Comparison Between GTStrudl Integrated and Partial Model Analysis - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 42
About This Presentation
Title:

Comparison Between GTStrudl Integrated and Partial Model Analysis

Description:

... (Power Generation Engineering Services Company). Established in 1994 Located in Cairo, Egypt Focused on EPCM Projects (Engineering, Procurement, ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:28
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 43
Provided by: azsadat
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Comparison Between GTStrudl Integrated and Partial Model Analysis


1
Comparison Between GTStrudl Integrated and
Partial Model Analysis
Power Generation Enginnering Services company
  • Case study ATF Power Plant CTGSTG Building
    foundation

A Presentation Submitted to GT STRUDL Users
Group24th Annual Meeting Training Seminar Year
2012
1
2
PGESCo.
  • PGESCo stands for (Power Generation Engineering
    Services Company).
  • Established in 1994
  • Located in Cairo, Egypt
  • Focused on EPCM Projects (Engineering,
    Procurement, Construction and Management)
  • Produced more than 20,000MW

2
3
Table of contents
  • Introduction
  • Purpose
  • STG CTG Building Integrated Model
  • Integrated versus partial model analysis
  • Pile reactions summary table
  • Pile caps Bending Moment summary table
  • Advantages and disadvantages of full modeling
    method
  • Conclusion

3
4
Introduction
  • A comparison will be performed between separate
    models of the steel frame and the foundation (
    Partial Model) and a model that combines the
    steel structure and the foundation (Integrated
    Model).
  • The comparison reflects the redistribution of
    loads on piles and the measure for that will be
    the difference in pile reactions in both cases.

4
5
Purpose
  • The purpose of this study is to investigate
    whether using the integrated model will yield any
    savings in the number of piles foundations
    sizes compared to the conventional approach of
    partial models.

5
6
Steam Turbine Generator Combustion Turbine
Generator Building Integrated Model
6
7
Pile Caps, piers Grade Beam Layout
7
8
Pile Springs Layout
8
9
Integrated versus Partial Model Results
  • The Next Slides will show 3 types of foundation
    and compare the results between the integrated
    versus the partial model.
  • 4 Piles foundation .
  • 6 piles foundation .
  • 15 piles foundation .

9
10
  • 4 Piles Foundation Layout

10
11
Integrated versus Partial Model Results
Lateral Dir ( X Dir )
11
12
Lateral Dir ( Z Dir )
  • Results Summary ( 4 piles found. Lateral Dir)
  • The Reactions in piles decreases by 55 .
  • The maximum pile Reaction decreases by 55 .

12
13
Vertical Dir ( Y Dir )
  • Results Summary ( 4 piles found. Vertical Dir)
  • The Reactions in pile No.1 and No.4 increases by
    20 to 25.
  • The Reactions in piles No.2 and No. 3 decreases
    by 18 to 22.
  • The maximum pile Reaction decreases by 18 .

13
14
  • 6 Piles Foundation Layout

14
15
Integrated versus Partial Model Results
Lateral Dir ( X Dir )
15
16
Lateral Dir ( Z Dir )
  • Results Summary ( 6 piles found. Lateral Dir)
  • The Reactions in piles decreases by 15 .
  • The maximum pile Reaction decreases by 15 .

16
17
Vertical Dir ( Y Dir )
  • Results Summary ( 6 piles found. Vertical Dir)
  • The Reactions in pile No.1 and No.6 increases by
    2.6 .
  • The Reactions in piles No.4 and No. 5 decreases
    by 2.7 .
  • The maximum pile Reaction decreases by 2.7 .

17
18
  • 15 Piles Foundation Layout

18
19
Integrated versus Partial Model Results
Lateral Dir ( X Dir )
19
20
Lateral Dir ( Z Dir )
20
21
  • Results Summary ( 15 piles found. Lateral Dir)
  • The Reactions in Some piles increases by 2.4 to
    79 .
  • The Reactions in some piles decreases by 19 to 28
    .
  • The maximum pile Reaction decreases by 19 .

21
22
Vertical Dir ( Y Dir )
22
23
  • Results Summary ( 6 piles found. Vertical Dir)
  • The Reactions in Some piles increases by 5.2 .
  • The Reactions in Some piles decreases by 6.0 .
  • The maximum pile Reaction decreases by 6.0 .

23
24
Piles Reactions Summary in Metric Tones
Footing types Max single pile reaction M-Tons Max single pile reaction M-Tons Max single pile reaction M-Tons Total piles reaction M-Tons Total piles reaction M-Tons Total piles reaction M-Tons
Footing types Partial Model Integrated Model Diff. Partial Model Integrated Model Diff.
5 Piles footing 112.5 105.6 6.13 527.1 524.3 0.53
6 Piles footing 120 104.2 12.95 632.9 580.5 8.27
8 Piles footing 108.1 95.40 11.75 749.2 681.1 9.08
9 Piles footing 118.5 98.3 17.05 876.1 808 7.78
15 Piles footing 116.7 106.3 8.91 1525.75 1403.2 8.03
24
25
  • Conclusion
  • The changes in lateral force on piles in both
    directions X Z is significant .
  • It shows that all piles act together to carry the
    lateral forces so it decreases the maximum pile
    reaction in the lateral direction.
  • This will save piles in case the govern design
    force is due to seismic or wind.
  • For the Vertical Forces in piles there are
    changes in the values decreases the maximum pile
    reaction. And this could save piles

25
26
Section cut for 9 PilesIntegrated Model
Section cut in Pile caps for bending moment
results
Section cut for 9 PilesPartial Model
26
27
Pile caps Bending Moment summary table in Metric
Tones
A Section was taken at the face of the pier for
each pile cap and the results are summarized in
the following table
Footing types Bending Moment in short direction in M-tons Bending Moment in short direction in M-tons Bending Moment in short direction in M-tons Bending Moment in long direction in M-tons Bending Moment in long direction in M-tons Bending Moment in long direction in M-tons
Footing types Partial Model Integrated Model Diff. Partial Model Integrated Model Diff.
5 Piles footing 383.9 305.1 20 201.5 212.3 -5.4
6 Piles footing 392.5 367.8 6.0 164.3 159.1 -3.2
8 Piles footing 358.7 336.5 6.0 312.4 271.3 13.3
9 Piles footing 534.5 487.4 8.8 345.4 364.4 -5.5
15 Piles footing 219.8 257.8 -17 519.0 534.3 -3
27
28
Effects of modeling on the steel structure
  • Comparison of the bracing and columns forces
    between the integrated model and the separate
    steel model.

28
29
The Steel Building Model
29
30
The Steel Building with foundation Integrated
Model
30
31

Bracings Results
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
The Results of Columns
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
Advantages of full modeling method
  • Serves to get the optimum number of piles and
    pile caps size.
  • Approximate simulation of the exact
  • distribution of the loads.
  • Effect of any modification in structural steel
    model will be automatically incorporated in the
    foundation analysis and vice versa.

39
40
Disadvantages of full modeling method
  • Regarding The effect on the steel structure, the
    results shows a great effect on the bracing and
    column which could help in the reduction of the
    steel structure weight .
  • The results of the steel need more time and
    effort to confirm these reduction .

40
41
Conclusion
  • Using the integrated model can reduce the total
    number of piles for each pile cap. This is
    achieved specially when the max pile reaction
    from the partial model analysis exceeds the max
    allowable pile load by 8.
  • Comparing the bending moment resulting from the
    integrated and partial models proved that The
    overall change in the values of moments will have
    no significant effect on the design of pile caps
    sections.
  • The Integrated model can reduce the Steel
    structure weight by using smaller section due to
    the reduction of forces in the members, we should
    do more effort to proof this conclusion for the
    steel .

41
42
THANKS
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com