Comparison Between GTStrudl Comparison Between GTStrudl Integrated and Partial Model Integrated and Partial Model
AnalysisAnalysis
Case study: ATF Power Plant CTG&STG Building foundationCase study: ATF Power Plant CTG&STG Building foundation
A Presentation Submitted to:A Presentation Submitted to:GT STRUDL Users Group24th Annual GT STRUDL Users Group24th Annual
Meeting & Training Seminar Meeting & Training Seminar Year 2012Year 2012
11
PGESCo.
PGESCo stands for (Power Generation PGESCo stands for (Power Generation Engineering Services Company).Engineering Services Company).
Established in 1994Established in 1994 Located in Cairo, EgyptLocated in Cairo, Egypt Focused on EPCM Projects (Engineering, Focused on EPCM Projects (Engineering,
Procurement, Construction and Procurement, Construction and Management)Management)
Produced more than 20,000MW Produced more than 20,000MW
22
Table of contentsTable of contents
IntroductionIntroduction PurposePurpose STG & CTG Building Integrated ModelSTG & CTG Building Integrated Model Integrated versus partial model analysisIntegrated versus partial model analysis Pile reactions summary tablePile reactions summary table Pile caps Bending Moment summary tablePile caps Bending Moment summary table Advantages and disadvantages of full modeling Advantages and disadvantages of full modeling
methodmethod Conclusion Conclusion
33
IntroductionIntroduction
A comparison will be performed between A comparison will be performed between separate models of the steel frame and separate models of the steel frame and the foundation ( Partial Model) and a the foundation ( Partial Model) and a model that combines the steel structure model that combines the steel structure and the foundation (Integrated Model). and the foundation (Integrated Model).
The comparison reflects the redistribution The comparison reflects the redistribution of loads on piles and the measure for that of loads on piles and the measure for that will be the difference in pile reactions in will be the difference in pile reactions in both cases. both cases.
44
PurposePurpose
The purpose of this study is to investigate The purpose of this study is to investigate whether using the integrated model will whether using the integrated model will yield any savings in the number of piles & yield any savings in the number of piles & foundations sizes compared to the foundations sizes compared to the conventional approach of partial models. conventional approach of partial models.
55
Steam Turbine Generator & Combustion Turbine Steam Turbine Generator & Combustion Turbine Generator Building Integrated ModelGenerator Building Integrated Model
XXXX
XXXX
141.5 FT
XXXX
XXXX
450.8 FT
XXXX
XXXX
109.1 FT
X
Y
Z 66
Pile Caps, piers & Grade Beam LayoutPile Caps, piers & Grade Beam Layout
X
Y
Z 77
Pile Springs LayoutPile Springs Layout
88
Integrated versus Partial Model Integrated versus Partial Model ResultsResults
The Next Slides will show 3 types of foundation The Next Slides will show 3 types of foundation and compare the results between the integrated and compare the results between the integrated versus the partial model. versus the partial model.
4 Piles foundation .4 Piles foundation . 6 piles foundation .6 piles foundation . 15 piles foundation .15 piles foundation .
99
4 Piles Foundation Layout4 Piles Foundation Layout
X
Y
Z KFZ 4893.
KFY 4.7151E+05
SPRING KFX 4893.
RESTRAIN FX FY FZ MY
XXXX
XXXX
3.600 M
XXXX
XXXX
3.600 M
1010
Pile No. Force (KN) Pile No. Force (KN)P_1 0.094 P_1 23.957P_2 0.096 P_2 25.834P_3 0.092 P_3 25.829P_4 0.094 P_4 23.959
Lateral
X-Dir
Lateral
X-Dir
Partial Model Integrated Model Foundation
with4 Piles
Max Pile Reaction 120 kN
Integrated versus Partial Model Integrated versus Partial Model Results Results
Lateral Dir : ( X – Dir )Lateral Dir : ( X – Dir )
1111
Pile No. Force (KN) Pile No. Force (KN)P_1 -116.583 P_1 -60.175P_2 -116.583 P_2 -52.699P_3 -116.583 P_3 -60.174P_4 -116.583 P_4 -52.699
Z-Dir
Lateral
Z-Dir
Lateral
Max Pile Reaction 120 kN
Partial Model Integrated Model Foundation
with4 Piles
Lateral Dir : ( Z – Dir )Lateral Dir : ( Z – Dir )
Results Summary ( 4 piles found. Lateral Dir)Results Summary ( 4 piles found. Lateral Dir) The Reactions in piles decreases by 55 %.The Reactions in piles decreases by 55 %. The maximum pile Reaction decreases by 55 The maximum pile Reaction decreases by 55
% .% .
1212
Pile No. Force (KN) Pile No. Force (KN)P_1 547.359 P_1 667.100P_2 1121.464 P_2 931.936P_3 1119.009 P_3 874.959P_4 547.519 P_4 727.179
Max Pile Reaction 1500 kN
Virtical Virtical
Y-DirY-Dir
Partial Model Integrated Model Foundation
with4 Piles
Vertical Dir : ( Y – Dir )Vertical Dir : ( Y – Dir )
Results Summary ( 4 piles found. Vertical Dir)Results Summary ( 4 piles found. Vertical Dir) The Reactions in pile No.1 and No.4 increases by The Reactions in pile No.1 and No.4 increases by
20 to 25%20 to 25%.. The Reactions in piles No.2 and No. 3 decreases The Reactions in piles No.2 and No. 3 decreases
by 18 to 22%.by 18 to 22%. The maximum pile Reaction decreases by 18% .The maximum pile Reaction decreases by 18% .
1313
6 Piles Foundation Layout6 Piles Foundation Layout
X
Y
Z KFZ 4893.
KFY 4.7151E+05
SPRING KFX 4893.
RESTRAIN FX FY FZ MY
XXXX
XXXX
5.700 M
XXXX
XXXX
3.600 M
1414
Foundationwith
6 pillesPile No. Force (KN) Max Pile Reaction 120 kN Pile No. Force (KN)
P_1 0.298 P_1 1.544P_2 0.348 P_2 1.603P_3 0.366 P_3 1.593P_4 0.415 P_4 1.651P_5 0.411 P_5 1.654P_6 0.304 P_6 1.541
Integrated Model
Lateral
X-Dir
Partial Model
Lateral
X-Dir
Integrated versus Partial Model Integrated versus Partial Model Results Results
Lateral Dir : ( X – Dir )Lateral Dir : ( X – Dir )
1515
Foundationwith
6 pillesPile No. Force (KN) Max Pile Reaction 120 kN Pile No. Force (KN)
P_1 10.374 P_1 8.904P_2 10.351 P_2 8.879P_3 10.360 P_3 8.889P_4 10.335 P_4 8.863P_5 10.344 P_5 8.873P_6 10.366 P_6 8.893
Integrated Model Partial Model
Lateral
Z-Dir
Lateral
Z-Dir
Lateral Dir : ( Z – Dir )Lateral Dir : ( Z – Dir )
Results Summary ( 6 piles found. Lateral Dir)Results Summary ( 6 piles found. Lateral Dir) The Reactions in piles decreases by 15 %.The Reactions in piles decreases by 15 %. The maximum pile Reaction decreases by 15 % .The maximum pile Reaction decreases by 15 % .
1616
Foundationwith
6 pillesPile No. Force (KN) Max Pile Reaction 1500 kN Pile No. Force (KN)
P_1 946.648 P_1 971.021P_2 1144.256 P_2 1143.409P_3 1144.870 P_3 1145.646P_4 1181.050 P_4 1149.496P_5 1181.641 P_5 1151.654P_6 946.406 P_6 968.862
Integrated Model
Virtical
Partial Model
Y-Dir
Virtical
Y-Dir
Vertical Dir : ( Y – Dir )Vertical Dir : ( Y – Dir )
Results Summary ( 6 piles found. Vertical Dir)Results Summary ( 6 piles found. Vertical Dir) The Reactions in pile No.1 and No.6 increases by The Reactions in pile No.1 and No.6 increases by
2.6 %2.6 %.. The Reactions in piles No.4 and No. 5 decreases The Reactions in piles No.4 and No. 5 decreases
by 2.7 %.by 2.7 %. The maximum pile Reaction decreases by 2.7 % .The maximum pile Reaction decreases by 2.7 % .
1717
15 Piles Foundation Layout15 Piles Foundation Layout
X
Y
Z KFZ 4893.
KFY 4.7151E+05
SPRING KFX 4893.
RESTRAIN FX FY FZ MY
1818
Foundationwith
15 pillesPile No. Force (KN) Max Pile Reaction 120 kN Pile No. Force (KN)
P_1 37.660 P_1 29.048P_2 42.779 P_2 31.025P_3 42.774 P_3 31.020P_4 42.763 P_4 30.979P_5 42.753 P_5 30.966P_6 26.892 P_6 27.531P_7 26.897 P_7 27.538P_8 26.900 P_8 27.544P_9 26.899 P_9 27.547
P_10 27.455 P_10 27.642P_11 32.598 P_11 27.781P_12 32.602 P_12 27.764P_13 32.570 P_13 27.742P_14 32.558 P_14 27.735P_15 27.720 P_15 32.563
Partial Model Integrated Model
Lateral
X-Dir
Lateral
X-Dir
Lateral Dir : ( X – Dir )Lateral Dir : ( X – Dir )
Integrated versus Partial Model Integrated versus Partial Model Results Results
1919
Lateral Dir : ( Z – Dir )Lateral Dir : ( Z – Dir )
Foundationwith
15 pillesPile No. Force (KN) Max Pile Reaction 120 kN Pile No. Force (KN)
P_1 41.280 P_1 35.821P_2 8.318 P_2 14.909P_3 10.349 P_3 19.505P_4 33.947 P_4 32.100P_5 48.599 P_5 39.531P_6 8.366 P_6 14.931P_7 10.336 P_7 19.529P_8 33.945 P_8 32.112P_9 48.564 P_9 39.552
P_10 41.260 P_10 35.839P_11 8.345 P_11 14.920P_12 10.344 P_12 19.521P_13 23.121 P_13 26.608P_14 33.948 P_14 32.110P_15 48.587 P_15 39.545
Lateral
Z-Dir
Lateral
Z-Dir
Partial Model Integrated Model
2020
Results Summary ( 15 piles found. Lateral Dir)Results Summary ( 15 piles found. Lateral Dir) The Reactions in Some piles increases by The Reactions in Some piles increases by
2.4 to 79 %.2.4 to 79 %. The Reactions in some piles decreases by 19 The Reactions in some piles decreases by 19
to 28 %.to 28 %. The maximum pile Reaction decreases by 19 The maximum pile Reaction decreases by 19
% .% .
2121
Foundationwith
15 pillesPile No. Force (KN) Max Pile Reaction 1500 kN Pile No. Force (KN)
P_1 985.218 P_1 973.436P_2 1070.869 P_2 1014.968P_3 962.818 P_3 981.594P_4 872.035 P_4 908.023P_5 1060.550 P_5 990.933P_6 887.733 P_6 853.736P_7 784.774 P_7 812.208P_8 681.889 P_8 717.394P_9 842.096 P_9 784.363
P_10 872.248 P_10 863.013P_11 1115.003 P_11 1051.533P_12 976.673 P_12 992.372P_13 813.286 P_13 871.691P_14 851.474 P_14 885.255P_15 1085.892 P_15 1006.274
Vertical
Y-Dir
Vertical
Y-Dir
Partial Model Integrated Model
Vertical Dir : ( Y – Dir )Vertical Dir : ( Y – Dir )
2222
Results Summary ( 6 piles found. Vertical Dir)Results Summary ( 6 piles found. Vertical Dir) The Reactions in Some piles increases by The Reactions in Some piles increases by
5.2 %5.2 %.. The Reactions in Some piles decreases by The Reactions in Some piles decreases by
6.0 %.6.0 %. The maximum pile Reaction decreases by The maximum pile Reaction decreases by
6.0 % .6.0 % .
2323
Piles Reactions Summary in Metric TonesPiles Reactions Summary in Metric Tones
Footing Footing typestypes
Max single pile reactionMax single pile reaction
M-TonsM-Tons
Total piles reactionTotal piles reaction
M-TonsM-Tons
Partial Partial ModelModel
IntegrateIntegrated Model d Model
Diff. %Diff. % Partial Partial ModelModel
IntegrateIntegrated Model d Model
Diff. %Diff. %
5 Piles 5 Piles footingfooting
112.5112.5 105.6105.6 6.13%6.13% 527.1527.1 524.3524.3 0.53%0.53%
6 Piles 6 Piles footingfooting
120120 104.2104.2 12.95%12.95% 632.9632.9 580.5580.5 8.27%8.27%
8 Piles 8 Piles footingfooting
108.1108.1 95.4095.40 11.75%11.75% 749.2749.2 681.1681.1 9.08%9.08%
9 Piles 9 Piles footingfooting
118.5118.5 98.398.3 17.05%17.05% 876.1876.1 808808 7.78%7.78%
15 Piles 15 Piles footingfooting
116.7116.7 106.3106.3 8.91%8.91% 1525.751525.75 1403.21403.2 8.03%8.03%
2424
ConclusionConclusion The changes in lateral force on piles in both The changes in lateral force on piles in both
directions X & Z is significant directions X & Z is significant .. It shows that all piles act together to carry the It shows that all piles act together to carry the
lateral forces so it decreases the maximum pile lateral forces so it decreases the maximum pile reaction in the lateral direction. reaction in the lateral direction.
This will save piles in case the govern This will save piles in case the govern design force is due to seismic or wind.design force is due to seismic or wind.
For the Vertical Forces in piles there are For the Vertical Forces in piles there are changes in the values decreases the changes in the values decreases the maximum pile reaction. And this could maximum pile reaction. And this could save pilessave piles
2525
Section cut for 9 PilesSection cut for 9 PilesIntegrated ModelIntegrated Model
Section cut for 9 PilesSection cut for 9 PilesPartial ModelPartial Model
Section cut in Pile caps Section cut in Pile caps for bending moment for bending moment
resultsresults
2626
Pile caps Bending Moment summary table in Metric TonesPile caps Bending Moment summary table in Metric Tones
Footing Footing typestypes
Bending Moment in short Bending Moment in short direction in M-tonsdirection in M-tons
Bending Moment in long direction Bending Moment in long direction in M-tonsin M-tons
Partial Partial ModelModel
Integrated Integrated Model Model
Diff. %Diff. % Partial Partial ModelModel
Integrated Integrated Model Model
Diff. %Diff. %
5 Piles 5 Piles footingfooting
383.9383.9 305.1305.1 20%20% 201.5201.5 212.3212.3 -5.4%-5.4%
6 Piles 6 Piles footingfooting
392.5392.5 367.8367.8 6.0%6.0% 164.3164.3 159.1159.1 -3.2%-3.2%
8 Piles 8 Piles footingfooting
358.7358.7 336.5336.5 6.0%6.0% 312.4312.4 271.3271.3 13.3%13.3%
9 Piles 9 Piles footingfooting
534.5534.5 487.4487.4 8.8%8.8% 345.4345.4 364.4364.4 -5.5%-5.5%
15 Piles 15 Piles footingfooting
219.8219.8 257.8257.8 -17%-17% 519.0519.0 534.3534.3 -3%-3%
A Section was taken at the face of the pier for each pile cap and the A Section was taken at the face of the pier for each pile cap and the results are summarized in the following table:results are summarized in the following table:
2727
Effects of modeling on the steel Effects of modeling on the steel structure structure
Comparison of the bracing and columns Comparison of the bracing and columns forces between the integrated model and forces between the integrated model and the separate steel model.the separate steel model.
2828
The Steel Building ModelThe Steel Building Model
X
Y
Z
2929
The Steel Building with foundation The Steel Building with foundation Integrated ModelIntegrated Model 3030
Line 1
BracingNo. 1
BracingNo. 2
BracingNo. 3
BracingNo. 4
BracingNo. 5
Bracings ResultsBracings Results
3131
Bracing No. 1 ( Unit KN )
Max Tension Max Compresion Max Tension Max Compresion81.7165 -191.1369 15.21% 0.60% 94.14426 -192.2865
Bracing No. 2
Max Tension Max Compresion Max Tension Max Compresion66.30501 -207.1914 11.60% -0.20% 73.99805 -206.7762
Bracing No. 3
Max Tension Max Compresion Max Tension Max Compresion115.9234 -280.6722 7.48% -11.32% 124.5949 -248.9125
Bracing No. 4
Max Tension Max Compresion Max Tension Max Compresion68.69469 -232.0849 -4.87% -46.25% 65.34732 -124.7447
Bracing No. 5
Max Tension Max Compresion Max Tension Max Compresion78.62447 -238.5137 -14.87% -45.04% 66.9314 -131.0848
Steel Model Integrated ModelTension Comp.
Steel Model Integrated ModelTension Comp.
Steel model Integrated ModelTension Comp.
Steel Model Integrated ModelTension Comp.
Steel Model Integrated ModelTension Comp.
3232
Line 2
BracingNo. 1
BracingNo. 2
BracingNo. 3
BracingNo. 4
BracingNo. 5
3333
Bracing No. 1 ( Unit KN )
Max Tension Max Compresion Max Tension Max Compresion63.50365 -165.9923 24.69% 7.03% 79.18024 -177.6608
Bracing No. 2
Max Tension Max Compresion Max Tension Max Compresion50.97902 -192.239 22.56% 0.34% 62.47927 -192.896
Bracing No. 3
Max Tension Max Compresion Max Tension Max Compresion73.33633 -141.0662 16.09% -3.98% 85.1364 -135.4514
Bracing No. 4
Max Tension Max Compresion Max Tension Max Compresion48.28489 -102.9692 18.65% 4.60% 57.29055 -107.7031
Bracing No. 5
Max Tension Max Compresion Max Tension Max Compresion51.8569 -114.1806 25.23% 0.21% 64.9407 -114.4199
Steel Model Integrated ModelTension Comp.
Steel Model Integrated ModelTension Comp.
Steel Model Integrated ModelTension Comp.
Steel Model Integrated ModelTension Comp.
Steel Model Integrated ModelTension Comp.
3434
CO
L.1
CO
L.1
1
CO
L.1
0
CO
L.9
CO
L.8
CO
L.7
CO
L.6
CO
L.5
CO
L.4
CO
L.3
CO
L.2
CO
L.1
2
CO
L.1
3
CO
L.1
5
CO
L.1
4
The Results of ColumnsThe Results of Columns
3535
COL.1
Tension Comp.3.832112 4.508721 0 19.05141 12.85703-3.5934 -4.74952 0 -14.9212 -19.4417
-8.02% 0.75%
Tension Comp.3.791669 4.518632 0 19.09339 13.46985-3.59415 -4.75129 0 -14.9044 -18.5129
COL.2
Tension Comp.23.43421 0.787123 0.782825 7.031206 140.3907-23.7564 -0.35052 -0.74932 -5.15617 -417.018
41.96% -1.43%
Tension Comp.23.17312 0.777944 0.761527 7.354359 137.8842-23.4001 -0.3093 -0.74065 -4.78707 -413.314
COL.3
Tension Comp.23.9021 0.505731 0.632513 4.233146 102.8223-18.6314 -0.29207 -0.61486 -4.12753 -403.093
37.44% -1.83%
Tension Comp.24.7747 0.530477 0.631636 4.536676 96.82106-17.8981 -0.28605 -0.61519 -4.14272 -397.297
Steel Model
AxialFY FZ MX MY MZ
106.4414 -453.033
Intgrated Model
AxialFY FZ MX MY MZ
97.90798 -456.437
Steel Model
AxialFY FZ MX MY MZ
11.35946 -673.114
Intgrated Model
AxialFY FZ MX MY MZ
16.12626 -663.519
Steel Model
AxialFY FZ MX MY MZ
24.92461 -639.594
Intgrated Model
AxialFY FZ MX MY MZ
34.25691 -627.857
3636
COL.4
Tension Comp.27.02548 0.207732 1.197958 3.038345 120.6689-21.7894 -0.37189 -0.9235 -3.34819 -415.305
69.13% -3.18%
Tension Comp.28.42893 0.234635 1.107368 3.194533 107.2481-20.3272 -0.33995 -0.99005 -3.01827 -403.492
COL.5
Tension Comp.21.52819 0.344049 0.527809 3.107098 99.30077-18.9302 -0.27164 -0.53327 -3.09335 -322.335
13.57% -3.35%
Tension Comp.22.97966 0.302077 0.524653 3.02405 87.56697-17.5146 -0.22756 -0.54737 -2.78359 -312.694
COL.6
Tension Comp.19.76512 0.187701 0.413881 2.331397 79.66361-13.7226 -0.33523 -0.4195 -2.85645 -295.67
-13.05% -1.62%
Tension Comp.20.98004 0.214977 0.41849 3.221397 83.00864-12.7533 -0.37899 -0.42215 -2.95818 -293.696
MX MY MZ
30.62848 -522.286Intgrated Model
AxialFY FZ
MX MY MZ
35.22692 -530.886Steel Model
AxialFY FZ
MX MY MZ
71.9742 -583.764Intgrated Model
AxialFY FZ
MX MY MZ
63.37163 -604.015Steel Model
AxialFY FZ
MX MY MZ
28.90721 -722.294Intgrated Model
AxialFY FZ
MX MY MZ
17.09194 -746.005Steel Model
AxialFY FZ
3737
COL.13
Tension Comp.28.07608 5.544801 0.067291 48.43609 109.0755-18.6391 -4.52536 -0.05653 -20.2135 -401.833
54.93% 6.94%
Tension Comp.28.91741 5.56685 0.072086 50.23985 131.5461-18.3267 -4.37842 -0.05657 -24.1606 -397.056
COL.14
Tension Comp.26.72402 5.478857 0.054941 25.77568 169.4964-28.0869 -3.39432 -0.0466 -22.5381 -466.164
-41.85% 4.74%
Tension Comp.26.85497 5.608631 0.095299 26.6055 172.7055-28.611 -3.57874 -0.1112 -22.6916 -466.07
COL.15
Tension Comp.5.169636 2.733764 0 10.84878 17.82712-4.33241 -3.21283 0 -11.3767 -19.4215
-19.11% 11.21%
Tension Comp.4.834511 2.708189 0 10.82504 22.23224-4.34471 -3.21192 0 -11.3875 -19.3476
Without foundation
AxialFY FZ MX MY MZ
20.709 -723.881
Intgrated Model
AxialFY FZ MX MY MZ
32.08542 -774.088
Without foundation
AxialFY FZ MX MY MZ
-16.4583 -737.003
Intgrated Model
AxialFY FZ MX MY MZ
-9.57051 -771.932
Without foundation
AxialFY FZ MX MY MZ
79.79099 -376.576
Intgrated Model
AxialFY FZ MX MY MZ
64.54599 -418.799
3838
Advantages of full modeling Advantages of full modeling methodmethod
Serves to get the optimum number of piles Serves to get the optimum number of piles and pile caps size. and pile caps size.
Approximate simulation of the exactApproximate simulation of the exact
distribution of the loads.distribution of the loads. Effect of any modification in structural Effect of any modification in structural
steel model will be automatically steel model will be automatically incorporated in the foundation analysis incorporated in the foundation analysis and vice versa.and vice versa.
3939
Disadvantages of full modeling Disadvantages of full modeling methodmethod
Regarding The effect on the steel Regarding The effect on the steel structure, the results shows a great effect structure, the results shows a great effect on the bracing and column which could on the bracing and column which could help in the reduction of the steel structure help in the reduction of the steel structure weight .weight .
The results of the steel need more time The results of the steel need more time and effort to confirm these reduction .and effort to confirm these reduction .
4040
ConclusionConclusion Using the integrated model can reduce the total number Using the integrated model can reduce the total number
of piles for each pile cap. This is achieved specially when of piles for each pile cap. This is achieved specially when the max pile reaction from the partial model analysis the max pile reaction from the partial model analysis exceeds the max allowable pile load by 8%. exceeds the max allowable pile load by 8%.
Comparing the bending moment resulting from the Comparing the bending moment resulting from the integrated and partial models proved that The overall integrated and partial models proved that The overall change in the values of moments will have no significant change in the values of moments will have no significant effect on the design of pile caps sections. effect on the design of pile caps sections.
The Integrated model can reduce the Steel structure The Integrated model can reduce the Steel structure weight by using smaller section due to the reduction of weight by using smaller section due to the reduction of forces in the members, we should do more effort to proof forces in the members, we should do more effort to proof this conclusion for the steel .this conclusion for the steel .
4141
Top Related