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