RASD 20 3

th

11 International Conference
1-3 July 2013
Pisa

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS FOR BALL MILL FOUNDATION

Y. C. Han1 and F. Guevara2
1

Fluor,
1075 W. Georgia Street, Vancouver BC, V6E 4M7 Canada
E-mail: yingcai.han@fluor.com
2

Fluor,
1075 W. Georgia Street, Vancouver BC, V6E 4M7 Canada
E-mail: fernando.guevara@fluor.com
Keywords: soil-structure interaction, stiffness and damping of soil, structural dynamics, soil
dynamics, response spectrum analysis.
ABSTRACT
The dynamic analysis of ball mill foundation is a typical problem of soil-structure interaction,
and the sub-structure method is used to estimate the structural vibration. In this study a
practical case of ball mill foundation is investigated to illustrate the approach and the dynamic
behaviour of structure. The concrete mat foundation and piers are modelled by FEM model,
and the stiffness and damping of soil (rock) are generated by a computer program. Then the
stiffness and damping input to the FEM model as the base boundary condition. A series of
dynamic experiments had been done in the field to validate the values of radiation damping
which can be generated from the program. Different design options are compared to obtain
the better solution. The large mill foundation is an irregular structure and located in a severe
seismic zone. The response spectrum analysis is used to determine the earthquake forces and
seismic response.
1.

INTRODUCTION

The foundation acts as a rigid body assumed normally in classical empirical methods for
dynamic analysis, such as Barkan model (1962) [3]. However, the structure of mill foundation
and piers with large dimension is flexible rather than a rigid body. Numerical methods such as
the general finite element method are also difficult to apply, as the direct simulation of
radiation damping is not possible. Radiation damping is the dominant energy dissipation
mechanism in most dynamically loaded foundation systems. The dynamic analysis is
challenging for the flexible mill foundations using the standard analytical or numerical
methods, and it is a typical problem of soil-structure interaction. Another challenge is that the
dynamic loads come from not only the unbalanced forces by mill charge rotation, but also
from the unbalanced magnetic pull force in high frequency domain when a gearless mill drive
(GMD) is used to drive the grinding mill.

The diameter of ball grinding mills may be much large in mining industry. A practical case of
ball mill foundation is examined herein. The diameter of mill is 8.2 m with length of 15.2 m,
operating at 12 rpm. The height of mill shaft is 18.4 m above ground. The weight of mill and
charge (ore and grinding media) is 3,000 tons, and GMD motor weight is 310 tons.
The sub-structure method is used for dynamic analysis of the ball mill foundation, that is, the
structure and soil are considered as two parts separately. The structure (mat foundation and
piers) are modelled by FEM model. The impedance of soil (stiffness and damping) are
generated by a computer program, and then input to the FEM model as the base boundary
condition. A series of dynamic experiments had been done in the field to verify the values of
radiation damping, and it can be generated by the program DynaN [5].
2.

FOUNDATION OF BALL MILL WITH GMD

There are a number of Ball mills in operation around the world with diameter up to 8 m.
Aspect ratio L/D varies for ball mills, L/D >1, typically 1.5 to 2.5 factor. Installed power of
ball mills is close to 22 MW. Mining operations continually invest in new technologies to
improve their energy efficiency and capacity in their grinding circuit. No doubt that mills size
will continue increasing.
Grinding mills are designed to break mineral ore into smaller pieces by the action of attrition
and impact using grinding media. Ball mills are basically a horizontal rotating cylinder
partially filled with steel balls as grinding media. Bearing pads are located at the end of the
mills. One bearing has no axial float, while the second bearing has sufficient float to
accommodate the thermal expansion of the mill.

Figure 1.

Ball mill shell supported design

In mining industry, ball mills normally operate with an approximate ball charge of 30% with a
rotational speed close to 11 rpm. The mill is fed at one end of the cylinder and the discharge
is at the other. Ball mills can be driving by medium voltage motors or wrap around motors,
knows as Gearless Mill Drives (GMD).
The grinding mills are manufacture using steel plate and some casting parts. Mill design can
be trunnion supported or shell supported. In shell supported design, the mill shell supports
the weight at the circumference through T-shaped fabricated riding rings and slipper pad
bearings (see Figure 1). The load of the mill body, lining, and charge is transferred directly
from the sliding ring to the bearing shoes and then to the foundations.
The motion of charge, rocks and balls, in grinding mills is performed by metal liners installed
in the mills shells. The purpose of installing liners in grinding mills is to protect the mill shell
from wear and efficiently transfer the energy to the grinding media. Liners lift the charge
producing a cascade motion of the charge inside the mill. The frequency of the cascade
motion, and then the charge impact frequency, is a function of the number of lifters and the
rotational speed of the mill.
The GMD motor design does not have shaft neither bearings. The mill is used as a direct
rotor, moved by poles which are divided into a number of segments. The poles are mounted
directly on the mill shell through a flange motor carrier ring. One option is to mount this
flange by using bolting connection on to the mill shell into the fixed mill bearing side. This is
the location with least axial movement of the mill due to thermal expansion. Also the mill
deflection due to bending after shut down is smallest at this location.
The motor air gap, distance between poles and stator frame, is defined together with the mill
manufacturer and need to be kept in the range of 16 mm. The stator frame is designed as a
self-supporting ring construction. Usually, the stator is split in four sections to allow easy
transport. It is mounted on a motor foundation with integral stator bedplates. During
installation and overhaul the stator can be moved on these bedplates.
3. SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION AND RADIATION DAMPING
Many authors have made contributions to the subject of soil-structure interaction, such as
Dobry & Gazetas (1988) [4], Gazetas & Makris (1991) [6], Benerjee & Sen (1987)[1] and
Wolf (1988) [12]. Different approaches are available to account for dynamic soil-structure
interaction but they are usually based on the assumptions that the soil behaviour is governed
by the law of linear elasticity or visco-elasticity, and that the soil is perfectly bonded to the
footing. In practice, however, the bonding between the soil and the foundation is rarely
perfect, and slippage or even separation often occurs in the contact area. Furthermore, the soil
region immediately adjacent to the foundation can undergo a large degree of straining, which
would cause the soil-structure system to behave in a nonlinear manner. A lot of efforts have
been made to model the soil-structure interaction using the 3D Finite Element Method (FEM).
However, it is too complex and costly.
Several problems of soil-structure interaction are concerned for dynamic analysis in practice.
It is a consideration how to account for the nonlinear properties of soil. As an approximate
analysis, a procedure is developed using a combination of the analytical solution and the
numerical solution, rather than using the general FEM applied to the entire system composed
by soil, foundation, mill and motor. The relationship between the foundation vibration and the
resistance of the side soil layers is derived using elastic theory by Baranov (1967) [2]. A
model for the boundary zone with a non-reflective interface was proposed for nonlinear

properties of soil by Han and Sabin (1995) [9]. The effects of soil-pile-structure interaction on
dynamic response were discussed by Han, (2008) [8].
The radiation damping is a very important subject to the dynamic response of foundation. The
elastic-wave energy is dissipated from foundation vibration in three dimensions to form the
radiation damping. The radiation damping is the dominant energy dissipation mechanism in
most dynamically loaded foundation systems. The formula of radiation damping is derived
based on elastic half-space theory in which the soil is assumed to be a homogeneous isotropic
medium. As a matter of fact, however, the soil is not a perfect linear elastic medium as
assumed. A series of dynamic experiments have been done and indicated that the damping is
overestimated in the elastic half-space theory, see Han and Novak (1988) [10]. The values of
radiation damping are modified and reduced in the program based on the measurements
carried out in the field.
It is also an important subject for the coupled horizontal and rocking vibration of an
embedded foundation. As for the approximate analysis, the plain strain method is considered
as an efficient technique for solving the problem of coupled horizontal and rocking vibration
of an embedded foundation (Luco 1982) [11]. The relationship between the foundation
vibration and the resistance of soil layers was derived using the elastic theory. Then, the
solutions of coupled horizontal and rocking vibration of embedded footings were formulated.
Six vibration parameters horizontal stiffness Kx, damping Cx, rocking stiffness K and
damping C, and cross coupled stiffness Kx and damping Cx are included in the
displacement expression. However, the foundation embedment conditions are very complex
practically. An inverse problem is often required in experimental research: all the parameters
of the embedded foundation need to be determined, while the dynamic response is given from
measurements. It is not convenient to back-calculate for all of the six parameters in the
displacement expressions. A simplified mathematical model of the coupled horizontal and
rocking vibration of an embedded foundation is proposed by Han, (1989) [7]. Vibration tests
of the foundation with different embedment were conducted and compared with different
methods. Four parameters are required in the displacement expression based on this method,
but six parameters are required in the traditional method. The four parameters Kx, Cx, K and
C can be back-calculated from the dynamic response of the foundation.
4.

STIFFNESS AND DAMPING OF SOIL

Based on the geotechnical report, the top 3.8 m depth is rigid soil or extremely weak
sedimentary rock, then weak to medium strong intrusive rock. In construction, the top soil cut
off, and the foundation installed on the intrusive rock. The average shear wave velocity of soil
at site is 900 m/sec. The unit weight of soil is 22 kN/m3, Poissons ratio is 0.3 and material
damping ratio is 0.05.
Stiffness

Damping

Frequency

Kx

Kz

Cx

Cz

(Hz)

(kN/m)

(kN/m)

(kN.m/ra)

(kN/m/s)

(kN/m/s)

(kN.m/rad/s)

0.2

1.12 x 10 8

1.32 x 10 8

3.45 x 10 10

2.22 x 10 6

2.68 x 10 6

5.73 x 10 8

12.8

1.12 x 10 8

1.10 x 10 8

2.88 x 10 10

0.92 x 10 6

1.36 x 10 6

2.30 x 10 8

Table 1. Stiffness and Damping of Soil for Ball Mill Foundation

The concrete mat foundation is 28 m x 21 m for each unit, with thickness of 2.0 m. The
impedance of soil is frequency dependent. The frequency of mill operation is 0.2 Hz and the
unbalanced force from GMD motor is 12.8 Hz. The impedances of soil are generated from the
program for different frequencies, as shown in Table 1, where Kx, Kz and K are stiffness in
horizontal, vertical and rocking direction, and Cx,, Cz and C are damping constants in
horizontal, vertical and rocking direction.
5.

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

Two methods can be used to carry out the dynamic analysis for ball mill foundations, the free
vibration analysis and the forced vibration analysis.
5.1.

Free Vibration Analysis

For small ball mill, mill diameter less than 3.6 m, with small dynamic loads, the method of
free vibration analysis can be used. This is also call modal analysis.
The natural frequencies of foundation and piers can be calculated using the free vibration
analysis to avoid the resonance. The natural frequency should be less than 0.7 f n or larger
than 1.4 f n, where f n is the operation frequency of the machine.
5.2.

Forced Vibration Analysis

For large ball mill or mill with GMD, the method based on forced vibration analysis is
recommended. The vibration amplitudes should be calculated to meet the requirement of
allowable vibration limit.
Dynamics analysis is difficult for the flexible mill foundations using standard analytical or
numerical methods. Classical empirical methods assume that the foundation acts as a rigid
body. However, the structure of mill foundation and piers with large dimension is flexible
rather than a rigid body. Numerical methods such as the general finite element method are
also difficult to apply, as the direct simulation of radiation damping is not possible. Radiation
damping is the dominant energy dissipation mechanism in most dynamically loaded
foundation systems.
The sub-structure method is used for dynamic analysis of ball mill foundation, that is, the
structure and soil are considered separately. The structure part (mat foundation and piers) are
modelled by FEM model. The impedance of soil (stiffness and damping) are generated by the
computer program, and then input to the FEM model as the base boundary condition. So the
reasonable values of radiation damping can be used with the help of program. Different
design options are compared to get the better solution in this case.
In this case, the diameter of mill is 8.2 m with length of 15.2 m, operating at 12 rpm. The
height of mill shaft is 18.4 m above ground. The weight of mill and charge (ores) is 3,000
tons and GMD motor weight is 310 tons. The mat foundation is 28 m x 21 m with thickness
of 2.0 m, and the height of piers is 14.5 m above ground. The plan view and section view of
mill foundation are shown in Fig. 2. The concrete volume of bearing piers and mat foundation
is 2,500 m3 for each unit. The ratio of foundation mass and mill with charge mass is 2.0. In
general, the ratio of mass of foundation with machine (including charge) should be 1.5 to 2.5,
depending on the soil properties and the foundation structure. To meet large plant capacity is
required four to six ball mills and the amount of concrete is huge for mill foundation
construction. If the foundation design is over conservative, it may lead to higher costs.

Figure 2.

Ball mill foundation plan and section view

The operatin g sp eed of th e mill is relat ivel y slow, us uall y in the range of
12 to 30 rpm (0.2 to 0.5 Hz), the vibration amplitudes calculated are less than the allowable
vibration limit in general. The motor driving the mill operates at different speed, synchronous
low speed motor in the range of 90 to 200 rpm, and induction motor in 1800 rpm. The motors
are typically well balanced before they leave the factory. Any residual imbalance normally
does not give rise to significant excitation forces. It is desirable to tune the supporting piers so
that their lowest natural frequency is at least 33% above the operating speed of the
synchronous motor.
However, with the applications of large gearless mill drive (GMD), the significant dynamic
forces are caused (such as taken as 5 % of static loads), and in a higher frequency domain than
that for mill operation. So, the challenge rises up on dynamic analysis. Two dynamic loads
should be considered, from the mill charge rotation and unbalanced magnetic pull force.
The unbalanced forces from mill charge rotation is shown in Fig. 3, and the shaded area
represents the charge.
Area of segment (shaded),
As = r 2cos -1 (m/r) m (r2 - m2 )1/2

(1)

Ratio of area of segment to area of circle, As / A0

As / A0 = 1/ [cos -1 (m/r) m /r ( 1 (m/r)2 )1/2]

(2)

Location of centroid of segment from centre of circle, C

C/r = 2/3 [ sin3 / ( sin cos )]

(3)

Figure 3.

Unbalanced force from mill charge rotation

Unbalanced force
F=Me2

(4)

The charge unit weight = 5,400 kg/ m3. For ball mills usually m / r = 0.25, and As / Ao =
35 %. The thickness of liner is 0.13 m, so r = 4.1 0.13 = 3.97 m. The mass of charge, M =
0.35 x 3.14 x 3.97 2 x 15.16 x 5,400 = 1,418,000 kg. Eccentricity e = C = 0.56 r = 2.22 m.
Mill rotational maximum speed 12.0 rpm. f = 12 / 60 = 0.2 Hz, = 2 x 3.14 x 0.2 = 1.256 rad/
sec. Unbalanced force, F = 1,418,000 x 2.22 x 1.256 2 = 4,966 kN. This maximum load value
can be reduced up to 50% in the steady state vibration, considering the cascading effect of
charge in operation.So the unbalanced forces from the rotation of mill-charge may be F =
2,483 kN.
The dynamic loads come from the unbalanced magnetic pull force is shown in Fig. 4. The
magnetic pull forces are unbalanced around the machine shaft centre-line. For a mill speed of
N rpm, the air-gap variation at a point on the stator will pass through N p cycles per minute,
where p is the number of poles in the GMD. The frequency of dynamic force in hertz,
f = N p / 60

(5)

In this case, N = 12 rpm, p = 64, then frequency f = 12.8 Hz

Per vendors information, the values of harmonic force are taken as 5% of static loads. Base
on the data, horizontal dynamic load Fx = -31.3 kN at pier 1 and Fx = 156.2 kN at pier 2,
vertical dynamic load Fy = 150.7 kN at pier 1 and Fy = 118.2 kN at pier 2.
The concrete mill foundation is modelled using solid element by SAP 2000 program, and the
dimension of element is 1m x 1m x 1m as shown in Fig. 5. The mat foundation is 28 m x 21
m, with thickness of 2.0 m. The height of piers is 14.5 m with thickness of 2.5 m for piers
supporting motor. The thickness of piers supporting mill is 1.7 m at fixed bearing end and
1.45 m at free bearing end.

To examine the dynamic behaviour of soil and concrete foundation, the mill and motor
machines are assumed as a sole rigid body and modelled by rigid link element.

Figure 4.

Ball mill motor (GMD) foundation

The stiffness of soil generated from the program is distributed at each base node of mat
foundation as the value of springs in six directions. The damping constants generated by the
program input into the model by link element of damper. The time history analysis is carried
out to get the vibration amplitudes. The sine function is used for harmonic loads, and time
step is taken as 1/20 of period T. Thus, time step is 0.25 second for mill rotation and 0.0039
second for GMD motor.
The amplitude calculated is 68 m = 2.7 mils at top of mill pier under the unbalanced forces
of mill rotation. The amplitude calculated is 17.0 m = 0.67 mils at top of motor pier under
the unbalanced forces of GMD motor. It is noticed that the amplitude is calculated to be 30.6
m = 1.2 mils if no damping is accounted for. The effect of radiation damping is increased
with frequency. So, the effect of radiation damping is small for mill rotation at low frequency
but significant for the unbalanced magnetic pull force in high frequency domain.
The amplitudes calculated meet the requirement of allowable vibration limit, since the

properties of soil (rock) are strong in this case. If soft soil is used for the mills foundation, the
dynamic response of mill foundation may be challenged.

Figure 5.

FEM model of ball mill foundation with solid elements

6. SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

The project is located in a severe earthquake area, and the structural design of bearing piers
and mat foundation may be governed by the seismic load. The spectral response acceleration
is SS (0.2s) = 1.9 g, and S1 (1.0s) = 0.64 g, that is very severe earthquake.
The method of equivalent static load can be applied for a regular structure, with mass and
stiffness distributed uniformly. However, due to the big mass of mill supported on top of
foundation, this is an irregular structure. The height of mill top is larger than 20 m, and the
spectrum analysis has to be used to determine the earthquake forces.
The design response spectrum is formed based the local data per ASCE / 7. The spectral
response adjusted for site class effect as defined Sms = Fa * Ss = 1.9 g and Sm1 = Fv * S1 = 0.64
g. Where Fa = 1.0 and Fv =1.0 is the site coefficient. The design spectral response acceleration
SDS = 2/3 Sms = 1.26 g and SD1 = 2/3 Sm1 = 0.42 g. T0 = 0.2 SD1/ SDS = 0.07 sec, TS = SD1/ SDS =
0.33 sec, long period transition period TL = 4.0 sec. Based on these parameters, the response
spectrum is formed as shown in Fig. 6.
Per ASCE, the seismic response coefficient Cs can be determined, based on the important
factor I = 1.0, and the response modification coefficient R = 2.5.
Cs = SDS / (R/I) = 0.50
Cs = SDS / T (R/I)

for Maximum
for T < TL

(6)

Cs = SDS / T 2(R/I)

for T > TL

From Equation (6), the curve of seismic response coefficient is formed as shown in Fig. 7.

Figure 6

Figure 7.

Design response spectrum

Seismic response coefficient

The response spectrum analysis can be done using FEM model by RISA-3D program. The
most difficult part of the entire procedure is calculating the scaling factor. The elastic base
shear was calculated using the program. The spectra were normalized using modal
participation. In the calculation for the scale factor, 20 vibration modes are calculated making
the modal participation to be over 90%. With the local design response spectrum and the
spectrum analysis, the earthquake forces and seismic response are calculated.
The foundation structure is modelled with plate element, and the dimension of element is 1m
x 1m as shown in Fig. 8. The values of springs and damping come from the program as the
same as the model of solid elements. The mill and motor machines are modelled by rigid link

elements. The frequencies and modes participation are calculated by the program and fill into
Table 2 to calculate the scaling factor. The seismic response coefficient Cs (x) = 0.48 and Cs
(z) = 0.50 are obtained from the analysis. The horizontal seismic force is F = Cs * W, where
W is the weight of foundation structure.

Figure 8
Table 2
Mode

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

FEM model of ball mill foundation with plate elements

Normalizing Sa using the model participation for each of the different models
Frequency

Period

(Hz)

(s)

5.938
8.568
9.816
9.965
11.728
13.362
13.721
15.086
15.323
15.898
17.515
19.798
21.482
21.708
22.379
23.006

0.168
0.117
0.102
0.1
0.085
0.075
0.073
0.066
0.065
0.063
0.057
0.051
0.047
0.046
0.045
0.043

Modal Participation
X Spectra
Z Spectra
(%)
(%)
51.459
0.526
8.187
60.734
12.438
0.104
2.892
2.289
7.468
1.479
0.293
1.011
11.59
8.462
2.537

Seismic
Response, Sa

1.2600
1.2600
1.2600
1.2600
1.2600
1.2600
1.2600
1.2168
1.2060
1.1844
1.1196
1.0548
1.0116
1.0008
0.9900
0.9684

RSA Contribution
X dir'n
Z dir'n

0.64838
0.00663
0.10316
0.76525
0.15672
0.00131
0.03644
0.02761
0.08845
0.01656
0.00309
0.01023
0.11599
0.08377
0.02457

17
18
19
20

7.

23.275
24.333
24.834
25.534

0.043
0.041
0.04
0.039
Totals:

4.958
2.455
1.55
91.863

1.114
89.683

0.9684
0.9468
0.9360
0.9252

0.04801
0.02324
0.01451
1.09151

0.01031
1.09272

CONCLUSIONS

The soil-structure interaction is investigated based on the practical case of dynamic analysis
for ball mill foundation. The dynamic response depends on both parts of soil and concrete
foundation structure (mat and piers), and the sub-structure method is efficient to solve the
problem. The following results are concluded from this study.
(1) The stiffness and damping of soil (rock) can be generated by the computer program, and
the values of radiation damping have been validated by many dynamic tests. The analysis
of mat foundation and supporting piers can be done using FEM models.
(2) The amplitudes calculated at the frequency of unbalanced magnetic pull force (12.8 Hz)
are different significantly with the damping and without the damping. The radiation
damping increases with the frequency.
(3) The ball mill foundation is an irregular structure with a big mass (mill and charge) on the
top of piers. The response spectrum analysis has to be used to determine the earthquake
forces and seismic response.
8.

REFERENCES

[1] Banerjee, P.K. and Sen, R. Dynamic behavior of axially and laterally loaded piles and
pile groups. Chapter 3 in Dynamic Behavior of Foundations and Buried Structures,
Elsevier App. Sc., London, 95-133, 1987.
[2] Baranov, V.A., On the calculation of excited vibrations of an embedded foundation.
Voprosy Dynamiki Prochnocti, No.14, 195-209, (in Russian), 1967.
[3] Barkan, D.D. Dynamics of bases and foundations. McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York,
1962.
[4] Dobry, R. and Gazetas, G. Simple method for dynamic stiffness and damping of floating
pile groups. Geotechnique, Vol.38, No.4, 557- 574, 1988.
[5] DynaN 2.0 for Windows, Dynamic analysis of shallow and deep foundations, Ensoft.
2003. www.ensoftinc.com.
[6] Gazetas, G. and Makris, N. Dynamic pile-soil-pile interaction. I: Analysis of Axial
Vibration. J. Earthq. Eng. and Struct. Dyn. Vol. 20, No.2, 1991.
[7] Han, Y.C. Coupled vibration of embedded foundation,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115(9), 1227-1238, 1989.
[8] Han, Y.C., Study of vibrating foundation considering soil-pile-structure interaction for
practical applications.
J. of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Vol.7, No.3, 321-327, 2008.
[9] Han, Y.C. and Sabin, G. Impedances for radially inhomogeneous soil media with a nonreflective boundary. J. of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 121(9), 939-947, 1995.
[10] Han, Y.C. and Novak, M. Dynamic behavior of single piles under strong harmonic
excitation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 25(3), 523-534, 1988.

[11] Luco, J.E. Linear soil structure interaction: A Review. Applied Mech. Div., Vol.53,
ASME, 41-57, 1982.
[12] Wolf, J.P. Soil structure interaction analysis in time domain. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Printice - Hall, 446p, 1988.