Report No.

TR 97-6

TECHNICAL REPORT
COMPRESSOR ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN

By

P. J. Pantermuehl
A. J. Smalley

Mechanical and Fluids Engineering Division

Southwest Research Institute

December 1997

© 1997 Gas Machinery Research Council

 This document contains information resulting from a cooperative research
effort. The contents hereof are only intended to be guidelines for the subject
matter to which the document pertains. Neither Southern Gas Association
nor the Gas Machinery Research Council make any warranty or
representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy,
completeness or usefulness of the information contained in this document,
including, without limitation, implied warranties of merchantability and
fitness for a particular purpose, or that the use of any method, suggestion,
technology, information or guidelines disclosed herein may not infringe on
rights owned or claimed by others. In no event will Southern Gas
Association or the Gas Machinery Research Council be liable for any
damages, including, without limitation, liability arising out of contract,
negligence, strict liability, environmental or tort, warranty or copyright
infringement, or any incidental or consequential damage arising out of the
use of this Report. The user assumes any liability with respect to any
methods, suggestions, technology, guidelines or other information
contained herein and releases Southern Gas Association and the Gas
Machinery Research Council from any and all damage, loss or injury having
to do with use of any such methods, suggestions, technology, guidelines or
other such information.

This document may contain references to product(s) which may assist in

achieving one or more guidelines as may be set forth herein. Such
references are not intended to constitute endorsement or criticism of any
such product(s) by the Gas Machinery Research Council or Southwest
Research Institute. Any attempted use of this Report, or its contents, by
anyone, as an endorsement or criticism of any such product(s) is expressly
prohibited. Neither this Report or its contents may be used for any
advertising purposes whatsoever.

GMRC PURPOSE

The Gas Machinery Research Council provides member companies and industry with the
benefits of an applied research and technology program directed toward improving
reliability and cost effectiveness of the design, construction, and operation of mechanical
and fluid systems.

For additional copies of this report, please contact:

Marsha Short
Director, Member Services
Gas Machinery Research Council
3030 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300, L.B. 60
Dallas, TX 75234
Telephone (972) 620-4024
FAX (972) 620-8518
 BOARD RESEARCH SGA GMRC
OF ADVISORY STAFF
DIRECTORS COMMITTEE
Winston A. Johnson, II, Chairman John P. Platt, Jr., Chairman Larry Everett, CAE
El Paso Natural Gas Co. Amoco Corp. President

Jack W. Hotzel, Vice Chairman Barry G. Selke Marsha Short

Duke Energy Corp. Williams Natural Gas Co. Director,
Operating & Member
Services

Bruce L. Hopper, Treasurer Sam Clowney

Chevron Research & Technology Co. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.

John W. Fulton, Secretary Hans Mathews

Exxon Research & Engineering Co. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.

Larry Everett, CAE Greg Phillippi

Southern Gas Association/GMRC Ariel Corp.

Frank Sims Steve English

Cooper Energy Services Lone Star Pipeline Co.

Rick Craig Larry Rogers

Enron Gas Pipeline Group Peerless Mfg. Co.

K. Frederick Wrenn, Jr. Don Crusan

Columbia Gas Transmission Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.

John P. Platt, Jr. F. Douglas Stover

Amoco Corporation PMC/Beta Limited Partnership

Orin Flanigan, Director Emeritus Walter J. Tuymer

Adobe Enterprises Hoerbiger Corp. of America

SGA Board of Directors & Dick Eimers

Transmission Sec. Com. Liaisons Solar Turbines

Terrance L. McGill Michael P. Whelan

Columbia Gulf Trans. Co. Gas Research Institute
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents information on selection and design of anchor bolt installations in concrete
foundations for reciprocating compressors. The report uses finite element analysis of a preloaded
anchor bolt and immediately surrounding concrete. The model includes the compressor base,
chock, soleplate, epoxy grout layer, bolt termination, and nearby rebar. It investigates both
termination geometry, bolt length, the use of rebar, and the difference between linear and nonlinear
treatment of the concrete. It shows the benefits of a termination with axial extent of at least 1.5 bolt
diameters, and diameter equal to 3 or 4 bolt diameters. It makes clear the desirability of long
anchor bolts, and quantifies the compression of the stack (base, chock, soleplate, grout, concrete)
which accompanies bolt stretch. It shows that, while rebar stops cracks growing, it does not
inhibit cracks starting under high local tensile stress. Lengthening the anchor bolt moves the
region of high tensile stress and potential local cracking down into the block, and away from
dynamically varying stress, away from oil sources, and for bolt termination in the mat, out of
sight!

The report analyses the effects of grout layer compression. The report shows that epoxy chocks of
the three materials tested and documented in another GMRC report (TR 97-5) will not creep
sufficiently for concern; however, it shows an epoxy grout layer can creep more than an epoxy
chock, and how layer thickness and anchor bolt length combine to influence the associated creep
loss of bolt tension. It further shows how an increase in epoxy grout layer temperature after bolt
tightening can reduce bolt tension as a result of reduced material compression modulus;
retightening anchor bolts at operating temperature can reduce the influence of this problem.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES iii

LIST OF FIGURES iv

1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 6
4.1 PARAMETRIC STUDIES OF TERMINATION PLATE GEOMETRY ............................... 16
4.2 EFFECTS OF REBAR .......................................................................... 17
4.3 NONLINEAR MODEL.......................................................................... 17
4.4 LINEAR ANALYSES VERSUS NONLINEAR ANALYSES ........................................ 17
5. INFLUENCE OF BOLT LENGTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 5

6. INFLUENCE OF CHOCK AND GROUT PARAMETERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 3

6.1 INFLUENCE OF TEMPERATURE ON CHOCK AND GROUT COMPRESSION...................... 46
6.2 10,000 HOUR CREEP RATIO ................................................................ 46

iii
 LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 3-1. Finite Element Model Parametric Variables...............................................7

Table 4-1. Concrete Block Stress Vs. Termination Plate Geometry and Bolt
Preload - Principal Stress (S1), Vertical Component Stress (Sy).................... 19
Table 4-2. Summary of Concrete Tensile Stresses Vs. Plate Diameter and
Thickness (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload - 1500 Microstrain; t = Plate
Thickness) .................................................................................. 19
Table 4-3. Summary of Concrete Compressive Stresses Vs. Plate Diameter and
Thickness (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload - 1500 Microstrain; t = Plate
Thickness) .................................................................................. 20
Table 4-4. Concrete Tensile Stresses With and Without Rebar (Initial Anchor
Bolt Preload - 1500 Microstrain; t = 1.5") ............................................. 20
Table 4-5. Concrete Compressive Stresses With and Without Rebar (Initial
Anchor Bolt Preload - 1500 Microstrain; t = 1.5") .................................... 20
Table 4-6. Nonlinear Analyses With and Without Rebar (Case 7 With 1%
Rebar, Case 8 Without Rebar); (Termination Plate = 3" Thick, 6"
Diameter, Initial Bolt Strain = 1500 Microstrain) ...................................... 21
Table 4-7. Linear Analyses Vs. Nonlinear Analyses (Case 6A Linear; Case 7
Nonlinear); (Termination Plate = 3" Thick, 6" Diameter, Initial Bolt
Strain = 1500 Microstrain)................................................................ 21
Table 5-1. Concrete Tensile Stresses Vs. Anchor Bolt Length (Initial Anchor
Bolt Preload - 1500 Microstrain); (Plate Thickness = 3"; Plate
Diameter = 6").............................................................................. 37
Table 5-2. Stack Deflection Vs. Bolt Length ........................................................ 37
Table 6-1. Geometry and Material Properties for Figure 6-4...................................... 48

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 3-1. Schematic of Configuration Modeled.................................................... 11

Figure 3-2. Model - Anchor Bolt, Nut, Termination Plate.......................................... 12
Figure 3-3. Model - Isometric of Block with Rebar ................................................. 13
Figure 3-4. Model - Cross Section of Block.......................................................... 14
Figure 3-5. Model - Anchor Bolt, Chock, Rail, Grout, Rebar ..................................... 15
Figure 4-1. S1 Stress (Total) - Case 1A............................................................... 22
Figure 4-2. Sy Stress (Total) - Case 1A............................................................... 23
Figure 4-3. UY Deflection (Total) - Case 1A......................................................... 24
Figure 4-4. S1 Stress (Concrete) - Case 1A .......................................................... 25
Figure 4-5. Stress (Concrete) - Case 1A .............................................................. 26
Figure 4-6. UY Deflection (Concrete) - Case 1A .................................................... 27
Figure 4-7. Sy Stress (Anchor Bolt) - Case 1A ...................................................... 28
Figure 4-8. Concrete Tensile Stress Near Bolt Termination Vs. Termination
Plate Diameter and Thickness (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload - 1500
Microstrain)................................................................................. 29
Figure 4-9. Concrete Compressive Stresses at Bolt Termination Vs. Plate
Termination Diameter (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload - 1500
Microstrain)................................................................................. 30
Figure 4-10. Comparison of Concrete Tensile Stresses Near Bolt Termination
(With and Without Rebar) Vs. Termination Plate Diameter;
Termination Plate Thickness = 1.5"; Initial Bolt Strain = 1500
Microstrain)................................................................................. 31
Figure 4-11. Comparison of Compressive Stresses (With and Without Rebar) ................... 32
Figure 4-12. Extent of Cracking with Rebar ........................................................... 33
Figure 4-13. Extent of Cracking with No Rebar....................................................... 34
Figure 5-1. Tensile Concrete Stress at Termination as a Function of Bolt Length ............... 38
Figure 5-2. Compressive Concrete Stress at Termination as a Function of
Anchor Bolt Length........................................................................ 39
Figure 5-3. Maximum Local Concrete Stress as a Function of Distance Up From
the Bottom of the Bolt Termination at a Wide Range of Bolt Lengths............... 40
Figure 5-4. Maximum Local Stress as a Function of Radial Distance from the
Bolt Centerline (Starting at the Outer Limit of the Termination Plate) ............... 41
Figure 5-5. Stack Compression Vs. Bolt Length - Anchor Bolt Tension ......................... 42
Figure 6-1. Epoxy Chock Compression Vs. Chock Width (1000 psi
Compressive Pressure).................................................................... 49
Figure 6-2. Shape Factor Vs. Ratio of Side Width to Chock Thickness .......................... 50
Figure 6-3. Epoxy Chock Compression Vs. Young's Modulus (2"x12"x12")
Chock with 1000 psi Surface Load...................................................... 51
Figure 6-4. Loss in Bolt Tension (% as a Function of Bolt Length, Bolt Yield
Strength = 105,000 psi)................................................................... 52
Figure 6-5. Grout Layer Compression and Percent Loss in Bolt Tension with
Increase from 70 to 130°F at 1 Hour and No Bolt Retightening; Bolt
Length = 48"; Steel Chock; Grout Layer = 4.5" Thick................................ 53

v
1. INTRODUCTION

A number of industries make essential or critical use of reciprocating compressors for services
which include natural gas, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and ethylene. The reciprocating pistons and
rotating crankshaft produce significant gas and inertia forces. While the compressor frame partially
supports these forces, the foundation adds needed structural rigidity, and a significant fraction of
the individual cylinder forces must be transmitted horizontally through the compressor mounting
system to the foundation.

This requirement demands significant attention to the mounting system. For the mounting system
to achieve high rigidity and long term integrity, the anchor bolt must impose sufficient downwards
force at the mounting interface to resist (through Coulomb friction) the highest expected horizontal
loads. Previous GMRC research has made clear that mounting systems must sustain horizontal
forces based on local forces for individual cylinders (as opposed to forces inferred from global
shaking forces and moments). In general, this demands higher bolt tensions than typical past
practice.

The anchor bolt compresses a “stack” consisting of:

• A thick flange at the base of the compressor frame.

• A mounting chock of steel, epoxy, or composite material.
• A steel soleplate.
• A layer of foundation grout.
• Several feet of concrete.

This “stack” under goes stresses and deformations as a result of the anchor bolt tension.

Past GMRC research has addressed various aspects of load generation, load transmission,
mounting system characteristics and foundation integrity, including the anchor bolts. The studies
have included finite element analysis of an entire concrete foundation, including anchor bolts and
their interaction with the concrete. These past investigations have made clear the potential for
tensile stresses and cracking at the anchor bolt termination point, the presence of significant
compressive stresses in the concrete around the anchor bolt, and a number of positive reasons for
moving the anchor bolt termination far down in the concrete block (to reduce sensitivity to creep,

1
and to separate it from areas of high dynamic stress and oil leakage). Past investigations indicate
that, for these foundations, while rebar resists propagation of cracks through the concrete, it does
not significantly control the initial formation of these cracks.

Because previous research considered the compressor and foundation as a structural system, a lack
of fine detail in the model inhibited focused analysis of mounting system integrity and structural
response near the anchor bolt. The present investigation seeks to address this limitation by
modeling a single tie-down (which incorporates the “stack” listed above), to help investigate how
the following influence relevant stresses and deflections:

• Preload (bolt tension)

• Bolt Termination Details
• Mounting System Details
• Concrete Characteristics
• Rebar
• Bolt Length
• Chock/Grout Moduli

The majority of studies reported here have used the ANSYS Finite Element program, and
incorporate the above features with enough surrounding concrete to eliminate sensitivity to
boundary conditions, and with sufficient detail to allow meaningful investigation of the above
parameters. The report presents modeling details, typical overall graphic distributions of stress and
deflected shape, together with graphical displays showing how critical stresses and deflections
vary with influential loading, geometry, and material properties.

2
2. SUMMARY

In summary, this report shows the following:

• High tensile stress tends to induce cracking in the concrete around the bolt termination point.
• These tensile stresses in the concrete near the bolt termination attenuate rapidly with distance
above the termination.
• They also attenuate rapidly with horizontal distance from the termination.
• A termination 1.5 bolt diameters thick beneficially reduces tensile stresses in the concrete for a
relatively small termination diameter.
• A termination plate diameter of 3 or 4 bolt diameters reduces local tensile stresses in the
concrete.
• At the same time, increasing termination plate diameter pushes the location of high tensile
stresses further from the bolt centerline -- potentially joining with other sources of tensile
stress, and moving them closer to the outer surface of the concrete block; hence, there exists a
tradeoff on termination plate diameter.
• Rebar density does not significantly influence the tendency for cracks to occur at the
termination point.
• Lengthening the anchor bolt does not significantly affect the magnitude of local tensile stresses
in the concrete at the end of the anchor bolt, but moves them further from other sources of high
stress, and from sources of oil.
• Lengthening anchor bolts also beneficially reduces the ratio of chock and grout compression to
anchor bolt extension for a given preload. Reducing this ratio reduces sensitivity to creep.
• Decreasing Young’s Modulus of the epoxy material (corresponding to increasing compliance)
or thickening the foundation grout layer increases the ratio of chock and grout compression to
anchor bolt extension, and thereby increases the desirability of a long anchor bolt.
• For the three epoxy chock materials tested (in a separate study), loaded to 1,000 psi or less,
creep deflection in a year should be less than 2.5 mils for the chocks alone.
• Anchor bolts at least 48 inches long coupled with a grout layer 4.5 inches thick or less are
needed to keep creep loss in bolt tension below 5 percent in a year; even longer anchor bolts are
desirable to minimize grout creep effects.

3
• The combination of bolt geometry, grout and chock parameters, preload, gas loads and inertia
loads make for a complex system; an independent analysis using the methods described in this
report should be considered for any reciprocating compressor installation which will use epoxy
chocks or an epoxy grout layer.
• Heating the epoxy by running the engine after bolt tightening under cold conditions can induce
an immediate increase in compression of the epoxy, and a loss in anchor bolt tension.
• Operator's should retighten the anchor bolts at operating temperature to correct for this loss in
tension due to heating.
• Foundation grout layers can contribute more to creep loss of anchor bolt tension than epoxy
chocks.

4
3. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING APPROACH

ANSYS 5.3 was used to construct a parametric finite element model of a compressor foundation
in the vicinity of the anchor bolt with a termination plate embedded in the concrete. Figure 3-1
shows a schematic of the configuration modeled which includes bolt, compressor base, chock,
soleplate, grout, concrete, and bolt termination. The model utilizes ANSYS Link8 3D spar element
for the anchor bolt, which has the capability for bolt preload, expressed as initial bolt strain
(change in length divided by the zero strain length). The Link8 spar (which simulated a 2 inch
diameter bolt in this model) is connected at the bottom to a 3D element Solid45 termination plate,
and at the top to a Solid45 nut (Figure 3-2). The anchor bolt nut bears on a thick section of foot
pad representing the compressor base. Included in the model below the nut are portions of epoxy
chock, rail or soleplate, epoxy grout, and concrete foundation (Figure 3-3 isometric view, and
Figure 3-4 cross-sectional view). The concrete foundation was modeled using Solid45 elements
for the linear model, and Solid65 elements for the nonlinear model. In both cases, rebar was
modeled, as shown in Figure 3-5, using Link8 spars (representing number 7 rebar) interlaced in
the mesh (instead of the “smeared” rebar technique previously used in the Solid65 elements). The
boundary conditions include displacement constraints in all directions at the base of the concrete
block, and displacement constraints along the axis of the foot pad and rail to simulate continuity
beyond the domain of the model.

As mentioned, initial strain was input into the Link8 anchor bolt element causing a tensile preload
that pulls up on the termination plate embedded in the concrete and down on the nut, compressing
the elements in between. The termination plate, as modeled, has no connectivity to the concrete,
except on its top surface, and is unbonded to the concrete on its sides and under surface. The
results clearly show deformation of the termination plate, strongly indicating that this lack of
bonding occurs; if the sides and underneath surface of the plate were initially bonded to the
concrete, loading would immediately distort and deform the plate and break these bonds.

Several model variations were run. Linear analysis (Solid45 element) shows the effect of local
tensile stresses which would be present around the termination plate, but does not allow for
sequential cracking of concrete. Nonlinear analyses (Solid65 element) shows the “after” effects on
those stresses, where cracking of the concrete is predicted in the area by the analyses. The benefits
of linear analyses include speed of execution and indication of severity in terms of predicted tensile
stress level. The nonlinear runs indicate severity by the extent of cracking, which is less precise
and takes longer to execute, but provides a confirmation of observations from the linear runs. The

5
model was run both with and without rebar. The analyses included initial bolt strains of 500,
1000, and 1500 micro-inches per inch of length. In the solution, the anchor bolt strain fell to about
78 percent of its initial value due to deformation of the stacked layer of mixed components. For the
initial preload strain of 1500 microstrain, the final strain in the bolt was around 1200 microstrain,
indicating a bolt preload of about 36,000 psi, a typical value for high strength bolts in compressor
installations. In addition to anchor bolt preload, the analyses also included a 100 psi pressure load
on the chock, to approximate the percentage of compressor weight on the portion of block being
modeled.

Parameter studies included variations in initial anchor bolt strain, anchor bolt length, termination
plate thickness and diameter, epoxy chock size, and Young's Modulus of the epoxy chock, as
listed in Table 3-1. Table 3-2 lists all of the case studies. Cases 1 through 6 involved linear
analyses with no rebar and with 1% rebar (1% of the volume of concrete). Cases 7 and 8 are
nonlinear analyses comparing no rebar and 1% rebar. The cases labeled “Chock 1” to “Chock 7”
involved variation in chock size and modulus of elasticity. The cases labeled “Chock 8A” to
“Chock 8D” involved variation of modulus of elasticity of a 12 inch square chock block with a
1000 psi surface load.

6
Table 3-1. Finite Element Model Parametric Variables

1. Anchor Bolt Initial Strain

2. Anchor Bolt Diameter, Length
3. Termination Plate Thickness, Diameter
4. Chock, Rail, and Block Dimensions
5. Chock Young's Modulus
6. Rebar Presence and Density
7. Concrete Tensile Strength and Cracking Stress

7
 Table 3-2. List of Case Studies

ITEM CASE DESCRIPTION

NO.
1 1A Linear (no rebar), Plate Thickness (1.5), Diameter (6.0), Initial Strain
(500 microstrain)
2 1B Linear (no rebar), Plate Thickness (1.5), Diameter (6.0), Initial Strain
(1000 microstrain)
3 1C Linear (no rebar), Plate Thickness (1.5), Diameter (6.0), Initial Strain
(1500 microstrain)
4 1D Linear (no rebar), Plate Thickness (1.5), Diameter (4.5), Initial Strain
(500 microstrain)
5 1E Linear (no rebar), Plate Thickness (1.5), Diameter (4.5), Initial Strain
(1000 microstrain)
6 1F Linear (no rebar), Plate Thickness (1.5), Diameter (4.5), Initial Strain
(1500 microstrain)
7 2A Linear (no rebar), Plate Thickness (1.5), Diameter (8.0), Initial Strain
(500 microstrain)
8 2B Linear (no rebar), Plate Thickness (1.5), Diameter (8.0), Initial Strain
(1000 microstrain)
9 2C Linear (no rebar), Plate Thickness (1.5), Diameter (8.0), Initial Strain
(1500 microstrain)
10 3A Linear (no rebar), Plate Thickness (1.5), Diameter (10.0), Initial Strain
(500 microstrain)
11 3B Linear (no rebar), Plate Thickness (1.5), Diameter (10.0), Initial Strain
(1000 microstrain)
12 3C Linear (no rebar), Plate Thickness (1.5), Diameter (10.0), Initial Strain
(1500 microstrain)
13 4A Linear (no rebar), Plate Thickness (3.0), Diameter (6.0), Initial Strain
(1500 microstrain)
14 4B Linear (no rebar), Plate Thickness (3.0), Diameter (8.0), Initial Strain
(1500 microstrain)
15 4C Linear (no rebar), Plate Thickness (3.0), Diameter (10.0), Initial Strain
(1500 microstrain)

8
 Table 3-2. List of Case Studies
(Continued)

ITEM CASE DESCRIPTION

NO.
16 4D Linear (no rebar), Plate Thickness (3.0), Diameter (4.5), Initial Strain
(1500 microstrain)
17 5A Linear (1% rebar), Plate Thickness (1.5), Diameter (4.5), Initial Strain
(1500 microstrain)
18 5B Linear (1% rebar), Plate Thickness (1.5), Diameter (6.0), Initial Strain
(1500 microstrain)
19 5C Linear (1% rebar), Plate Thickness (1.5), Diameter (8.0), Initial Strain
(1500 microstrain)
20 5D Linear (1% rebar), Plate Thickness (1.5), Diameter (10.0), Initial Strain
(1500 microstrain)
21 6A Linear (1% rebar), Plate Thickness ( 3.0"), Diameter (6.0"), Initial
Strain (1500 microstrain), Bolt Depth (18")
22 6B Linear (1% rebar), Plate Thickness (3.0"), Diameter (6.0"), Initial Strain
(1500 microstrain), Bolt Depth (24")
23 6C Linear (1% rebar), Plate Thickness (3.0"), Diameter (6.0"), Initial Strain
(1500 microstrain), Bolt Depth (30")
24 6D Linear (1% rebar), Plate Thickness (3.0"), Diameter (6.0"), Initial Strain
(1500 microstrain), Bolt Depth (36")
25 6E Linear (1% rebar), Plate Thickness (3.0"), Diameter (6.0"), Initial Strain
(1500 microstrain), Bolt Depth (18")
26 7 Nonlinear (1% rebar), Plate Thickness (3.0"), Diameter (6.0"), Strain
(1500 microstrain), Bolt Depth (30")
27 8 Nonlinear (no rebar), Plate Thickness (3.0"), Diameter (6.0"), Strain
(1500 microstrain), Bolt Depth (30")
28 Chock 1 Chock Size (2" x 4"x 4"), E=1E6

29 Chock 2 Chock Size (2" x 8"x 8"), E=1E6

30 Chock 3 Chock Size (2" x 12" x 12"), E=1E6

9
 Table 3-2. List of Case Studies
(Continued)

ITEM CASE DESCRIPTION

NO.
31 Chock 4 Chock Size (2" x 2"x 2"), E=1E6

32 Chock 5 Chock Size (2" x 1" x 1"), E=1E6

33 Chock 6 Chock Size (2" x 0.5" x 0.5"), E=1E6

34 Chock 7 Chock Size (2" x 24" x 24"), E=1E6

35 Chock 8A Chock Size (2" x 2" x 2"), E=2E5

36 Chock 8B Chock Size (2" x 12" x 12"), E=5E5

37 Chock 8C Chock Size (2" x 12" x 12"), E=1E6

38 Chock 8D Chock Size (2"x 12" x 12"), E=5E6

10
 VAR VAR
DIM DIM
VAR
DIM

NUT THK NUT

COMP
PAD THK BASE

Y3 CHOCK

Y1 RAIL
Y2
FOUNDATION
Y3 GROUT

RELIEF

DISCRETE
REBAR
Y4

BOLT PRELOAD
IN TENSION

NUT/
PLATE

MAT

Figure 3-1. Schematic of Configuration Modeled

11
Figure 3-2. Model - Anchor Bolt, Nut, Termination Plate

12
Figure 3-3. Model - Isometric of Block with Rebar

13
Figure 3-4. Model - Cross Section of Block

14
Figure 3-5. Model - Anchor Bolt, Chock, Rail, Grout, Rebar

15
4. RESULTS

Direct results from the analyses consist of graphical representations of stress and deflection
distribution in the concrete block and various independent components, with minimum and
maximum stresses or deflections printed on each, as presented in Figures 4-1 through 4-7.
Figures 4-1 through 4-3 show stresses and deflections for the total block and assembly, and
Figures 4-4 through 4-6 show stresses and deflections for the concrete only. Figure 4-7 shows
stresses in the anchor bolt. Additional data printed out in the string of output plots (not shown in
the examples) included individual component stresses and deflections for the epoxy chock, the
epoxy grout, and the rails, and anchor bolt final strain. Data from the output plots is transferred to
spreadsheets for analysis and display of trends.

After compression of the stacked components, the initial strain in the anchor bolt reduced to levels
around 78 percent of the initial values. Deformation of the components and termination plate is
evident in Figures 4-1 through 4-7.

4. 1 P ARAMETRIC S TUDIES OF T ERMINATION P LATE G EOMETRY

Table 4-1 summarizes the concrete stresses and bolt strains for the variations in termination plate
geometry (Cases 1 through 5) in which plate thickness, diameter, and initial bolt strain were
varied. Cases 1 through 4 were run with no rebar. Cases 5A to 5D were run with 1 percent rebar.
The tensile stresses in Table 4-1 are summarized in Table 4-2, and the compressive stresses are
summarized in Table 4-3, for the different plate diameters (concrete with no rebar, and constant
initial bolt strain of 1500 microstrain). Figure 4-8 presents concrete tensile stresses as a function
of plate diameter, and Figure 4-9 presents concrete compressive stresses as a function of plate
diameter; in these figures, S1 is maximum principal stress, and Sy is the component stress in the
vertical direction (Y). Tensile stresses clearly roll off with increasing plate diameter, although the
trend is more gradual for a 3 inch thick plate (1.5 bolt diameters), compared to a 1.5 inch thick
plate (0.75 bolt diameters). High tensile stresses in the concrete surrounding the termination plate
appear to result from the top edge of the plate pulling upward on the concrete elements, which are
restrained through other concrete elements attached to the foundation base. As the plate outer edge
moves outwards, increased bending of the plate over its radius appears to reduce its tensile
influence in the concrete near its outer edge. The disadvantage of extending the termination plate is
to move high tensile stresses further from the bolt, where they could cause cracks which join up

16
with cracks from other locations, or penetrate the block outer surface. A “cross-over” point occurs
in Figure 4-8 at around 8 inches diameter (4 bolt diameter), where tensile stresses are equivalent
for both the 1.5 and 3.0 inch thick plates. Figure 4-9 shows compressive stresses (Sy) are higher
(more compressive) for the thinner plate. Above 8 inches (four times bolt diameter), termination
diameter does not appear to influence compressive stresses.

4. 2 E FFECTS OF R EBAR

Tables 4-4 and 4-5 compare the tensile and compressive stresses for cases without rebar (1F, 1C,
2C, and 3C) to Cases with 1 percent rebar (Cases 5A to 5D). These cases were run with a 1.5-
inch thick termination plate and initial bolt strain of 1500 microstrain. The data is plotted in
Figures 4-10 and 4-11, which indicate rebar has very little influence on stresses predicted by linear
analysis. The tensile stresses surrounding the termination plate are very localized and tend to
decay rapidly before extending to areas where rebar could control stresses.

4. 3 N ONLINEAR M ODEL

Cases 7 and 8 are nonlinear analyses that show differences in stresses where cracking is predicted
in the concrete in the vicinity of the termination plate. In these analyses, the model adjusts the
stresses after cracking. The cases were run using a termination plate 3 inches thick, 6 inches in
diameter, an anchor bolt depth of 18 inches (25 inches total length), and an initial bolt strain of
1500 microstrain. Case 7 was run with 1 percent rebar, and Case 8 was run with no rebar. Table
4-6 compares stresses for the two runs, and indicates little significant difference in maximum
tensile or compressive stresses. The prediction of cracked elements for the two cases is displayed
in Figures 4-12 and 4-13. The cracked elements are identified by the light colored elements near
the bolt termination. The two plots are essentially identical, confirming the limited influence of
rebar on crack initiation.

4. 4 L INEAR A NALYSES V ERSUS N ONLINEAR A NALYSES

Table 4-7 compares stresses calculated by linear analyses (Case 6A) against stresses calculated by
the nonlinear method (Case 7). The nonlinear analysis solves the problem repeatedly, adjusting the
extent of cracking until the loads can be carried by uncracked elements. Both were performed with

17
plates 3 inches thick, and of 6-inch diameter; and 18-inch depth anchor bolts with 1500 microstrain
initial bolt strain. Tensile stresses fall substantially in the nonlinear model, reflecting the inability
of the concrete to sustain tension above about 290 psi. As a result of the reduced tensile strength,
elements under compression pick up more of the load with resultant increases in maximum
compressive stresses for the nonlinear case with cracking.

18
 Table 4-1. Concrete Block Stress Vs. Termination Plate Geometry and Bolt
Preload - Principal Stress (S1), Vertical Component Stress (Sy)

Case Plate Dia. Plate Thk Final Compressive Strs Tensile Strs
No. (inches) (inches) Bolt Strn S1 Sy S1 Sy
1D 4.5 1.5 389 -42 -899 404 395
1E 4.5 1.5 788 -70 -1798 842 825
1F 4.5 1.5 1187 -96 -2698 1280 1254
1A 6 1.5 387 -41 -925 341 336
1B 6 1.5 783 -70 -1852 720 709
1C 6 1.5 1179 -100 -2779 1098 1082
2A 8 1.5 384 -39 -965 260 258
2B 8 1.5 776 -66 -1934 563 559
2C 8 1.5 1169 -93 -2903 867 860
3A 10 1.5 383 -33 -946 177 177
3B 10 1.5 775 -55 -1898 408 406
3C 10 1.5 1168 -78 -2850 638 636
4D 4.5 3 1199 -263 -2360 1094 1045
4A 6 3 1212 -172 -1947 1000 956
4B 8 3 1219 -85 -1806 875 840
4C 10 3 1223 -73 -1768 732 708
5A 4.5 1.5 1193 -111 -2673 1230 1209
5B 6 1.5 1184 -113 -2762 1073 1051
5C 8 1.5 1174 -108 -2892 869 856
5D 10 1.5 1172 -95 -2838 646 638
Cases 1-4: No Rebar Case 5: 1% Rebar

Table 4-2. Summary of Concrete Tensile Stresses Vs. Plate Diameter and
Thickness (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload - 1500 Microstrain; t = Plate Thickness)

Case Plate Tensile Stress (psi)

No. Dia. S1 Sy S1 Sy
(inches) t=1.5" t=1.5" t=3" t=3"
1F,4D 4.5 1280 1254 1094 1045
1C,4A 6 1098 1082 1000 956
2C,4B 8 867 860 875 840
3C,4C 10 638 636 732 708

19
Table 4-3. Summary of Concrete Compressive Stresses Vs. Plate Diameter and
Thickness (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload - 1500 Microstrain; t = Plate Thickness)

Case Plate Compressive Stress (psi)

No. Dia. S1 Sy S1 Sy
(inches) t=1.5" t=1.5" t=3" t=3"
1F,4D 4.5 -96 -2698 -263 -2360
1C,4A 6 -100 -2779 -172 -1947
2C,4B 8 -93 -2903 -85 -1806
3C,4C 10 -78 -2850 -73 -1768

Table 4-4. Concrete Tensile Stresses With and Without Rebar (Initial Anchor
Bolt Preload - 1500 Microstrain; t = 1.5")

Case Plate Tensile Stress (psi)

No. Dia. S1 Sy S1 Sy
(inches) (w/o Rebar) (w/o Rebar) (1% Rebar) (1% Rebar)
1F,5A 4.5 1280 1254 1230 1209
1C,5B 6 1098 1082 1073 1051
2C,5C 8 867 860 869 856
3C,5D 10 638 636 646 638

Table 4-5. Concrete Compressive Stresses With and Without Rebar (Initial
Anchor Bolt Preload - 1500 Microstrain; t = 1.5")

Case Plate Compressive Stress (psi)

No. Dia. S1 Sy S1 Sy
(inches) (w/o Rebar) (w/o Rebar) (1% Rebar) (1% Rebar)
1F,5A 4.5 -96 -2698 -111 -2673
1C,5B 6 -100 -2779 -113 -2762
2C,5C 8 -93 -2903 -108 -2892
3C,5D 10 -78 -2850 -95 -2838

20
Table 4-6. Nonlinear Analyses With and Without Rebar (Case 7 With 1% Rebar,
Case 8 Without Rebar); (Termination Plate = 3" Thick, 6" Diameter, Initial Bolt
Strain = 1500 Microstrain)

Case Rebar Final Compressive Stress Tensile Stress

No. Strain S1 Sy S1 Sy
7 1% 1192 -409 -2160 289 103
8 None 1187 -417 -2181 277 122

Table 4-7. Linear Analyses Vs. Nonlinear Analyses (Case 6A Linear; Case 7
Nonlinear); (Termination Plate = 3" Thick, 6" Diameter, Initial Bolt Strain = 1500
Microstrain)

Maximum Maximum
Case Final Compressive Stress Tensile Stress
No. Strain S1 Sy S1 Sy
Case 6A 1217 -160 -1925 1001 942
Case 7 1187 -409 -2160 289 103

21
Figure 4-1. S1 Stress (Total) - Case 1A

22
Figure 4-2. Sy Stress (Total) - Case 1A

23
Figure 4-3. UY Deflection (Total) - Case 1A

24
Figure 4-4. S1 Stress (Concrete) - Case 1A

25
Figure 4-5. Stress (Concrete) - Case 1A

26
Figure 4-6. UY Deflection (Concrete) - Case 1A

27
Figure 4-7. Sy Stress (Anchor Bolt) - Case 1A

28
 1300

1 . 5 Inch Thickness Termination Plate

1.5
1200

1100
3
Stress (psi)

1000 S1(1.5)
Sy(1.5)
S1(3.0)
900 Sy(3.0)
3 Inch Thick Termination Plate
800

700

600
4.5 6 8 10
Plate Dia.
Termination Plate Diameter, Inch

Figure 4-8. Concrete Tensile Stress Near Bolt Termination Vs. Termination Plate
Diameter and Thickness (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload - 1500 Microstrain)

29
 0

-500

-1000
Stress (psi)

S1(1.5)
Sy(1.5)
-1500 S1(3.0)
Sy(3.0)

-2000

-2500

-3000
4.5 6 8 10
Plate Dia. Inch
Plate Diameter,

Figure 4-9. Concrete Compressive Stresses at Bolt Termination Vs. Plate

Termination Diameter (Initial Anchor Bolt Preload - 1500 Microstrain)

30
 1400

1200

1000
Stress (psi)

S1(1.5)
800
Sy(1.5)
S1(rbar)
600 Sy(rbar)

400

200

0
4.5 6 8 10
Plate Plate
Diameter,
Dia. Inch

Figure 4-10. Comparison of Concrete Tensile Stresses Near Bolt Termination

(With and Without Rebar) Vs. Termination Plate Diameter; Termination Plate
Thickness = 1.5"; Initial Bolt Strain = 1500 Microstrain)

31
 0
4.5 6 8 10

-500

-1000
Stress (psi)

S1(1.5)
Sy(1.5)
-1500
S1(rbar)
Sy(rbar)

-2000

-2500

-3000
Plate Diameter,
Plate Dia. Inch

Figure 4-11. Comparison of Compressive Stresses (With and Without Rebar)

32
Figure 4-12. Extent of Cracking with Rebar

33
Figure 4-13. Extent of Cracking with No Rebar

34
5. INFLUENCE OF BOLT LENGTH

As previously discussed, a long anchor bolt reduces sensitivity to creep; it also moves the point of
termination away from locations of high stress induced by horizontal shaking forces (which tend to
concentrate near the top of the block) and away from the leaking oil. In considering these desirable
features, the study has also looked for any hidden technical or performance disadvantage of long
anchor bolts -- in particular, how does length (and thereby depth of the termination) influence local
stresses at the termination, and the total amount of compression of the “stack” (concrete, grout,
soleplate, chock, frame base)? Table 5-1 summarizes results of length investigations. Figure 5-1
shows that concrete tensile stress increases slightly with increasing bolt length, but only by 20
percent for a factor of five increase in bolt length from 25 to 120 inches. Figure 5-2 shows that
concrete compressive stress decreases by about 20 percent between a 25-inch and a 120-inch bolt
length. Figure 5-3 plots maximum tensile stress in the concrete as a function of distance up from
the bottom of the bolt termination for a 6-inch diameter plate; it shows how the tensile stress peaks
then reduces rapidly with this distance -- to zero at 3 or 3.5 inches. The shape and extent of the
tensile stress region shows little dependence on bolt length; this tensile stress region simply occurs
in the concrete wherever the bolt ends. Figure 5-4 shows how rapidly maximum tensile stress
reduces with radial distance, starting at the radius of the plate (3 inches), falling to zero within 6.5
inches of the bolt/plate axis. Thus each termination creates a small localized region of high stress
in the surrounding concrete. The scale of this region is such that rebar affects it little. The local
high stresses will tend to cause local cracking, and using a long anchor bolt to move the
termination point as low as possible in the block has the benefit of moving this “hot spot” away
from where it can cause trouble. Moving the termination right into the mat under the foundation
block ensures that any cracks developed are unlikely to grow to the extent where they become
visible and unsightly or contribute to any deterioration of installation strength.

Since the anchor bolt stretch tends to increase in direct proportion to length, it is worth reviewing
whether the compression of the “stack” also increases significantly with anchor bolt length. Table
5-2 summarizes stack compression resistance. Figure 5-5 shows how “stack” compression (based
on finite element analysis) increases as a function of anchor bolt length under 120,000 lb anchor
bolt tension. Figure 5-5 shows that the total compression increases gradually with anchor bolt
length from 7.5 mils at 25 inches bolt length to about 11.5 mils for the longest anchor bolt (120
inches) considered in this parametric investigation. The corresponding anchor bolt stretch is

35
approximately 1.3 mils per inch or 156 mils for the longest anchor bolt considered. With an
anchor bolt length of 72 inches or more, the ratio of bolt stretch to stack compression approaches
10:1 -- a desirable target.

36
Table 5-1. Concrete Tensile Stresses Vs. Anchor Bolt Length (Initial Anchor
Bolt Preload - 1500 Microstrain); (Plate Thickness = 3"; Plate Diameter = 6")

Case Bolt Len Final Bolt Tensile Strs Compressive Strs Stack Defl
No. (in.) Strn S1 Sy S1 Sy (mils)
6A 25 1217 1001 942 -160 -1925 7.4
6B 31 1254 1055 997 -92 -1618 7.9
6C 37 1282 1088 1032 -79 -1405 8.2
6D 43 1306 1138 1088 -62 -1240 8.6
6F 80 1375 1183 1123 -85 -1628 10.1
6G 120 1405 1202 1142 -76 -1503 11.5

Table 5-2. Stack Deflection Vs. Bolt Length

Case Bolt Stack

No. Len(in.) Defl(mils)
- 0 0
6A 25 7.4
6B 31 7.9
6C 37 8.2
6D 43 8.6
6F 80 10.1
6G 120 11.5

37
 1400

1200

1000
Tensile Stress, psi

800
S1
Sy
600

400

200

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Bolt Length

Figure 5-1. Tensile Concrete Stress at Termination as a Function of Bolt Length

38
 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-200

-400

-600

-800

S1
-1000
Sy

-1200

-1400

-1600

-1800

-2000

Figure 5-2. Compressive Concrete Stress at Termination as a Function of Anchor

Bolt Length

39
 1400

1200

1000

800

600
Stress Sy (psi)

120"depth
73"depth
400 36"depth
18"depth
200

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-200

-400

-600
Vertical Position (inches)

Figure 5-3. Maximum Local Concrete Stress as a Function of Distance Up From

the Bottom of the Bolt Termination at a Wide Range of Bolt Lengths

40
 1200

1000

800
Stress Sy (psi)

600 18"depth
36"depth
73"depth
400 120"depth

200

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

-200
Horizontal Position (inches)

Figure 5-4. Maximum Local Stress as a Function of Radial Distance from the
Bolt Centerline (Starting at the Outer Limit of the Termination Plate)

41
 12

10

8
Deflection (mils)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Anchor Bolt Length (in.)

Figure 5-5. Stack Compression Vs. Bolt Length - Anchor Bolt Tension

42
6. INFLUENCE OF CHOCK AND GROUT PARAMETERS

Finite element results show that an epoxy chock deflects with sufficient uniformity over its extent
in the horizontal plane that its compressive deflection characteristics can be modeled with one
dimensional analysis. Provided it has uniform thickness, the grout layer at the top of the block
may be similarly analyzed. Of interest is how much the chock and grout layer compress under
load, how chock and grout geometry and material properties influence the deflection, and the role
that time and temperature may play in this deflection.

An appealing approach to calculating deflection of a thin layer under normal compressive load over
its surface is to treat it as a short, broad “column”. The stiffness of a slender elastic column, K col
under a vertical load is:

Kcol = E A / h [6-1]

where:

E = Young’s Modulus.
A = compressed area.
H = the height of the column.

The material in a slender column is free to deform at right angles to the applied load. Poisson’s
ratio quantifies this deformation, but does not enter into the formula for column stiffness.

When the column goes from slender to broad, the material near the middle has less freedom to
deform horizontally, because the partially incompressible material further out constrains it. Thus, a
chock has a higher stiffness than the above formula would give, specifically:

Klayer = F1 Eeff A / h [6-2]

where:

Klayer = the stiffness of the chock or loaded layer of foundation grout.

Eeff = the effective material Young’s Modulus (inverse of creep compliance for the time of
interest).

43
A = the loaded area.
h = the thickness of the chock or layer.
F1 = a shape factor (typically between 1 and 2 for the configuration and materials under
consideration).

Figure 6-1 plots compression of a 2-inch thick square chock as a function of the length of one side,
loaded at 1000 psi, as predicted by finite element analysis, for a material with Young’s Modulus of
one million and a Poisson’s ration of 0.4. The figure shows that deflection falls by a factor close
to 2 over the range of side length considered. This side length goes from “slender” (one-quarter of
the chock thickness) to “broad” (twelve times the chock thickness). This implies an epoxy chock
generally has a higher stiffness than that based on a simple column model, for a given value of
effective Young’s Modulus. From this data, a 12-inch square chock with thickness of 2 inches
and an effective modulus of one million psi has a stiffness of over 1 x 108 lbs/inch. Figure 6-2
replots the deflection data non-dimensionally as stiffening “shape” factor (F1) versus the ratio of
side length to chock thickness. This shape factor approaches 1.75 for typical chock dimensions.

Figure 6-3 shows how compression of a 12-inch by 12-inch square chock, loaded to 1000 psi, 2
inches thick, varies with effective Young’s Modulus in the range 0.2 x 106 to 5 x 106 psi. The
deflection varies inversely with Young’s Modulus, with a range of 0.2 mils to 5.5 mils.

A GMRC supported test program to determine time and temperature deflection characteristics of
epoxy materials provided by three suppliers has shown that effective Young’s Modulus for chock
materials ranges from about 106 to 2.5 x 106 psi (accounting for creep) for loading periods of 104
hours and nominal temperatures up to 120°F. The tests used a pressure loading 200 psi. For
higher loadings to 1000 psi, some nonlinearity is observed, which may cut the effective modulus
in half. The shape factor effect discussed above adds 50 percent or more to the stiffness of typical
chock geometries. Thus, we expect chock deflections to lie below 2.5 mils for most combinations
of material, geometry, and loading for temperatures up to 120°F, even after creep has occurred
over one year. Review of higher temperature results indicates little increase in this deflection even
up to 140°F. Based on these observations, any bolt stretch greater than 50 mils will not likely
deflect the chock more than about 5 percent of the bolt stretch, even after a year of creep for the
tested chock materials for operation at temperatures up to 140°F. The chock grouts tested tend to
incur an initial deflection after one hour, which exceeds the additional creep deflection over the next
year, indicating that the contribution of chock creep alone will generally be significantly less than 5
percent.

44
The above discussion addresses deflection and creep specifically for chock materials. The majority
of installations use additional epoxy material on the top of the concrete and under any soleplates or
rails -- another loaded layer of material subject to deformation and creep. Test data shows
foundation grouts tend to creep more than chock grouts, so foundation design should ensure that
foundation grouts do not introduce significant creep loss of bolt tension that the chock itself
avoids. This is accomplished by keeping the thickness of all grout layers subject to anchor bolt
loading below a few inches (6-inch suggested maximum), by maximizing the length of anchor
bolts, and by checking the anchor bolt tension with a frequency that ensures acceptably low tension
loss over the period between checks. The potential for foundation grout creep must be considered
with steel chocks just as with epoxy or composite chocks.

Figure 6-4 shows percentage loss in bolt tension due to creep as a function of anchor bolt length
and grout layer thickness. Table 6-1 lists the geometry and material properties selected for Figure
6-4.

Some quantities in Table 6-1 deserve discussion or further definition. A high strength bolt material
has been chosen with a yield of 105,000 psi (ASTM A-193). The chock thickness chosen is 2
inches -- a relatively high value for an epoxy chock. The initial bolt tension (40 percent of yield)
and chock area combine to give a pressure loading of 585 psi (bolt tension = 75,000 lbs). The
chock modulus and grout modulus, each 1.5 million lb/in2, are reasonable median values for
materials tested at an accelerated test time of 10,000 hours. The creep tests actually generated
values for compliance, and effective Young’s Modulus is the inverse of compliance selected at the
longest time of interest (one year -- ~10,000 hours is suggested). In addition to the bolt tension, a
per chock load of 10,000 lbs has been added in the analysis to account for the compressor’s
weight. The 10,000 hour creep ratio is the ratio of compliance at 10,000 hours to compliance at
one hour for constant temperature. Again, these are representative values, slightly on the high side
of the median test values. There is quite a spread in both values, as tested, and providing a
comprehensive set of curves to address all ranges of material properties and geometry is not
attempted here. Application of the available data for specific selections of these parameters is
straightforward enough that it should be considered for any new or repaired compressor; Figure 6-
4 should be treated as a broad guideline and representative of the sort of analysis which should be
specifically undertaken for each installation to help ensure integrity, particularly with higher loads,
higher temperatures, thicker grout layers, or shorter bolts.

45
Figure 6-4 confirms the desirability of thin grout layers and long anchor bolts. It shows that for
the specific parameters of this analysis a bolt length of at least 48 inches coupled with a grout layer
no thicker than 4.5 inches are needed to keep the creep loss in bolt tension below 5 percent at
110°F.

In all results presented in Figure 6-4, the contribution of chock creep was 10 percent or less of the
total loss in bolt tension; thus foundation grout creep dominates even when it is acceptably low.

6. 1 INFLUENCE OF T EMPERATURE ON C HOCK AND G ROUT C OMPRESSION

By the nature of epoxy materials, the passage of time causes an increase in compression of an
epoxy layer under compressive load; an increase in temperature also causes an increase in
compression. A bolt tightened at a temperature of 70°F or below will immediately experience some
loss in tension when heated to 110°F because of the temperature dependent Young’s Modulus of
epoxy. While the analysis of grout creep presented in Figure 6-4 was for 110°F, and the results
presented included the effect of bolt loosening for temperatures up to 110°F, it is recommended that
any anchor bolt be retightened at operating temperature. It is further important to note that
interpretations of the preceding examples may become less conservative when the operating
temperature exceeds 110°F, and that retightening at operating temperature becomes even more
significant if that operating temperature exceeds 110°F. Figure 6-5 presents a plot of chock
compression and anchor bolt tension versus time for a combination of anchor bolt, chock and
foundation grout, where the bolt is tightened at 70°F, then heated to 130°F, and operated at that
temperature for 10,000 hours continuously. The step increase in compression and loss of bolt
tension as a result of the step increase in temperature are apparent, and emphasize the need for bolt
retightening at operating temperature.

6. 2 10,000 HOUR C REEP R ATIO

This quantity referred to in the preceding sections of this report, provides a measure of the relative
contributions of “initial deflection,” and creep to the deflection after about one year:

RC10K = 104A [6-3]

46
Where we define RC10K as the deflection under-load (or compliance) after 10,000 hours divided by
the deflection under load after one hour. We find that for the three chock grouts tested, the 10,000
hour creep ratio lies between 1.18 and 1.63 at 110°F, and between 1.06 and 1.34 at 140°F. For
the three foundation grouts tested, it lies between 1.6 and 6.67 at 110°F, and between 1.37 and
3.53 at 140°F.

Since all chock epoxies tested exhibit RC10K values of less than 2 at all temperatures between 110°F
and 140°F, it can be inferred that for these chock materials, the initial deflection contributes more
than the creep resulting from the passage of one year provided the bolt is tightened hot. Some of
the foundation grouts exhibit R C10K values greater than two, and in this case, creep contributes
more than the initial deflection.

Even though the relative contribution of creep to lateral deflection appears to fall with increasing
temperature, the total deflection under load increases with temperature because temperature
“softens” the material and at 140°F, the effective Young's Modulus may fall as low as one-third the
values in Table 6-1.

47
 Table 6-1. Geometry and Material Properties for Figure 6-4

Bolt Length, inches 60

Bolt Diameter, inches 1.5
Initial Bolt Stress, % of Yield 40
Bolt Modulus, psi 2.80E+07
Bolt Yield Stress, psi 105,000
Chock Thickness, inches 2
Chock Area, inch squared 144
Grout Thickness, inches 3
Time Dep. Chock Compliance, inch squared/lb 0.667E-6
Time Dep. Grout Compliance, inch squared/lb 0.667E-6
Chock Modulus, psi 1.5E+6
Grout Modulus, psi 1.5E+6
Compressor Weight Per Bolt, lb 10,000
10,000 Hour Chock Creep Ratio 1.3
10,000 Hour Grout Creep Ratio 3
Time in Hours at which Compliance Values Apply 10,000

48
 2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
Deflection, Mils

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Side, Inches

Figure 6-1. Epoxy Chock Compression Vs. Chock Width (1000 psi Compressive
Pressure)

49
 2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
F1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Width/Height Ratio

Figure 6-2. Shape Factor Vs. Ratio of Side Width to Chock Thickness

50
 6

4
Deflection, Mils

0
0.00E+00 1.00E+06 2.00E+06 3.00E+06 4.00E+06 5.00E+06
Young's Modulus

Figure 6-3. Epoxy Chock Compression Vs. Young's Modulus (2"x12"x12")

Chock with 1000 psi Surface Load

51
 14

12
Loss in Bolt Tension, %

10 3 Inch Grout
4.5 Inch Grout
6 Inch Grout
8

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Bolt Length, Inches

Figure 6-4. Loss in Bolt Tension (% as a Function of Bolt Length, Bolt Yield
Strength = 105,000 psi)

52
 Compression in Mils & Percent Loss in Bolt Tension
4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00 Compression
T Loss %
1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Time in Hours

Figure 6-5. Grout Layer Compression and Percent Loss in Bolt Tension with
Increase from 70 to 130°F at 1 Hour and No Bolt Retightening; Bolt Length =
48"; Steel Chock; Grout Layer = 4.5" Thick

53