TECH brief

The Importance Of A
abound for soil-foundation
Sound Foundation > Methods
modeling for rotating, reciprocating
machinery

By THOMAS A. CHIRATHADAM
AND BENJAMIN A. WHITE

he seamless performance of rotating and reciprocating machinery relies on the effective design and
installation of their foundations. The foundation design involves careful consideration of foundation block size,
block constructability, use of oil barrier, equipment chock
mounts, anchor bolt design, use of rebars for crack management, and soil-structure interaction [1].
In addition to the foundation block size, block embedment, soil parameters, and dynamic forces also influence
the overall system response [2]. This article introduces several methods for soil-foundation modeling, presents a few
commonly used models, and illustrates the application using an example analysis of a pump foundation.
The foundation blocks are sized sufficiently large for dissipating the unbalanced forces, moments and torque generated by the machinery. However, the center of gravity of
the foundation must be kept as low as possible to avoid
large rocking motion and the foundation bearing pressure
must not exceed the soil-bearing capacity. Hence, the foundation block design involves trade-offs between the foundation size/mass and surface area.
As a general rule, the foundations are sized such that the
block is at least five times heavier than the machinery. The
transmissibility of the dynamic forces from the machinery
to the ground depends on the soil properties such as the
shear modulus and Poisson ratio. The foundation blocks
resting on soft soil may resonate in various modes as an
isolated system, instead of dissipating the forces. Installation of piles can provide additional stiffness and damping to
the foundation due to the soil-pile interaction.
The prior art offers several analytical methods for modeling the machinery foundation impedance, of which the elastic half-space method has been quite extensively used in
the industry. The soil is an infinite inhomogeneous medium,
and most modeling methods approximate it conveniently to
either a series of uniformly distributed springs or a set of
translational or rotational springs. See Gazetas [3] for a detailed review and description of several approaches avail-

Thomas A. Chirathadam is a research engineer with Southwest

Research Institute. Contact him at: thomas.chirathadam@swri.
org. Benjamin A. White is a group leader with Southwest Research Institute. Contact him at: benjamin.white@swri.org.
2015 EDITION

able to predict foundation stiffness and machine response

amplitudes.
In the elastic half-space method [4], the dynamic excitations of the foundation block is considered to propagate
as an elastic wave Rayleigh wave that decreases in
strength with increasing soil depth. The response of the
model due to the periodic excitation of a circular region,
resting on an elastic half-space representing the soil mass,
simulates the motion of a foundation block [5].
The frequency independent terms of the solution represent the static stiffness of the soil beneath the foundation.
However, to find the stiffness of the soil beneath a rectangular or an arbitrarily shaped foundation block, suitable correction factors are required [4].
The foundation impedances are formulated assuming a
fair amount of uniformity in the soil layers. In reality, however, the shear modulus and poisons ratio of the soil vary
significantly with depth, and the effect is more pronounced
in the presence of moisture.
The cone frustum model introduced by Ehlers [6] and
later advanced by Meek and Wolf [7] is suitable to model
impedances of foundations embedded in layered medium.
The model considers soil as a truncated cone beneath the
foundation block. The cylindrical soil region, where a circular foundation rests, is discretized into rigid disks.
The total number of disks required for accurate modeling of the soil depends on the soil properties, foundation
geometry and excitation frequencies. Note that the soil element thickness must not exceed one-sixth of the shortest
wavelength propagating through the layers for sufficient accuracy in the results. The system is modeled as a truncated
semi-infinite bar, such as that typically followed in a 1-D
strength of material analysis.
With increasing depth, the crosssectional area of the
cone increases, and this simulates the geometric spreading of pressure as the foundation load is applied on the soil
surface. During any excitation, dilatational waves propagate from the foundation block and travel through the soil
layer(s). The dynamic loads propagate downwards radiation damping until it reaches another soil layer.
For half-spaces of multiple layers, the propagated waves
reflect and refract multiple times. Jaya and Prasad [8] and
Pradhan, et al. [9], advance analytical models for impedWWW.CTSSNET.NET CTSS

TECH brief
ance functions of foundations embedded in stratified soil.
The procedure involves developing dynamic stiffness matrices for each cone layer and assembling them together to
form the complete dynamic stiffness matrix of the entire soil.
Further, imposition of suitable kinematic constraints gives
the impedance functions. Pradhan, et al. [9], compares the
predictions from a cone frustum model for a two-layered
system against measurements and finds good correlation.
Gazetas and Roesset [10] demonstrate that the properties of the soil layers do not affect systems mounted on
heavy foundations. Hence, approximate solutions from
elastic half-space method can predict the system responses with fair amount of accuracy. Flexible skids and light
foundations are sensitive to the number of layers of soil and
the presence of bedrock. A finite element analysis modeling
the soil as uniformly distributed spring stiffness beneath the
skid and foundation can provide more accurate solutions.
However, no ready reference comparing predictions to field
measurements of resulting equipment dynamic responses
are available.
The shape of the foundation (circular, rectangular, etc),
and soil properties (homogeneous, layered, or above a rock
layer), embedment (foundation on surface, embedded), and
foundation block rigidity (rigid/flexible) largely affect the soilfoundation interaction. Elastic half-space theory has been
widely used to model dynamic foundations, due mainly
to the simplicity of the lumped parameter approximation
employed [3]. Also see Richart, et al. [4], for detailed lumped
parameter modeling of foundations using half-space methods.
The half-space method assumes that the foundations
are circular in shape. In order to model foundations of any
other geometry, an approximate equivalent radius must be
used. For instance, the equivalent radius of a rectangular
foundation with width 2B and length 2L for translational
modes is

The simplest method of modeling a soil-foundation system is by assuming that the rigid foundation block rests on
a homogeneous soil half-space as illustrated in Figure 1.
Table 1 lists the static stiffnesses for the rectangular rigid
foundations, along with typical correction factors. Note that
several publications provide varying correction factors, and
hence only a range is provided in Table 1. For more information, see Reference [3].
ii) Soil stratum over rigid base
Figure 2 shows a schematic representation of a foundation block resting on a soil layer above bedrock. Table 2
lists the stiffnesses for the foundation block. Note that the
expressions for the foundation stiffnesses are valid only
for certain ratios of soil layer depth and foundation equivalent radius.

n Figure 2. Rigid foundation on a homogenous soil layer above

a bed rock.
iii) Soil stratum above homogeneous half-space

(1)

Similarly, an equivalent circular foundation radius can be

obtained for any arbitrary shape [11] with no internal holes
as

where, A is the area of the contact area of the foundation

with the soil surface.
i) Homogeneous half-space

n Figure 1. Rigid
foundation on homogenous elastic
half-space.
2015 EDITION

n Figure 3. Rigid foundation on a homogenous soil layer

above a half space.
Figure 3 depicts a foundation block resting on a layer of
soil above another half-space of soil. This type of soil profile can capture the effect of the presence of a shallow soil
layer of one type above a semi-infinite homogeneous layer
of another type. Note that the maximum height of the top
most layer of soil must be less than four times the foundation radius in order for an accurate representation of the
horizontal and vertical stiffnesses.
iv) Embedded foundation in soil stratum over bedrock
Most foundation blocks are either embedded in the soil or
soil is backfilled around the concrete block after installation.
Although the backfilled soil compactness is much lower
WWW.CTSSNET.NET CTSS

TECH brief

n Figure 4. Rigid foundation embedded in homogeneous soil

stratum-over bedrock.
than the soil beneath the foundation block, the soil profile
considered here assumes that the entire soil, in which the
foundation is embedded as illustrated in Figure 4, is of uniform modulus and Poisons ratio. The soil layer of height H
rests above rigid bedrock. Although the soil profiles (ii) and
(iv) appear similar except for the embedment, a value of
embedded depth D=0 in soil type (iv) over predicts the vertical stiffness for soil type (ii). However, other stiffness values
are identical for both the soil profiles when D=0.

n Table 1. Static stiffnesses for rectangular rigid foundation [3].

n Figure 5. Pictured is a finite

element model of pump-motor
system on a baseplate anchored
on to a foundation block.

2015 EDITION

n Figure 6. This graph shows the maximum velocity in a pumpfoundation model for various frequencies. Increasing running
speed generates proportionately larger unbalance forces.
Pump foundation analysis example
An example foundation analysis is presented here for
a skid-mounted pump, API: BSAFP(1CW-FL). A 5500 hp
(4101 kW) motor, operating at 1500 rpm, is
driving the 20,000 lb. (9072 kg) heavy centrifugal, single stage, HSB pump via a hightorque power transmission coupling. The
pump and motor are securely fastened to
a base plate, which then is anchored to the
foundation block with 16 bolts.
The block foundation, which is nine times
heavier than the equipment mounted on it,
is embedded in about 4 ft. (1.2 m) of soil.
The finite element (FE) model of the pumpmotor-baseplate assembly and the foundation block is built in ANSYS, as depicted in
Figure 5. The soil in which the foundation is
laid has properties listed in Table 5. During
operation, dynamic imbalance loads from
the pump and motor shafts are transmitted
to the base plate. Additionally, static loads
from the suction and discharge piping also
act on the pump. The anchor bolt stresses
are due to a combination of the static and
dynamic loads on the equipment attached to
the base plate.
The analysis focuses on finding the system
overall response and the loads acting on the
anchor bolts during normal operation, with the
pump and motor rotating unbalanced forces
acting on the system. The rotating unbalanced
forces arise due to the rotor center of mass not
being coincident with the axis of rotation. The
mass imbalance in the rotor can be represented in terms of an unbalance mass mu at a
radial distance of e from the rotor centerline.
Per API 610, the maximum allowable unbalance for a machine of weight W operating at
N rpms is 4W/N oz-in. In the current analysis,
imbalance forces corresponding to twice the
allowable unbalance mass are applied at the
WWW.CTSSNET.NET CTSS

TECH brief
rotor midspan. The centrifugal reaction (unbalance) force
Fu is
Fu = 2.Mu .e. 2 = 2.(4W/N). 2

n Table 2. Static stiffnesses for rectangular rigid foundation on

a stratum-over-rigid-base [3]

n Table 3. Static stiffnesses for rectangular rigid foundation on

a stratum-over-rigid-base [3]

where is the rotor speed in rad/s. Note that the factor 2 doubles the maximum allowable reaction force per API 610. The
vertical and horizontal loads attain their
maximum value only once per cycle, and
are 90 out of phase with each other. In
order to estimate the maximum reaction
loads, harmonic loads of equal magnitude are applied along the horizontal and
vertical directions.
In the current analysis, since the depth
to bed rock is unknown, another model
[15] that is similar to model (iv) is used and
the formulae are listed in Table 6. Note
that, even if model (iv) is used assuming a
very large H (depth to bedrock) value, the
resulting foundation stiffnesses would differ only less than ~10%. Table 7 presents
the resulting stiffness coefficients. Soil
provides some damping, however, in the
current analysis only a very small damping ratio of 2.5% is used in order to determine the maximum response amplitudes.
Figure 6 shows the resulting peak vibration amplitudes versus frequency.
The maximum pump-motor response
amplitude of 0.06 ips (0 peak) is within acceptable range. The anchor bolt
stresses were also evaluated and found
to be acceptable. The current foundation
block design is acceptable for the overall dynamic performance. Note that, the
foundation block is nine times heavier
than the total weight of equipment installed on it. For foundation blocks with
weight less than four times the machinery weight, the possibility of the block
natural frequencies being present in the
operating range is high. It is thus recommended to always keep the foundation
block weight at least five times that of the
combined total equipment weight.
Conclusions and recommendations
Reciprocating and ron Table 4. Static tating machinery foundastiffnesses for tions must be adequaterigid foundation ly designed to handle
embedded
in large dynamic operating
homogeneous loads. A sound geotechsoil stratum over nical study, characterizing the soil profile and
bedrock [3]
properties, is paramount
for proper design and
installation of a process
equipment foundation.
The soil modulus, num-

2015 EDITION

WWW.CTSSNET.NET CTSS

TECH brief

n Table 5. Soil properties

n Table 6. Parameters defining embedded foundation stiffness

n Table 7. Foundation stiffness values for pump block foundation

ber of layers of soil, and the presence of bed rock significantly affect the soil properties.
The article presents several soil-foundation configurations,
stiffness models developed using elastic half-space theory,
and an example pump foundation analysis. For high-speed
machinery, the low-frequency foundation modes may not get
excited. However, for low- or medium-speed machinery, accurate modeling and characterization of the foundation flexibility is of importance. A properly designed foundation can
avoid system operation near resonant conditions, reduce the
peak vibration amplitudes and stresses in the equipment,
piping and anchorage, and prevent excessive dynamic soil
settlement and thus extend the machinery life. CTSS

[3] Gazetas, G., 1983, Analysis of Machine Foundation

Vibrations: State of the Art, J. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2(1), pp. 2-42.
[4] Richart, F.E., Jr.; Hall, J.R., Jr.; Woods, R.D., 1970,
Vibrations of soils and Foundations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
[5] Lysmer, J., 1965, Vertical Motions of Rigid Footings,
Ph.D Thesis, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
[6] Ehlers, G., 1942, The Effect of Soil
Flexibility on Vibration Systems, Beton und
Eisen, 41 (21/22), pp. 197-203.
[7] Meek, J.W.; and Wolf, J.P.; 1992, Cone
Models for Homogeneous Soil-I, Geotechnical Eng. Div, ASCE, 118(5), pp. 667-85.
[8] Jaya, K.P.; and Prasad, A.M.; 2002,
Embedded Foundation in Layered Soil
under Dynamic Excitation, Journal of Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22,
pp. 485-498.
[9] Pradhan, P.K.; Mandal, A.; Baidya,
D.K.; and Ghosh, D.P., 2008, Dynamic Response of Machine Foundation on Layered
Soil: Cone Model Versus Experiments,
Geotech Geol Eng., 26, pp. 453-468.
[10] Gazetas, G.; and Roesset, J.M.; 1976, Vertical Vibration of Machine Foundations, J.Geotech. Eng. Div.,
ASCE, 105, GT12,1435.
[11] Borodachev, N.M., 1964, Determination of the Settlement on Rigid Plates, Soil Mech., Fdn. Engrg., 1(210).
[12] Pete Harrell, et al., 1994 Foundation Design for a 6 MV
High-speed Reciprocating Compressor, GMRC conference.
[13] Smalley, A., 1993, Reciprocating Compressor Foundations: Thermal Elastic Distortion, dynamic Loads, Frame
Foundation Interaction, and Crankshaft Stresses, Rotating
Machinery Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, Oct 15.
[14] IEEE Recommended Practice for Seismic Qualification of Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating
Stations, 2005, IEEE Power Eng. Society, New York.
[15] Sallenback, H.G., 1980, Stepwise Solution to Vibrating Equipment Foundation Design, Hydrocarbon Processing.
Nomenclature

References
[1] Smalley, A. J.; and Pantermuehl, P.J., 2006, Systems
Mounting Guidelines for Separable Reciprocating Compressors in Pipeline Service, Report to Gas Machinery Research Council, Dallas.
[2] Bhatia, K.G., 2006, Machine Foundation Design A
State of the Art, J. Structural Eng., 33(1), pp. 69-80.
2015 EDITION

WWW.CTSSNET.NET CTSS