules of thumb, natural frequency analysis, modal una time history analysis and frequency domain analysis. To study the dynamic soilestructure interaction, an impedanee function method is commonly uscd to study the dynamic behaviours between soil and 45struct Bynamic soil stiffness anc damping coefficients are frequency dependent, and will be briefly discussed in this paper. Site specific geotechnical data and machine dynamic forces are important design parameters for a success machine foundation design. However, this information is not always available at the time of design. The difficulty of undertaking the ntachine foundation design without these parameters will be hightighted, Since the imterfuce of soil-structure is often assumed to be rigid, the dynamic effect of exible behaviour ‘of machine foundation can be underestimated. A case study of high-speed machinery supported on shallow foundation will be presented to demonstrate the importance of considering the higher-order dynamic responses 2. DYNAMIC EFFECT DUE TO HARMONIC FORCE. ‘The dynamic response of a single degree of freedom system subjected to harmonic foree can be represented in Figure |. A dynamic amplification factor (DAF) is given by: max. of dynamic response DAF - max.of static response Fig. |= Dynamic Amplification Factor of SOF System So os 9 sass Frequency ratio(i/,) ‘a —frequeney of dynamic foree in hiatural frequency of system (4/k7m) k system stiffness m system mass IPDAF is greater than 1, the machine foundation system is under the influence of resonance. Machine vendor often requires a frequency separation between the natural frequency of foundation system and the excitation frequency (c.g. 0.5 > ap/¢iy > 1.5. Under-luning or over-tuning the foundation system can be achieved by changing the system stiffness and mass. However, the machine foundation is a system with multisdegrecs of freedom which contains more than one natural frequency. The case study at the end of this paper will discuss the difficulty of avoiding all the primary resonances.HIKTEAIEM-CIE Teigarite Seminar Recesit Developincnts ih Lit Stowe Desigh for Geovclinieil Works 3. DIFFERENT DESIGN APPROACHES Machine vendors often specify difforent vibration requiremonts based on the nature of machine, Machine such as mobile generators can tolerate the vibrations induced by its own unbalance forces. A simple rule-of-thumb is sufficient for the type of these machine foundations, In contrast, a critical machine such as high speed gas turbine in the production line caunot be operated with excessive Vibrations. A dynamic analysis with the consideration of dynamic soil-siructure interaction becomes necessary. Design of machine foundations can be categorised into three approaches: 3.1 Category 1+ Static Analysis with Rule of Thumb Machine veridor sometime is confident that the induced unbalance force Of machine is insignificant 10 cause any vibration issue based on the empirical results (exe. mobile genertars or small pump stations), ‘The design can be simplified to rule-of-thumb approach by providing suificient mass into the foundation system to control the vibration. ACI 351 recommends the weight of foundation system at least three times the ‘weight ofa rotating machine and at least five times the weight of a reciprocating machine. ‘The considered machine weight includes both moving and stationary machihe parts, No rigorous ciynainic analysis is needéd. 3.2 Category 2— Natural Frequency Analysis Vendors may require ttre machine foundation system to be designed such that no system esonanice is occurred during the normal operation, Natural frequency analysis can be used 10 demonstrate sufficient frequency separation between the system resonince aid the exeltation frequency. A. sufficient frequency separation is achieved when any primary natural resoriinee of the foundation systert is less ‘han 0.5 Or grevter than 1.5 tinigs the excitation frequency, Unfortunately, in many eases, the frequency Separation cantiot be achieved and a Vigorous dynaniic analysis (Category 3) would the be recontimended. 4.3 Category 3~ Forced Vibration Analysis Venilor or the client inay identify that the machine is cruciil and sensitive to vibration. In this case, a fisrced vibration respioise analysis such as a harmonic aivilysis of time-history dynainie analysis is required to evilluate the foundation dynamic response. If the soil radiation damping and the dysianie soilstructure interaction are t0 be Considered! in the machine fouridation design, & frequency domain dynamic analysis together with impedance functions would then be recommended. This paper will focus ‘on Category 3 case. A case study of a large machine foundation subjected to steady-state harmonic loads will be presented at the end to demonstrate the benefits of this approach. It should be noted that some key design parameters are considered unnecessary or nut provided by the vendor forthe dynamic design, which can limit the analysis options, 4. IMPORTANT DESIGN PARAMETERS, When vibration contro! is identified as the crucial to the machinery, the design team including mechatical, geotechnical, and Structural engineers will work eloscly together to provide # foundation a7solution which satisfies all economic, performance and safety avpects. The design parameters necessary to perform a detail dynamic analysis include geotechnical investigation, machine weight and centre of gravity, operating frequency ranges, rotating component weight and balance quality, machine unbalanced actions and machine vibration tolerances. Amongst thesc, the geotechnical parameters and unbalance actions are often the unavailable or unknown at the time of design. 4.1 Dynamic Soil or Rock Properties Gunter Klein and Dietrich Klein (2003) present typical natural frequencies of machine foundation system (Figure 2), When the machine such as turbo»generator operates at 30H and is supported on a shallow rock foundation, the foundation system may be difficult to avoid resonance. The dynamic shear modulus of foundation material is an important parameter to determine the machine dynamic behaviours. The client and project managers sometime underestimate the importance of in-situ geotechnical data such as dynamic shear modulus which may require additional site access or expenditure to obtain, Fig. 2 - Natural Frequency of Support System {Source from Gunter Kicin and Dietrich Kiein (2003) es BE OR? 2 i i i ji iy Cz | ‘The dynamic shear modulus is commonly obtained by measuring shear wave velocity in the Field (c.g, cross-hole method, down-hole method, up-hole method and seismic reflection). The relationship between dynamic shear modulus and measured-in-field shear wave velocity are as fallows: G= phy where 6 dynamic shear modulus of sub-grade (Pa) Pp soil density (wim) ye shear wave velocity (m/s) ‘The case study at the end of dynamic geotechnical dats, is paper demonstrates the difficulty of avoiding resonance without in-situ a84.2 Unbalanced Forces Unbalanced farees are essential design parameters to perform the forced dynamic analysis, However, another common unknown design parameter is the dynamic forces induced by the machine components, Machine foundation can be excited by dynamic forces due to reciprocating, rotating and impulsive actions. Reciprocating and rotaiing machines, such as diesel generators, gas turbines. centrifugal compressors and electrical motors are subjected to steady-state harmonic dynamic actions. Whereas, impulsive machines, such as forging hammers and metal forming presses, are subjected to sudden impulsive farce. Discussions in this paper will be limited to the reciprocating and rotating machi Salesmen always describe their machines as perfeetly balanced and with no significant dynamie foree. ‘The vendor often does not explicitly provide the unbalanced force for the client or designers. In these ceases, the unbalanced force can bs estimated by ISO 1940/1 and ACI 351 when the rotating mass and balance quility grade are given by the mati facturer: Mp iy* Sp where F, dynamic force (zer0-t0 peak) (kN) m, rotating mass (kg) @m mass eccentricity based on the balance quality grade in ISO 1940/1 (mm) @, circular operating frequency ofthe machine (rads) Sp service factor allow for increased unbalance during the machine service lift generally at Least equal to 2 or stated by the manufacturer 5 DYNAMIC SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ‘The design of machine foundation is complex dynamic soil-strueture interaction problem. Academia has been investigated the soil-siructure interastion problem since early 1920s, However, very few design standards or guidelines have addressed the dynamic soil-structure interaction. 5.1 Review of Dynamic Soil-Strueture Interaction Research activities on the effect of soil-structure interaction in the seismic application had been considerably increased in the 60s and 70s due to the extensive developments of Nuclear Power Plants (Roesset 2013). In the carly development, linear and frequency independent springs were used to simulate the stiffness of the foundation. By 70s, the effect of soil-structure interaction was generally considered as more important for relatively stiff and massive structures sul as Nuclear Pawer Plants, The radiation damping has been considered as an important fuetor in the soil-structure interaction problem. Soil radiation or geometric damping dissipates energy by propagating waves away from the foundation to the soil mass, increasing the effective damping. However, in soil-structure interaction, the tadiation damping is frequency dependent and is difTieule t determine in the time domain, Veletsos and Wei (1971) and Luco and Wstmann (1971) represented the soil dynamic stiffness and damping characteristics as frequency dependent, which also called complex valued impedance function. Kausel (1974) realized that the application of impedance function in seismic engineering can be extend ta the dynamic design of machine foundation. Bynamic response of pile-supported foundation depends on the dynamic stiffness and damping written by Novak in 1970s. El Naggar and Novak present a madel t0 49damping and sail hysteresis. Wolf and Decks (2004) publish a machine foundation textbook to explain the application of impedance functions tagether with work examples 5.2 Impedance Stiffness Approach for Dynamic Soil-structure Interaction To study the dynamie soil-stricture interaction for machine foundation, the Soil-foundation interface is assumed to be rigid, The unboungled soil performs as an energy damper to dissipate energy through Propagating wave energy towards the soil mass, which is called radiation damping or geometric damping. The impedance stiffness approach has been used to represent the dynamic soil-toundation behaviouts. Practicing engineers often are not familiar with inipedatice Functions involved in dynamic soiFstructure interaction. Indeed, many design standards and regulations are only qualitatively to describe the general effects and significance of dynamic soitestructure interaction such as in EN 1998+ 5:2004. Only few design references such as ACI 3$1 and Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual provide guidelines to evaluate the dynamic behaviours of machine foundation by the impedance stiffness approach. To help understanding of the tusie concept of dynamic impedance stiffness, the ‘equations of motion in time domain and frequency domain are discussed. ‘The typical equation of motion in the time domain (t) is Male) + CHO + Ky ult) =P) where M > mass constant © damping constant Ky static spring constant P(t) dynamic aetion Frequericy domain representation for the harmonic force P(t) = PCw)e @ Frequency damain representation for displacernent, velocity and! acceleration u(t) = u(w)el" @ Ht) = wi(wode"" @ H(t) = wFAw)e" 3) where {imaginary number, Y=T lat — Buler's formula, eos(wt) + tstn{ast) By substituting (2) to (S) into (1) and cancelling ein both sides, an alternative equation of motion represented in the frequency domain («) is: 50,PC) = [(Kyy ~ w?M) + ten] uo) Dynamic stiffness ig defined as Ky (w) as.a function of frequency («) Kaleo) = (Key — 2M) + Lol thus Pla) = Kyo) uaa) At the low frequency, the real part of dynamic stiffness (Ke, — aM) is a positive value, the displacement response is in phase with the driven dynamic force. In contrast, at the high frequency, the real part of dynarnie stiffness becomes a negative value which represents the displacement response is 180° out of phase to the dynamie force. At the resonance frequeney (w = Kj,/M) ,the real part of dynamic siifiness becomes zero, and only imaginary part (aC) is remained. Interestingly, the dynamic response at resonanee is only controlled by damping. and the displacement response is 90° out of phase to the dynamic force. In dynamic design of machine foundation (Walf anid Decks 2004), a dimensionless frequency (a) is commonly used instead of frequency (w). The dynamic stiffness is rewritten im terms of spring coefficient (a) and damping coefficient ¢(¢,) as @ function of dimensionless frequency (ay) Kady) = Kee[(ke(a,) + iaycla,)) ory a, = 2 rs where Tm» characteristic length of the found v, shear wave velocity of the first soil layer Manual computation of the impedance response funetions and dynamic responses can be tedious: Computer programs such as Matlab and DYNAG can be used to determine the impedance stftiness and damping coefficients. DYNAG has been developed in University of Western Ontario, Canada by El Naggar and adopted in Canadian Foundation Manual for the machine foundation design. 5.3 Limitations of Impedance Stiffness Approach ‘The impedance stiffiess approach, which assumes the interface of sail-foundation to be rigid, is only capable of evaluating the dynamic response of a rigid machine foundation with six degrees of freedom, ll machine foundation can be assumed to be rigid, especially for the high In terms of dynamic analysis, rigid and exible machine foundations can be classified by the natural frequency of the foundation system and the machine operating frequency. ISO-10816-3 recommends that the support system can be considered as rigid foundation when the first natural frequency of foundation system is higher than the operational frequency by at least 25%, otherwise the foundation system is consideted to be flexible, SlFor flexible foundations be studied using a finite element (FE) mode! coupling with the frequency dependent soil stiffness and damping coefficients, determined by the impedance functions with the assumptions of a non-flexible the consideration of soil-structure interaction, the dynamie response can foundation and a rigid soil-foundation interface (by computer programme such as DYNAG or Matlab). 6. CASE STUDY OF HIGH SPEED MACHINE FOUNDATION foundation with one or more high speed machines ean be a complex dynamic soil-structtire interaction protiem, While this case can be analysed by assuming the interface of soil-foundation to be rigid with no flexural deformation of foundation, the effects of Mexural deformation can be detrimental to the vibration control. Some advanced finite clement analysis (FEA) packages, such as SAP2000, are capable of modelling a flexible machine foundation with the dynamic soil stiffess and damping coefficients in the form af impedance functions... 6.1 Problem Definition Multiple high speed machines supported on a single block foundation is not uncommon for gas compression station, As the case study, two high speed centrifugal compressors driven by an electric motor (E-motor) were supported on a monolithic foundation shown in Figure 3. = General Arrangement of Gas Compression Unit Emcie This gas compression station was identified as the crucial fieility along the production line. The E- motor was rated as 25MW with tin operational speed of 1800 rpm. High pressure compressor operated, ata speed of 11867 1pm with a gear ratio of 6.59, whereas, low pressure compressor operated ata speed of 10045 rpm with a gear ratio of $.58. The total weight of the equipment package including the steel skids was 126,600 kg. This equipment package was supported on a concrete block foundation. The Weight of conerete foundation without piles was $52,600kg, which provided the foundation to equipment weight ratio of 4.36. Shallaw sandstone was found at the location of the gas compression station. Shear velocity of sandstone ranging from 600 mis to 1000 mis were obiained by geotechnical field tests, Table I specifies a range of allowable peak-to-peak vibration displacements and the maximum vibration velocity in relative to different operational frequencies. 32IXTEAIEMCIE Tvigarite Seminar Recesit Developinicnts ih Lit Stowe Desigh for Geovctincil Works ble 1 -Vilbration Limits of Machine Foundation ‘paral Fed PRS PRRVGEN DSH UR) WT VOTO SAD TAT pm He Tow Prassire Compressor Low Freq 160030 8 os High Freq soos 187 14 os, High Presoure Compressor Lom Fieg ‘80030 6 ors Fr a1057_ 188 42 075, 6.2 Machine Foundation Resonated with Shallow Rock DYNAG6 with the consideration of dynimic soil-strictire interaction Was Used to evaluate the maturil frequéney ofthe feumdation systeth, Although the michine faundalioa Was supported on relatively good shallow sandStotic, the vibrilton response still could not met the stringent vibratian limit given by the veridor (luc to the fact that the machine foundation system could not avid the resonances at the machine operational speed. In the carly development of the design solution, a concrete block foundation supported direstly om the shallow rock was considered. The natural frequency of this type of foundation, however, appeared to he fairly closed to the machine operational frequency. Figure-4 illustrates the primary foundation natural resonarges in relative fo the machine aperutional frequenwies. Primary natural resonances of the machine foundation were horizontal (Y), vertical (2) and rocking (RX) modes, The E-motor operated fal low frequency (241lz to 32H) whereas: the compressors operated at high frequency (14He 10 208Hz). Horizontal natural frequency (Y) appeared to be at the machine operational frequency in this ‘ease. The maximum velocity response thus. exceeded the vibration limit of 0,7Smm/s shown in Figure 3 Achumiber of attempis were used to provide sulficient frequeney separation between the foundation natural frequeeies and the tachine operational frequency, lhowever very litle sixicess was achieved. By etlarging or reducing the foundation fodaprint, and by increasing or decreasing the mass of Foundation, the horizonual and vertical natural frequencies shifted together in the same thanner, Since the Hcrizantail and vertical natin frequencies were fairly closed to cach other, it always one of them fell withih the macsine operational frequency. As a result it was concluded thut the block foundation, inthis case, was nota practival solution to avoid resonance. Fig 4 - DYNAG - Pritnary Natural Frequency (Block Foundation) 33HXIEAENM-CLE Tripartite Semin Recesit Developinent Stowe Desig for Gcorccanicd Works. Fig, 3 - DYNA6 - Dynamic Response (1lock Foundation) = [= In terms of adjusting individusl natural frequeney and providing frequeney separation, the pile foundation was # better solution, The concept of pile foundation (Figure 6) is similar to table-top foundation, which consists of large diameter of piles with sleeves to isolate the machine foundation from the surrounding rock, The sleeved pile (Figure 7) reduces the horizontal stiffness (reduces horizontal natural frequency). The large diameter of pile increases the vertical stiffness (inerease vertical and rocking natural frequencies). Fig. 6- Pile Foundation isolated from Surrounding Rock Fig. 7 - Pile Sleeve Detail a Figure 8 presenls the dynainie response of pile Pounilation with the appropriate pile sleeve length to avoid resonance, The sleeved pile foundation successfully established natural frequeriey separation. The primary horizontal resonance occurred before the low machine operaticmal frequency, while the vertical and rocking natural frequencies occurred in between the low and high machine operational frequencies 34‘The vibration response was controlled under 0.75mm/s within the operational frequency shown in Figure 9. Fig. 8 DYNAG - Primary Natural Frequency (Pile Foundation) i oo -: Fig, 9 - DYNAG - Dynamic Response (Pile Foundation) It is noted that DYNAG did not indicate any vibration response at high operational frequencies. The flexure behaviour of foundation was not considered in DYNAG, hence, a finite element model coupling with the frequency dependent pile stifthess and damping coefficient was established to ensure that any vibrations due to flexure of the foundation were-acceptable. 6.3 Finite Element Model with Frequency Dependent Pile Stiffness: A. mass foundation with a total number of 12 piles was simulated by using a finite element package (Strand?) togsther with frequency dependent pile springs from DYNA6 (Figure 10), The concrete foundation was modelled using brick elements, Campressor skids were modelled using steel beams. Masses of compressors, motor and associated components were modelled as transational node masses, ‘The frequency dependent pile springs were modelled at the bottom of concrete foundation. Frequency dependent damping ratios were considered as individual modal damping ratios. 35ite Seminar for Geoveciniesl Works 6.4 Unexpected Vibration due to Flexural Deformation In general, the primary natural frequencies by Strand7 agreed with DYNAG results (Table 2), No primary resonances fell within the machine operational frequency. However, flexural deformation of foundation appeared 1o be triggered by the unbalanced foree of E-motor shown in Figure 11. ‘Table 2 - Natural Frequency with Mass Participation Ratio Mode Frey) DX DY DZ RX RY RZ 1 99.8 Ot 3s 2 973 33 aaa 2 69 lL 310 4 308 12 18 73 06 46 sas 64a 43 389 6 453 os 03 227 17 26 7 489 12028 112 8 03 294 196 Md 9 580 22°12 «88 10 $80. o7 La Force vibration analysis was undertaken separately to evaluate the vibration response due to the E- motor and compressors. Figure 12 presents the dynamic response of the machine foundation subjected to the unbalanee force duc to E-motor or compressors. A clear frequency separation was achieved for the dynamic response triggered by the unbalanced forces of compressors. The sleeved piles under-tuned the horizontal resonance; and the relatively large diameter piles over-tuned the vertical resonance.HXIEAPM-CLE Tripartive Seminar Recésit Developinicnts in Lint Stowe Desig for Geovechnicil Works Fig. 11 ~ Flexural Deformation of Foundation at 39Hz 2s In contrast, the flexural natural frequency at 39Hz (Mode 4) was triggered by the unbalanced force of tor, which was fairly closed to the machine operational frequency. Fortunately, with a further adjustment of pile sleeve tength, the flexural resonance due to E-motor was shifted towards the higher frequency, and the total dynamic nespanse satisfied the vendor vibration requirement shown in Figure 1. Fig, 12 - Dynamic Responses due to E-motor and C ressors terete —tonprenon ‘ as ee E a i, ° ° > 8 © © Frey) Fig. 13 - Dynamic Responses with Flexible Behaviours of Foundation aa ety tant7. CONCLUSIONS Different design approaches for vibration control of machine foundatians have been presented. Forced vibration analysis is recommended for all critical machine foundation, Dynamic soil or rock properties and unbalaneed forces induced by the machine components are the important design parameters. Dynamic soilefoundation interaction written in the form of impedance functions considers the soil radiation damping and dynaniic soil stiffness, however, the soil-foundation interface is assumed to be rigid, and the dynamic effect of flexible structure might be underestimated. A ease study of using finite element model with dynaniie Soil stiffness and damping coefficient has been presented, A sleeved pite foundation was adopted to void foundation resonances enineiced with the machine operational frequency. The dynamic effect of flexible machine foundation has been found that it can be detrimental to the vibration control. Consequently, a finite clement mode! is recommended to consider the dynamie soil-foundation interaction for the vibration-sensitive maghine Fourdation, REFERENCES ACL 351.1 R-99 ~ Grouting between Foundations and Bases for Support of Equipment and Machinery. Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual 4 Edition ~ Canadian Geotechnical Society 2006. Poulos, Harry G. "Behavior of laterally loaded piles: [-single piles." Journal of the Soil Mechanies and Foundations Division 97.5 (1971): 711-731. Giimer Klein and Dietrich Klein (2003). Georeciinical Engineering Flandbook, Procedures Vol.3 . Ernst & Sohn. Wolf John P, (1994) Foundation Vibration Analysis Using Simple Physical Models, PTR Prentice Hall Wolf John P, and Decks Andrew J, (2004) Foundation Vibration Analysis: A Stremgth-of-materials Approach, El: vier. Roesset Jose M_ (2013) Soil Structure Interaction The Early Stages, Journal of Applied Science aniel Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 1-8 Veletsos, A. S. & Wei, Y. T. (1971). Lateral and rocking vibration of footings. Journal of Sail Mechanics & Foundations Kausel, E1974) “Forced Vibration of Circular Foundations an Laycred Media” Se. D. Thests, Massachusetts Institnte of Technology. Navak, M, (1974). Dyntarnic stiffness and damping of piles. Canadian Geotechnical Jouraal, 114), 574-598, Luca, J... & Westman, R. A. (1971). Dynamic response of circular footings. Joumal of she engineering mechanics division, 91(5), 1381 +1395. Luco, J. E, (1975), Impedance functions for a rigid foundation on 9 layered medium, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 312), 204-217. EI Naggar, M. H., & Novak, M. (1994). Not geotechnical engineering, 120(2), 308-329. near model for dynamic axial pile response. Journal ofExpermmsnusistons sry Unit 7: BRITTEL COATING METHODS Brittle coating methods: Toe fence Of wren ions invitee i nReterce ati cing brine i mani te tfc ort posta sen te apetimon tsi ster mds He Ore 2+ min prs apoio i nando canting yo Ses acing cree ~The uf soa ime sive ein hgh rem eo 2 Thovucchmgue providing simple an! dec ama fr oli tage lat 11 neta of es cone compen at Yan te ot he coating eres ha fete pefpendicat Homan tne ne apy er gr oem sein ee ee petit a pect tw as mae SpeeHAPTER -1 INTRODUCTION TO LATHE MACHINE ‘Ae aeRO Sp et cet a ee the Slender per deparaieg tthe mcr pou are wort a {pat ie spel Gongs tectum ee out oa Cn he cit wal dr ne {Treaty qed on beropiic tam anf secer ay the to er "Tie tack ‘Rome "epposae ue meee Fly te Ceres eve fe oe et RP Epucelanf hothe ah pan mt eee iepevclaae cgay Ie Shaunna ofa mesma ofthe ening foul enceaky soneotea Ny te opera re these gomiea Cf the machin wich ate org Les. tat tos, Gist scent purpose hin ach" tae bikes han cece appiator® edSolving Statically Indeterminate Structure; Moment Coefficient Method CE-416 Pre-stressed Concrete Lab Sessional Presented By: Yousuf Bin Aziz Id No:10.07.03.018 Course teachers: Munshi Galib Muktadir Sabreena Nasrin Department Of Civil Engineering Ahsanullah University of Science & technology 2.0:LAS oun fr Ste Renata & Deveogmn Vt eet SS ain) 228 Dekiga wid Anulysis of a High-Rise Bullding with dnd without Floating ia Re argo Se BESS SareeSeismic Design of Structures Project BY Anirudha Vasudevan Gunjan Shetye Harsh ShahLe Strength of Materials CIE 102 kp aU sty Lieder Oem Tecan S Cay‘sarrcina. arora (8 nwo gan 2): 2048 Indian Standard Arerrit ar fears @ ards ver 2 ae tes Rane pte Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of StructuresA Presentation on Stresses in Beam By Prof. VN Nikam (LECTURER) Email- vilas5151@gmail.com, Sandip Institute of Polytechnic Sandip Foundation Nashik