Sei sulla pagina 1di 96

tir.,:r'_'- r.

' r-rf
-.r '-: r
-.=$:;=
,r-\ !
rt
,t
1
t
i
\G
-{
FOUNDATION
DEffi
HANDBOOK
=-'
Reprinted
from HyDRocARBo[Fnocisslrvc
.
Gutf
pubtishing
rye,?;.7ry.'
;$^w* W
-!.
D*.,-tl,
FOUNDA
Published
b
Manuals in the series are:
This reference
manual has been reprinted from the
issues
of HYDROCARBON
PROCESS+ruO.
Otfrer-
regUlar
Handbooks
LINES FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT
I NSTRUM
N MANUAL
TME
$tr'
:l:i,
D.ELARE
STA
ooK
i
;
FOUNDATION DESIGN HANDBOOK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOWER FOUNDATIONS ..
Foundation Design For Stacks And Towers
Simplified Design For Tower Foundations .
Calculation Form For Foundation Design .
Page No.
Use Graph To Size Tower Footings
Simplified Design Method For lntricate Concrete
Column Loading
Unusual Foundation Design For Tall
Foundation Sizing Simplified . . .. .
Towers
Dowel Sizing For Tower Foundations . . ,
Short Cuts To Tower Foundation Design
VESSEL FOUNDATIONS . .
4
5
2',|
27
35
39
44
50
53
57
60
Foundation Design For 8-Legged Vessels
Pressure Vessel Foundation Design . . .
COMPUTER FOUNDATION DESIGN
How To Calculate Footing Soil Bearing By Computer
Concrete Support Analysis By Computer . . .
FOUNDATIONS ON WEAK SOILS .... .
Foundations On Weak Soils .
Graphs Speed Spread Footing Design
Use Graph To Analyze Pile Supports .
.61
.63
.70
. 7',1
.77
.84
.85
89
.93
3
\
TOWER FOUNDATIONS
#**.*" -i
{}-@
Jng*
dd-P
Foundation Design
For Stacks and Towers
The same principles ,pply in both stacks and towers. Use this method in
making your calculations for either.
V. O. Morsholl, Tennessee Easlman Company, Kingspori, Tenn.
Frorn the viewpoint of the f oundation designer,
stacks and tor.r.ers may be divided into tr,vo general
classifications, deper-rding on the method utilized
to maintain them in a vertical position; (a) Self-
supporting, which resist the overturning forces by
the size, shape and weight of the foundation
;
(b)
Guyed, in which the c,verturning forces are re-
sisted by guy u,ires. It is obvious that the con-
ditions alTectir-rg the design of founclations fc.,r
these tr,r,o types u,ill not be the same, ar-rd that it
is necessary to treat them separately.
STA(--KS AND TOWERS are closely related as
far as founrlation design is conccrnecl-in fact, the
same principles apply. In the case of stacks, the
brick lining is a r,ariable load, corresponding to, and
requiring the sanrc treatnrent as the liquid, insr-rlation,
etc., in a tou.er. This cliscussior-r will be based on the
design of tower forrndations, however, it should be
kept in n-rind that it is also applicable to stacks.
2. Self-Supporting Tower
There are two main considerations in designing
the foundation for a self-supporting tower; (a) soii
loading (b) stability. The foundation must be of
such size and shape that the load on the soil below
will not exceed the maximum load which it will
safely support. The foundation must also maintain
the tower in a vertical position, so that it will
not be overturned by the maximum forces acting
upon it.
No direct method of calculating the size of the
foundation has been developed, therefore, it must
be determined by trial and error. A size is as-
sumed, and the soil loading and stability calcu-
lated. If the results are not satisfactory, another
assumption is made, and the calculations repeated.
3. Soil Loading
(See Section 20 for complete definition of terms.)
The soil loading may be determined by the
following formula:
S: S,* S, (l)
where
S: total unit soil loading (lbs.,/sq. ft.)
51 : unit soil loading due to dead load (lbs,,/sq. ft.)
Sr: unit soil loading due to overturning mo,ment
(lbs.,/sq. ft.)
4. Dead Load
The dead load S, may be determined as follows:
^w
Jr-
a
Q)
where
a: area of base of foundation (sq. ft.)
'W:
total_ weight on soil (pounhj)
calculated by
the following equation:
-W:
YY.,:l
W. (3)
Wt
:
Minimum dead load (pounds), which is ihi
weight of the empty tower plus
the weight of
the foundation, including the earth fill on top
of the base.
W.: Weight of auxiliary material and equipmenf
supported by the tower and foundation
(pounds), which should include the liquid in
the tower, insulation, platforms, pipin!, etc.
(Does
not include weight of tower)
Thls is o revised orticle whlch wos prevlously published
in the August, 1943 lssue of PETROLEUTI REFINER. All
copies of thot lssue, oll reprints ond
qll
coples of thc
l94O Process Hondbook, In which the origlnal qrticle
wss
reproduced, foiled to meet th. demqnd for thls englneer-
ing doto.
When the outhor consldered tho revlslon he extended
the subiect to lnclude octuol deslgn of foundotlon typ6r
commonly required In the erecllon of refinery vcsgctg.
fhe resuli ls o thorough study of o sublect whlch contlnues
ro hold o forefront posiiion in refinery cnglneerlng.
Reprinrs will be provided ln quantity sumcient to lnclude
lhe demond thot hos extended Into constructlon fietds
outslde of refining. Prlce
$l.OO
por copy.
5. Overturning Load
The overturning load S, is the result of the over-
turning moment. Under ordinary conditions, the
only force tending to overturn the tower is the
r.vind pressure.
The magnitude of the wind pressure is obvi-
ously a fun-ction of the wind veloiity, which varies
in different localities. In many instances laws have
been enacted which state the wind velocity or
wind pressure to be used for design purposes.
The United States Wcather Bureau has pro-
posed the following formula :
B
p
:
0.004
io
v'
(4)
where
-
;:
wind pressure on a flat surface
(pounds,/sq ft')
B : baromctric
pressure
(inches Hr)
V :
velocity of wind (miles per horrr)
For a barometric pressure of 30 inches, the
formula becomes:
P:
0'004V'
(5)
It has been found that the wind pressure on a
cylindrical tower is about 60 percent of that on a
flat surface. For a cylindrical tower, theref ore,
formula (5) becomes:
P":
where
P":
0.0025v'
(6)
wind oressure on the projected area of a cylin-
drical'tower
(pounds per square foot).
Wind Prcssurc
In most localities, zL wind velocity of 100 miles
per hour is considered the ma'ximum. This giv.es
'u
pr..rrr." of 25 pounds per square foot on the
oriiected area of
-the
tower, which is the figure
generaliy used for design pu.rposes. I.t should be
Emphasized, however, tiiat this figure is subject to
variation in d.ifferent localities, and that local laws
should not be overlooked in this connection'
(Note : As a matter of interest,. the wind pres-
,ri. o., an octagon shaped stack is considered to
be ?0 percent of that on a flat surface.).
Figure 1 represents a
.tower,
mountg9 on a con-
crete-foundati,on.
The
'arind
pressure (P*) tends to
rotate the tower and foundation about point A at
the intersection of the vertical centerline and the
base of the foundation. This rotating effect pro-
duces an overturning
moment which can be cal-
culated as follows:
where
M,
:
overturning moment about the base of the
foundation
(foot
Pounds)
p* :
ioiat wina Laa
(bounds) to be calculated as
follows:
P- :
o. D"H
(8)
L: ierrer irm of wind load (feet) to be calculated
as follows:
Bosc
FIGURE I
Foundotion for self-supporting
tover'
Mr: P- L
H
L-h,*
,
D.:diameter of tower measured
( feet)
H
-height
of tower (feet)
hr
:
height of foundation (feet)
(7)
Foundotion
ToP
Gro
Foundotion
(9)
over insulation
It should be noted that alt dimensions are stated
i.,-ieet, giving the overturning moment
(M3) in
ioot pou"'at. ft',i. avoids the use of the excessively
larse numbers encotlntered with the usual inch
poind units. Care should be taken, however, to
6
^Mr
>2:z
where
Z
:
section modulus
-of
the base of the found.ation.
(Note:
Z to be based
""
a;-er.ion. i, i;;i.i
The value of (Z) can be expressed
as follows:
,:*
where
(11)
I :
moment
of inertia of ttre base of the founda-
tion (based
on dimension,
i,i-tJ"ti.
c: distance from neutral a*ii oJ iJiria"tion
l"s"
to point of maximum
,t..ss (fiefj.
.
Having calculated- (Sr)
and (Sr) as explained
above, the total soil ioid ,na")-iilriimum
dead
load conditions can b.e determin.d bt
"q;"ii;"*(-ii This maximum soil load occurs
'r,t
if,. .agd ,;f
ll:lgl,"1",ion,
designated as
p,
""J
i. irequEntty
reterred to as the
,.toe
pressure.,,
ft is obviout
that the maximum toe pressure (S)
should never
exceed the safe bearing load of th; ;il in question.
use consistent units, that is foot pounds, in all
calculations.
..Jl-: :l."rs,
or load, o1-lhe soil resulting
from
:1:_?":.t,i'ning
moment (y,)
valies from p"oint to
potnt, and the maximum load (Sr) can bi calcu_
lated as follows:
times,.(Sl.)
must never be less than (Sr). In a
perfectly
bal_anced
system, (S._) i;
"*ritty
.q"ri
to (Sr), in which case
Snro
:
Sr-
-
Sz:0
(l_d)
..Althou.gh,-such
a.bala".S..d
sy:19* is rarely pos_
sible, it is the ideal condition.' tt e- up*a.d'fo.ce
at E due to the overturning
-o*.r,i
il-;_;;i;
balanced
by_the dead load, io tfrui-tfr.
stress at
r, ls zero. I he stress at F in such cases is the
minimum
which can exist
""a
,iiif
-maintain
a
stable system.
^__l!:,!.rld
be emphasized.tha_t
while (S,*) is fre_
qu_enily greater than (Sr) it should nevei be less.
It should also be eri-rphasized
tfrai ttre stabilitv
is based on the minimum
dead ioaa
iwJ-;;tia
the.soil
-loading
is based on the ma*)mum
dead
load (W).
7. Example No. I
Design the concrete founation for a tower 4
ft. dia. by 54 ft. high, including a 4 ft. skirt, and
weighing.30,000 lbs. empty. The insulation, plat-
forms and piping weigh 9b00 lbs., the maxirirum
wind velociJy is 100 mlles per hour, and the frost
line at the location of the proposed'installation
is
4 ft. below grade. The maiimum safe soil loading
is 2000 pounds per square foot.
Since the ,r.., ,,,1""11tti'r,.
o",o* grade; the
foundation will be 6 ft. deep, with the- top 1 ft.
above grade, making the bottom of the foundation
5 ft. below
'grade,
br 1 ft. below the frost line.
The foundation will be octagon shape, which is
recommended
for such cases, as it combines the
features of stability, ease of construction and mini_
mum material better.than
other shapes. The top
course will have a short diameter of O ft. sin.l
the tower is 4 ft. dia. and allowance must be made
for founda.tion bolts, etc. The short diameter of the
Dase wlll be assumed to be 13.5 ft. The thickness
of the base.will depend on the bending and shear_
l"C l.or.9:
(see Sections
.1-9
to 19h incl.), however,
for the time being the thickness will be assumed
to be 2 ft.
Th_e weight of the foundation
will be calculated
as tollows (all
slide-rule figures):
*l:l :f
6.ft. octagon
:
0,8f8 d,^1-0.828
X 6,:29.8 sq. ft.
vofume- ot top course
:
4 ft.
X
29.9- 119.2 cu. ft.
r\rea ot base (octagor).
(q): q.-g?g
X I3.5,: l5l sq. ft.
Volume of base :2"1t.
k i5i :30r;;l
i;.
"
Total. volume :119.2
*'
jOZ:
4Zl i ;;.' i;.
welght of concrete:
__ .421.2
cu. ft.
\ 150 lbs.,/cu. ft. :63,666
16..
Volume of earth'fill
W:i{fu
if-='f LIJ'rt'r:,1,.!'i;r'.',3,2,11?=39lr36io'l
vv erg_nr or
_e-mpty
tower :
30,000 lbs.
_wt
: 30,000
+
63,000
+
3Z,7OO:125,700
tbs.
W, will be as follows:
Insulation, platforms,
piping,
etc.
:
9,000 lbs.
Water required to fili it
"
t6i"".-
(4 ft. dia.) (50 ft. high) :39,5001bs.
Total (W.)
:4g3mlE;
W:125,700
f
48,500: LZ4,2OO lbs. (from
equation 3)
a: l5l sq. ft.
^
174,200|bs.
5': -1Sl:qlTI- : 1155 lbs.,/sq. ft.: Maximum dead
load on soil (equation
2)
Allowing
2,, for the thickness of the insulation,
( 10)
-
It should t. ,,o,"t,ilitigi
is positive at point
I,
,ng negative at E (Figu.l'f y.'tn
oihe, *brds,
rne wtnd load causes compressive
stresses on the
:gil
t. the left of point A, ihe *u*rn"* compres_
:191
9:.Yt.ing.at
f,
and tensile stresses of equal
magnitude
to_the right of A, the maximum
tension
occurrrng at II.
Since the earth has no strength whatever in
tension, it is obvious that the suir of the stresses
at any
-point
must be positive. fn other words, the
base of the foundation. must exert a-comp.es.i.,re
force on the soil over its entire ur"i, ott d.*ir" n
tensile stress will be produced
at E, which *"u.,i
that the tower and fbundation
wili be unstabte,
and
.likely
to be overturned
by the uiiion of the
wind.
.Lt-*":
shown by equation (1) that the maximum
soll load. is equal to (S,
+
Sr). Since the value of
5, at
.pornt.-b
is negative, the minimum
soil load
(*jr:l obvlorsly occurs at point E) is (Sr_Sr).
-rt
rs very lmportant to note that the condition
ot poorest
stability occurs immediately
after the
tower is mounted
on the foundation,
and before
the insulation, platforms, piping, UquiJ, etc., are
m ptace. In calculating the stability,
'therefore,
(S,) must be replaced b"y (S,-) a, foiio*,,
Sr-:
where
Sr-:
Wt
a
(2-a)
T_r.inimum-
soil loading due to dead load
(lbs.,/sq. ft.)
The minimum soil loading which can ever exist,
therefore, is found to occuf at point E when the
dead load is at its minimum value, and can be
expressed as follows:
S*r,: Sr-
-
S,
( l-a)
Therefore, in order that (S*i,) may always be
positive,
thereby assuring a'sti6fe .onaiiio., ut
"tt
7
the effective diameter of the tower exposed to the
action of the wind is 4.5 ft. A wind velocity of 100
miles per hour is equal to 25 pounds per sq. ft. of
projected area.
Therefore:
p.:25 lbs.,/sq. ft.
D.
-
4.5 ft.
H: 54 ft.
P*: 25
X 4.5 X 54
: 6080 lbs. (equation 8)
hr: 6 ft.
54
L:6*
7:33
ft. (equation 9)
Mr
: 6080 X 33:200,000 foot pounds (equation 7)
Z: 0.1016 d'
:
0.1016 X
13.53
:248.5
From equation
(10)
,,:
l@,9%*j$@
:803 lbs./sq. rt. : maxi-
mum soil load due to overturning moment'
The total maximum soil load (toe pressure) can
be calculated from equation (1) as follows:
S
: 1155
*
803: 1958 lbs.,/sq. ft.
This loading is satisfactory, as the soil will
safely support 2000 lbs./sq. ft.
From equation (2-a)
TABLE I
Elements of Octogonol Bose
Radius of
Area a
(sq. Ft.)
o.772
0.900
'r
. 020
This is the dead load under the worst stability
condition, and since it is greater than the over-
turning stress (Sr:803), the soil below the foun-
dation-will always be under compression at all
points, thus indicating that the foundation is
stable.
Usually it is found that the first assumption as
to foundition size is not correct, in which case, an-
other assumption is made, and the calculations
repeated.
it is interesting to note that the soil loadinq of
2000 lbs./sq. ft. allowed in this problem is rather
low, as good clay soil will usually su-pport abou't
4000 lbs./sq. ft. Care should always- be taken, t.o
ascertain the actual load carrying value of the soil
at the site of construction.
8. EccentricitY
It will be noted that there are two forces acting
on foundations of the type under consideration;
(a) The dead load, acting in a vertical- direction;
(b) the wind load, actingln a hotizontal direction.
it e combined ac[io., oithese two forces, that is,
their resultant, has thq same effect as an eccentric
vertical load. As explained previously, it is not
necessary to calculate the eccentricity. in order to
determine the stability of the foundation. Several
methods have been
-
proposed, however, which
make use of the eccentricity, and since there are
definite relationships between eccentricity and sta-
bility, they will be explained as a matter of in-
terest.
The eccentricity can be calculated as follows:
Sr-:
125;700 lbs.
l5r
:830 tbs./sq. ft.
e: Mr
where
-W;
e: eccentricity
(feet)
Short
Dlam.
(Feet)
LenAth lNeutral
Arls
of slde I to Extreme
(Feet)
lFlbffc(Feet)
Sectlon
Modulus Z
1.89
2.16
3.5
4
7.45
10.6
\3.2
(12)
1.158
1. 286
1. 415
t.542
1.67
1. 80
1 .93
2.06
2.t7
2.3r
2.44
2.57
2.70
2.83
2.96
3.09
3.47
3.60
3. 86
3.99
4.24
4.37
4.50
4.63
4.76
4. 89
5.02
5.14
5.27
5.40
5. 53
5. OO
5.78
5.92
6.04
6.17
6. 29
6. 43
6. 56
6. 68
6 .82
6. 94
7.20
7.46
7.58
7.71,
a,23
8. 48
a.75
9. 00
9.26
9. 51
L77
10. 04
10. 28
2.43
2.70
2.98
3.25
3.5i
3.78
4.06
4.59
4.87
5.13
5.41,
5.b/
5.94
6.22
6.48
7.03
6.76
7.30
7. 83
8.11
8.38
8..65
9.O2
9. 19
9.46
9.72
10.00
to.25
10. 55
10.81
11.08
11.35
11.62
11. 90
12. \7
72.43
12. 98
13.25
13.52
73.79
74.o7
14 .33
14. 01
14.88
15_ 15
15.42
15.68
15. 96
16. 23
16.77
17.3t
17.85
18, 38
18. 92
19.47
20.01
20.55
21. 09
21 .65
1.863
2.O70
2.484
2. 691
2.898
3. 105
3.3r2
3.519
3.726
3.933
4.140
4.347
4.554
4.761
4. 968
5.382
5.775
5.589
5. 796
6.003
0. 210
6.417
6.624
6.831
7. 038
7 .245
7.452
7.659
7. 866
8.073
8.280
8.487
8.694
8. 901
9.108
9.315
9.522
9.729
9. 936
10.143
10. 350
10.557
10. 764
10.971
11.178
11.385
17.592
11.799
12. 006
1,2.2t3
t2.420
12.434
8.244
13. 662
14. 076
14.
490
14.904
15. 318
15.732
16. 146
16. 560
16. 8
20.7
25.0
29.8
34. 8
40.5
46. 5
52.8
59.5
66. 8
74.5
82.8
sl.2
100.0
109.8
119.5
140. 0
r29.2
151.0
162. 0
174
186
199
2t2
226
240
268
283
299
348
365
383
401
420
438
458
177
497
518
539
560
582
603
526
650
672
695
720
745
755
848
902
958
1015
1075
1134
1195
1260
7325
4.5
5
5.5
D
6.5
7
l.c
8
8.5
I
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5
IJ
13.5
14
14. 5
15
16
16. 5
17
77.5
18
18. 5
19
19. 5
20
20.5
21
21.5
23.5
24
24.5
25
25.5
26
26.5
27
27.5
28
28.5
29
29.5
30
31
34
36
38
39
40
Note : The value of (e) calculated by equation
(12) is the maximum value, as the dead load-.(Wt)
is minimum. The eccentricity for other conditions
of dead loading may be obtiined by substituting
the proper weight in place of (W,).
It^ha; been ihown-by previous discussion that
the following relationships exist:
^Wt
5r-: -f-
^Mr
}z:
_7_
z-
l-
c
combining equations (10) and (11)
M'c
c-
-
J2-
I
rearranging equation (12)
Mr: Wte
combining equations (12a) and 13)
Wtec
c
--
J'-
I
(2-a)
( 10)
(11)
( 13)
(12a)
(14)
s.23
12. 68
16.45
21.90
27.90
34.90
42.80
52.00
62.70
74. tO
87. 30
101.60
117.60
135. 00
154.10
774.50
227.00
198.00
248.50
277 .OO
309.20
342. 00
375. 00
416. 00
455. 00
497.(n
543.00
590. 00
624. 00
652. 00
731.00
811. 00
873.00
933. 00
1005.00
1085. 00
1145. 00
1240. 00
1320. 00
1400.00
1490.00
i585. 00
1685. 00
1787, 00
1900.00
2010. 00
2110.00
2220.00
2350. 00
2470.OO
2600.00
2740.OO
3021.00
3330. 00
3660. 00
3980. 00
4370.00
4730. 00
5130.00
5580.00
6020. 00
6500.00
It w.a_s shown by equation (1-a) that in order
to avoid tensile stress at E (which would make
the foundation unstable), the maximum value of
(Sr) is as follows:
ocTAOOII
a
=
o.gzgdl-
c : o.s4td
r
=
o.o55d+
z I o.Ioledr
r: 0.257d
Sz: Sr*
thus making the value of (S-sn) equal
shown by equation (1-d).
.-Substituting
the values obtained by
(2-a) and (1a) in equation (15)
(ls)
to zero, as
equations
(18)
for stable
( le)
(20)
(21)
(22)
Wtec Wt
la
The value of I can be expressed as follows:
T
-
^-2
r
-
al
where
r: radius of gyration of base (feet)
substituting in equation (16)
Wtec W,
ar' a
H_gnce, the maximum value of (e)
conditions is
r"
enax:
I
In the case of a circular foundation
d
C:T
Substituting in equation (19)
2f
'-""
- d
e^^,:0.122 d
Mr 200,000 foot pounds
e:=w;:
I25,700 Ibs.
--
1.59 ft.
.,
Substituting the value.of (rr) in equation (21),
the maxrmum value of (e) for a circular base is
(*), ,n"r confirming the commen rule that in a
stable foundation
the resultant must fall within
the middle-quarter
of the diameter of a circular
base.
In the case of the octagon base usually used for
tow.er foundations,
the maximum allow;ble eccen_
tricity becomes
( 16)
(17)
uE)ucou
d
=
O,866d,2
c
=
0.577d
r I
o.o6d'
z
=
o,1o4d'
r : o.e64d
SAUAE
d=
d2
c : o.?o7d
d4
I TI'
z : o.Ilgdt
r: 0.289d
OIRCIA
q:
o.?g6{d2
c
-.8-
r : o.o{gd+
z : o.og8dt
13 A
-?r
The area surrounding
the center of the base,
within which the resullant causes a compressive
stress over the entire base, is known as the kernel
or kern.
. ,{t
f9l.19ws, th.en, that the resultant must always
fall within the kern of the base in order to assure
stability.
.
In-exampl.e
No. 1 (Section
Z), it was shown that
the foundation is stable, since the overturnins
stress (!r) i. less than the minimum dead loaE
stress (S.1").
The_stability
of this foundation
will now be cal_
culated_ (as example No. 2) on the basis of the
eccentricity for the purpose'of
comparing the two
methods.
From equation (12) the eccentricity is
Eremenrs llnll"loi,,* r**
(Axis
A-A)
than the maximum p_ermissible
eccentricity (1.64)
the foundation is stable, thus confirming ihe corr'_
clusion reached in Section ?.
9. Method of Calculating Soil Load From
Eccentricity
It is possible to calculate the soil loading (toe
pressure) as a function of the eccentricity: This
method will.b_e explained in order that it inay be
compared with the method described in Seciions
3, 4 and. 5.
Let (k) be a factor by which the dead load pres-
s.ure must be multiplied-to
equal the soil loading
due to overturning as follows I
Frorn equation (ZZ),
the maximum permissible
eccentrlclty 1s
e^",: 0.722d: 0.122
X
13.5 : t.S{ 11.
Ipasmuch as the actual eccentricity (1.S9) is less (s7)
9
kSr:Sr
.)c
----J
n
FIGURE 3b
FIGURE I
Substituting
in equation (1)
S: S,*kS,
or
S:S,(1+k)
From equation (2)
w
c-.....:_
rr_
a
From equation (10)
Mr
c-
-
u,-
Z
therefore
Mr: SrZ
Substituting the value of (Sr) from
(57)
Mt-S,kZ
therefore
^Mr
Sr:
TZ
From equations (2) and (62)
"-w-Mr
r'-
a
-
kZ
and
wkz
tvlr
-
-a
From equation (12)
M,
e:
wi
Mr
e:
w-
Equation (64) can be written
M,
_.kZ
.W-
a
The value of (e) calculated from equation (12)
is maximum for'any particular foundation, which
is the value governing s_tability. At the present
moment we are concerned with the maximum soil
loadins
(toe pressure) which occurs---when the
dead l"oad is maximum. It is therefore necessary
to substitute
(W) in place of (W,) as follows:
Since the ,.trn (#)
occurs in both equations
(65) and (66), it follows that
KZ
e:-; (67)
and
ea
1-
-
-
k: -Z
(68)
Substituting this value of (k) in equation (59)
/ ee
)
(69)
S:S,\r+
zl
In the case of an octagonal base,
a:0.828 d'3
(70)
Z : 0.01016 d8
(71)
Substituting these values in equation (68)
8.1 5e
koct.ro": --6-
U2)
Therefore, for an octagonal base, equation (69)
may be written:
/ 8.15e \
soctsson:
s,(r+?/
(73)
For comparison, the maximum soil loading in
example Nb. 1 will be calculate4 (as example No.
3) on^the basis of eccentricity' From previous cal-
culations, it was found that:
Mt: 200,000 foot pounds
W: 174,200 pounds
Therefore by equation (65)
200,m0
e:-ffi:1.15
The maximum soil loading due to the dead load
(Sr) was found to be 1155 pounds per square foot,
and (dr) is equal to 13.5 feet.
Substituting in equation (?3)
/ 8.r5 x 1.15 \
S:1155(r+ff/
S
:
1155 X
1.693: 1955 pounds per square foot.
This checks the value of 1958 pounds per square
foot calculated (by slide rule) in Section 7, thus
(s8)
(se)
(10)
(60)
equation
(61
)
(62)
(63)
(64)
(12)
(6s)
(2)
IO
(66)
FIGURE 3e
)c
/l
---]n
i
,-lt
_._.___:t.-.
indicating that either method yields the same
result.
10. Soil Loading at Any Point
Having calculated the eccentricity, it is a simple
matter to determine the unit stress on the soil at
any point whose distance from the centroidal axis
is (c').
The unit stress on the soil, from equation (1),
is as follows:
S: S,
*
S, (l)
Since the value of (Sr) for points to the right of
the axis is negative, the value of (S) will be :
S: S,-S,
(see
equation 1-a) (1-b)
Equations (1) and (1-b) can be combined as
follows:
S:SrtS,
From equation (2)
-_w
", -;
The value of (Sr) can be
^
Wec'
Sr: -
^l
(see
equations
Thereiore,
^
W Wec'
a Zt'
Simplifying:
t:+(,*5)
obvious for this purpose
that the same value of the
dead load should be used in the calculation of the
eccentricity (e), by means of equation (12).
11. Stresses in Tower Shell
The steel shell is required to withstand the
stresses resulting from, (a) the internal pressure;
(b) the dead load; (c) the overturning moment
due to the wind pressure. This discussion will be
confined to the stress resulting from the wind
pressure.
It may be assumed, in determining the stress
due to the wind pressure, that the tower is a
vertical beam, and that the wind produces a bend-
ing moment. The ordinary formulas for determin-
ing bending moment and stress may therefore be
applied, as follows :
*': n-
(+)
where
Mt: bending
pounds).
also
^
Mtc
S,:
__l_
moment about base of tower
( 1-c)
(2)
(23)
(26)
(foot
where
St
:
unit stress in tower shell
moment (Mt). (lbs./sq. ft.)
Note: The unit stress in the tower shell (S,) is
calculated in pounds per square foot in order to be
consistent with the other calculations which are
in foot-pound unts. Steel stresses, however, are
ordinarily given in pounds per square inch. In
order to convert the stress from (pounds/sq. ft.)
as calculated, to (pounds/sq. in.) it is necessarv
to divide (S,) by 1aa.
The shell is a hollow cylinder, in which case:
D
c:-T
Gg)
and
l:
64
(D'- D't)
Q9)
where
D :
outside diameter of tower (feet)
Dr: inside diameter of tower (feet)
when
t: thickness of shell
(feet)
and
(27)
due to bending
written:
14 and, 17)
(24)
This value of (S) is the total unit stress at any
point whose distance (in feet) from the centroidal
axis is (c').
It is important to note that equations (1-a), (1a)
and (1?) referred to above were used to deter-
mine the stability and the eccentricity under the
poorest condition, which obviously occurs when
the dead load is at its minimum. Equation (24)
can be used to determine the stress under any
dead load, therefore, equation (24) may be based
on either (W) or (Ws) depending on the dead
load for which the stress is to be determined- It is
(30)
(31
)
II
D
-
Dr:11
Dr:D
-2t
Substituting in equation (29)
I:
64
[D'-
(D
-zt)'l
Substituting the values of I and
(27)
Mt
32M.D
- ,]D.-(D]ZDT
St:
#rr'-
(D-2t)41
32 MtD
:
32 MtD
:@
G2)
The values of t2, t3 and ta are quite small and
the three terms in the denominator containing
them may be neglected without introducing ap-
preciable error. For practical purposes, therefore,
equation (3?) may be written as follows:
^
32MtD
s1:
gTpq-
This equation may be reduced to:
^
4M.
5t:
z'Dl
Assuming that the number of bolts is repre-
sented by (N), each bolt will be required to carry
the stress over a portion of the circumference rep-
rbsented as follows :
4\{t W"
TDJ
-
qrDb (37)
,rDt
-T-
The load to be carried by
expressed
,lrDn
/ 4M, W. \
q--
:r:
-N
\ z.Do,
-
rD,
)
4Mt W"
:ND"-
N
where
Sr: maximum load on each bolt (pounds).
The nut should always be tight, placing some
initial tension on the bolt. Of course due allow-
stress per foot of circum-
anchor bolts is
(38)
each bolt can be
The maximum tensile
ference to be resisted by
(31)
c in equation
D
2
(3e)
The thickness of shel1 plate required to resist
the bending moment only, is therefore
4Mt
r
-
z.D,St (33)
By multiplying the stress in pounds per square
foot (S,) by the shell thickn.ess (t) the stress per
foot of circumference is obtained as follows:
,S,:#
(32-a)
(32-b)
(3s)
circumfer-
(36)
(34)
12. Foundation Bolts for Self-Supporting Tower
The foundation or anchor bolts for a self-sup-
porting tower are required to resist the overturn-
ing moment (Mr) resulting from the wind pres-
suie, after allowance has been made for the resist-
ance offered by the weight of the tower. Obviously
the t'esistance offered by the tower's weight is
least effective when the minimum weight is act-
ing. The anchor bolts should therefore be calcu-
lated for the condition existing when the tower
is empty and without insulation, platforms, etc.
This weight will be designated by (W").
It was shown that the maximum stress per foot
of circumference due to the wind moment can be
calculated by equation (3a). That equation gives
the stress at the circumference of the shell, how-
ever, at the present moment it is desired to deter-
mine the bolt stress making it necessary to sub-
stitute (Ds) in place of (D). The sffess per ioot
of bolt circle circumference can thn be written:
4Mt
,rDF
where
Dn: diameter of bolt circle (feet).
The compressive stress per foot of
ence due to the weight of the tower is
.
'W"
;D;
t2
____--1.
------
l'
---.,L-A-
\
--.LL/-
-ll./z'.r.
\
Sl\..
/t'r'/ /
\ /',/ .,' ,'
Yi
{iii i|i$i
E
t
4"M
SLOPE
N.
ry,
O DRAIN
.t
-r-t
iH
'Tl
:ll
lll
l.lr
Llt
ltl
Llr
iil
r| ccour
CHAMTER
--'T',----
___L----
x---
6:ro'
FIGURE 4
ance for the initial tension should be made in
determining the size of the bolt, and the strength
of the bolt should be based on the area at the r6ot
of the thread. An additional allowance, usually
r/s",
should be made for corrosion.
The number of foundation bolts should never
be less than 8, and should preferably
be 1p or
more, as the larger the number of boltj, the better
the stresses are distributed, and the less danger
resulting from a loose nut on one bolt.
The bolt should be embedded in the concrete
foundation in such a manner that the holding
power
of the concrete will be at least equal to thE
full strength of the bolt. It is common practice
to
use a washer at the lower end, or to bend the end
of the bolt to form an "L" for the
purpose
of an-
choring the bolt in the concrete (iee'Figure
?).
18. Guyed Towers
fn cases where the tower is very high, it is
sometimes found desirable to mainiain
"stibititv
b.y melgq of guy wires rather than a large foundi-
tion. Although it is not uncommon to find two
or even three sets of guy wires on one stack, tow-
ers seldom have more than one set, and even these
cases are rare. This discussion, therefore, will be
confined to towers with one set of guy wires.
_
Four
.guy
wires are usually useE ior each set,
although in some instances three, and in others
as many as six have been used. They are attached
to a.rigid_ collar which is located it a point ap-
proximately
2/3 (sometimes
%)
of the tower
height above the foundation.
14. Pull on Guy Wires
_
The. maximum pull on the guy wire occurs when
the wind blows along that wire, and each wire
must be designed to take care of the entire wind
reaction at the collar.
- -Th"
pull on the guy wire can be expressed as
follows l
the.sum of the pull due to wind pressure
and the
initial tension as follows:
R": (R"
*
Rt) cos o
where
R",: vertical component
of pull
on guy
(pounds)
Rt: initial tension on wire (pounds).
The value of the reaction at the collar (R") may
b.e determingd by calculating
the moments about
the base of the tower (the-top
of the foundation).
The wind moment
was found by equation (2d)
to be
"-
(+)
.
The resisting moment
arm at the collar is hr,
therefore the reaction (R") may be calculated as
follows:
-_n-(+)
h,
or
-
P-H
,."__Zlr,_
where
h,: height from
(4s)
wire
(47)
(48)
top of foundation to collar (feet),
15. Foundations for Guyed Towers
.
It.was shown by equation (1) that the total soil
toadrng.
to be considered in the desisn of tower
foundations, is the sum of (S,) whictiis the dead
load, and (Sr) which is the toia due to the over-
turning, or wind moment. In the case of the guyed
towers, there is no overturning moment, hoiever,
the wind pressure does have
.-an
imporlant effeci
ol the foundation, as the soil is required
to resist
th.e vertical component
of the p,ril on the guy
w1res.
.
For guyed t-owers, therefore, equation (1) must
be revised as follows:
,
S:S+S"
(49)
wnere
Ss: unit soil loading d-ue to the pull
on the guy
wire. (pounds/sq
ft.)
Rr:#-
(40)
-
Rr: Rc csc I
(41)
where
ft": pull
on
.guy
wire due to wind pressure
(pounds)
Ro: horizontal wind reaction at collar (pounds)
d:
angle that the guy makes with tlie vertical
(degrees
)
The value of the angle
a
will usually lie between
30 and ?5 degrees.
The vertical component of the pull
on the guy
wire can be expressed in any o? the follow'in!
ways:
The value of (S") can be determined as follows:
^R"
ra_
a
From equation (2)
Substituting in equation (49)
^
W+R.
a
(s0)
(2)
^w
a
R"
)(
cos d
R"Xcos0
-
Si, a-
RoXcotd
(sl)
(42)
(43)
(44)
_
It is important to note, however, that there is
always some
-initial
tension on the guys which
must be considered. This initial tensi-on mav be
assumed to be 5000 lbs./sq. in., which amounis to
1900 lbs.
lor
/2"
wires and ZSO tbs. for
fu,,
*ir.s.
The weight of the wires may be neglected,
when
using these figures.
The actual vertical component
will be a func-
tion of the total pull on the guy
wire, which is
16. Foundation Bolts for Guyed Towers
The foundation
bolts for guyed towers are re-
quired to resist the shearing iction of the wind
pressure
at the base of the tower. It is obvious
that ample allowance should be made in the size
of the bolts to provide
for the initial tension due
to tightening the nuts, and also for corrosion.
The shear at the base of the tower, which must
be resisted by the bolts, is equal to tlre horizontal
reaction to the wind pressur-e
at that
point.
This
is equal to the difference between the^total
wind
l3
pressure and the reaction at the collar and can
be expressed as follows:
Rr:P--Ro $2)
where
Rr
:
horizontal wind reaction, or shear, at the base
of the tower.
(pounds)
17. Stress in Shell of Guyed Tower
The wind pressure acting on a guyed tower pro-
duces a negative bending moment at the collar,
FIGUR.E 5
and a positive bending moment between the base
and the collar. The maximum values of these two
moments can be calculated as follows :
has been widety published. There are really. two
formulas; one ioi piles driven with a drop ham-
mer, and another for piles driven with a steam
hammer, as follows:
For drop hammer
o_
2Wrf
.
^
-
po+l.o
For steam hammer
o_
2Wrf
'-
pof 0.1
where
P
:
safe load which each pile will
(pounds)
Wh: weight of hammer. (pounds)
f
:
height of harrimer fall.
(feet)
ph: penetration or sinking rrnder
sound wood. (inches)
(ss)
(s6)
support.
the last blow, on
Care should be exercised in driving piles, to
assure that they are deep enough to develop their
full strength, but they should not be driven too
much, as this practice results in splitting or break-
ing, and greatly reduces the load carrying capacity.
Although piles have been driven with a center
to center spacing as small as 2' 6", it- is strongly
recommended that this distance be not less thbn
3' 0". Closer spacing disturbs the ground suffi-
ciently to greatly reduce or destroy the frictional
resistance.
The top of the piles should always be cut off
below the water level, otherwise they will decay
rapidly.
The reinforced concrete cap is constructed on
top of the piles in such a manner that the piles
exlend about 6" into the concrete (see Figure 6).
19. Stresses in Foundation
After having selected a foundation of such size
and shape as- to fulfill the requirements of the
problem-from the standpoint of stability and soil
ioading, it becomes necessary to calculate the
stresses in the foundation itself, to see that they
do not exceed the allowab1e limits.
The first step in this procedure is to determine
P-
M":-lE-(H-h,)'
(s3
)
r\.r,:-!*(r-+) G4)
where
Mc: negative bending moment at collar.
(foot
pounds)
Mn: maximum
positive bending moment between
collar and base.
(foot
Pounds).
Having determined the bending moments, the
stress in a given shell, or the shell thickness re-
quired to reiist the bending moment
-may
be.-cal.-
iulated by substituting the value of (M") or.(Mr)
in place ot
1U,;
in equations (32-b) and (33).
18. Piling
In cases where the safe soil loading is very low,
it is sometimes found difficult to design an ordi-
nary foundation which will not overload the soil.
In such cases it is desirable to support the load
on piles rather than on the soil.
Wooden piles are ordinarily used, and they vary
greatly in length, depending on the nature of the
soil. The diameter at the lower end is about 6";
and the diameter at the top is about 10" for piles
not over 25 feet in length, and 72" for longer piles.
Wooden piles generally depend on the frictional
resistance of the ground for their load carrying
capacity, as they have comparatively little strength
as columns. The safe load which a pile will support
varies greatly in different localities. Building laws
sometimes g'overn the pile loading, and in such
cases, the load is usualy about 20 tons per pile,
although occasionally 25 tons is permissible.
When conditions are not definitely known, how-
ever, the only safe procedure
.
is to drive a few
piles for test purposes. The.dommon method of
calculating the safe load is by means of what is
known as the "Engineering News Formula," which
t4
FIGURE 6
the loading, which consists primarily of the up-
ward reaction of the soil. Figure 3 represents the
plan view of a typical (octagonal) foundation, and
Figure 3a shows the loading diagram. In this dia-
gram the dead load (Sr) is represented by the
rectangle (jklm). The wind load (Sr), which is
positive on one side of the centerline, is indicated
by the triangle (-p*). On the opposite side of
+-=t=*
i--it+
the centerline the wind load is negative, thereby
counteracting a portion of the dead load (wlc).
The actrral soil loading will therefore be iep.e-
sented by the area (jkcp). However, the weighi of
the bas-e, and of the earth fill above-the base"(area
jkno
-Figure
3b) do not exert any upward forie on
the foundation, and may therefo.e be ded.ucted
from.the total load, for the present purpose. The
effecttzte upward reaction will then be the area
(oc, p) in Figure 3b.
19a. Diagonal Tension
The vertical shear, resulting from the upward
reaction of the soil, producei
diagonal t6nsion
stresses in the foundation. The critical section lies
at a distance from the face of the pedestal equal
to the effective depth of the base, as indicatecl
9y
point (Zr) in Figure 3c. In ottrer words, the
foundation tends to break along line (ZZr).'The
vertical shear to be resisted is equal to ihe net soil
pressure on the part of the foundation outside the
critical section.
_
For design purposes, therefore, the load will be
the area_ (oq.p), (Figure Bc) applied over the
area.(a, b,
Ig),
(Figgre 3). Becaui6 of the irregu-
lar shape of the load diagram, its magnitude Ean
be more conveniently calculated by breaking it up
into its component parts, the totalioad (V")-being
the sum of the individual loads, as follows:
-
shape or port
o"'lt$r""lif*" outline In elevatlon
-Rectangular
Prism a, b, u, i, oqrv
Wedge
ar tr g
oqrv
Wedge
b, fu-, oqrv
pedge.
ar br ur tr rvp
Ivramid
?r tr g
rvp
Pyramid
b, fu]. rvp
The unit stress (diagonal tension) resulting
from this vertical shear load can be
'determined
as follows:
,-
V"
-
'd- b'jdr (80)
where
fd: unit stress in_ concrete (in diagonal tension)
due to vertical shear load. (pounds/sq. in.)
V": vertical shear load, outside the criticil section
(see Figures 3 and 3c). (pounds)
b' :
width of critical section which serves to resist
diagonal tension stresses (line a, br Figure 3).
(inches)
j:
ratio of lever arm of resisting couple to depth
(dr) (see Table 2).
dr
-
effective depth of base measured from top of
base to centerline of reinforcing steel. (inches)
Erample No. 4. Check diagonal tension stresses
in the foundation considered in example No. 1 :
Figure unit soil loading due to weight of base
and earth (see Section 7):
162
Line (mw):
Z
:81"
do:72". dt :21".
dt:162"
do:72+21+21:174"
Line (gf):67.1'(see
Table 1).
Line (m, *1 :!:57'.
67.1 Y 57
Ltne (ar b,)
-
--
g1
:
47.2"
: (b').
67.r
-
47.2
Line (gtr) :
-
--2
-:9.95"
162
-
114
Lrne (a, t,):
-2-
-24"
Factor j:
.87 (see Table 2).
Load (m, rl
:
4lrf{:5651bs.,/sq.
ft.
Load (qr) :
565
+
522: 1,087 lbs.,/sq. ft.
Calculate shear load (V")
47.2'xz"
xrffif_t
g.s5"
x24' x
#
47.2
xz4 xZ#44
9.95
X
238y.24:X2
3)/'144
Total (V")
Calculate unit stress in concrete
:
8,550 lbs.
:
1,805
:
935
: 263
:
11,558 lbs.
(equation 80)
Maximum unit wind toad (S,), (mp)
Maximum effective unit shear load (op)
63,000 lbs.
32,700|bs.
D57oo tr..
95.700 lbs
:
ffi
:
633 lbs /sq' ft'
(jm, figure 3c)
:
1,155 lbs.,/sq. ft.
weight of base
:
633
:-Wlbs./sq.
ft.
:
803
t,325 tbs.,zsq. ft.
_ I 1.558
!o:
47 2
x .87 x 2l
: l3'4 lbs''/sq' in'
This stress is satisfactory, as 40 lbs./sq. in.
would be allowed (see Table 2).
19b. Depth of Slab Required for Punching Shear
The thickness of the foundation slab (bottom
course) must also be sufficient to withstand the
tendency to shear along line (Z-Zr), (Figure 3c)
at the edge of the pedestal. This shearing load may
be determined as follows:
S,: S.* S. (81)
The stresses in this case are not distributed over
the foundation area, but are concentrated at the
edge of the pedestal.
Then
Su: total maximum unit shearing load. (lbs. per
lineal foot of pedestal perimEter).
Sr
:
unit shearing l,oad due to dead load. (lbs. per
lineal foot of pedestal perimeter).
Sc: maximum unii shearinf load du6 to overturn-
ing_ moment, (lbs. per lineal foot of pedestal
perimeter).
_
The value of (S*) can be determined by adding
the weight supported by the pedesta[ to th;
weight of the pedestal itself, subtiacting the load-
carrying value of the soil directly under the
p.edestal, and dividing the difference by the pe-
rimeter of the pedestal base as follows:
-
-
W"
+
W.
+
W,- (ap S"rr)
J'
- L,
$2)
where
Wr: weight_ of foundation pedestal (top course).
(pounds)
^
a,
:
plan. area of foundation pedestal. (sq. ft.)
S.rr: maximum allowable unif soil loading.
(pounds,/sq.
ft.)
Lr: perimeter of foundation pedestal. (feet)
Obviously, if the value of (an S"rr) is equal to
t5
Concrete base
Earth fiIl
Total
Unit soil loading
Total unit dead load (S,)
Unit dead load due to
and earth fill (jo)
Net soil load (om)
or greater than (W"
+
W"
*
Wq),_the value of
(Snl becomes zero, and (S.) will then be equal
to (So).
The'value of (Su) can be determined in a man-
ner somewhat similar to that proposed in Sec-
tion 12. In that section the overturning load was
calculated as a function of the
periphery of the
foundation bolt circle, by means of equations
(27)
and (35). The bolt circle was assumed to be a
hollow iylinder, the wall thickness being infinitely
small, as compared with the diameter.
In the determination of . the shear at the edge
of the foundation pedestal, a similar procedure
may be followed, substituting
(M1) in place of
(Ml), and appropriate values of (I) and (c) in
iqui[ior, (ZZ)-, dtpending on the shape of the
pedestal.
-
Reduced to their simplest forms, the equations
for the ordinary foundation shapes are as follows:
Octagon
--
Mt
16
-
.814dp'?
Ilexagon
--
Mt
ro
-
.832d,'
Souare
Mr
5r--ffip
Circle
Jo-
.7g5dn'
In these equations
(dn) is the short diameter of
the pedestal (feet).
Once the shearing load (Sr) per foot of pedestal
perimeter is knowri, it is a iimple matter to cal-
iulate the unit stress in the concrete, by dividing
(Sr) by the effective depth of the base, as follows:
-S,
ro-
Tt
where
f"
-
unit stress in concrete base
'
shear.
(Pounds/sq. in.)
Note: The factor 12 is introduced for the pur-
pose
of converting
(S") from (pounds/lin' foot) to
?pounds/lin.
inch) is- unit stress
(fn) is in terms
oi (pounds/sq. in.).
Erarnple No. 5. To illustrate the procedure, the
punching shear will be calculated for the founda-
iion considered in example No. 1.
Calculate dead load shear (S.) by equation (82)
a,: 29.8 sq. ft,
Ln:2.484 \
8:19.87 ft.
W.
:48,500
lbs.
:
17,850 lbs.
S.rr
:
2,000lbs./sq. ft.
(84)
due to
punching
-
(29.8
X
2,000)
Rectangular
Prism
Wedge
Wedge
Wedge
Outlltro h dor,
rlc.3il
abut
atg
bfu
abut
(8la)
2
Distance (at)
\2
3
Distance (at)
XZ
3
Distance
(at)
X2
3
Distance
(at)
X2
(83)
(83a)
(83b)
(83c)
This stress is satisfactory, as 120 pounds/sq. in.
is permissible. (See Table 2.)
In the case of guyed towers, or stacks, the shear
load due to overturning moment (Su) does not
apply, but is replaced by
("*,)
which is the load due to the pull on the guy wires,
as follows:
^Rr
S3lguyed)
-
S.*
L
l9c. Reinforcement of Base for Upward Bending
Reaction of Soil
In designing the base of the foundation to resist
the bending moment due to. the upward reaction of
the soil, the critical section is located at line (ab),
(Figure 3d) along one face of the pedestal (top
course). The moments are therefore figured about
line (ab), on the basis of the load on the trapezoid
(abfg). The load which serves to produce the
bending moment in the base is the "unbalanced"
upward reaction. Since the weight of the base,
and the weight of the earth filI above the base do
not contribute to the bending moment, they may
be deducted from the total load when calculating
the bending moment. The effective loading will
therefore be represented by the area (o qr t, p)
Figure 3e.
The load is assumed to be applied at its center
of gravity, and the moment figured about line
(ab). Due to the irregular shape of the load dia-
g'ram, it is difficult to locate the center of gravity,
and it is therefore more convenient to break it up
into its component parts (prisms, wedges, pyra-
mids, etc.), and figure the moment of each part
separately. Obviously, the total moment (Ms) will
be the sum of the individual moments.
In the case of the rectangular prism, the lever
arm used in figuring its moment will be one half
of the distance from point (a) to point (t), (Figure
3d). In the case of the wedges and pyramids, the
lever arm will be two-thirds of the distance from
point (a) to point (t).
The individual components and their respective
lever arms are as follows:
Outlino ln eleva-
tion, Fig.3c Lever Arm
Distance
(at)
W.: 30,000 lbs.
W,
-
119.2 cu. ft.
X
l50lbs.
QrfrVrO
QrfrVrO
QrfrVrO
frVrp
frVrP
S.-
Pyramid atg
Pyramid bfu
Distance
(at)
X
2
frVrP -
3
:
1,850 lbs./lin. foot.
Calculate shearing stress due to overturning
moment
(S,) by equation
(83)
Mr: 200,(X)0 foot pounds (see
section 7)'
dn": C
-
36,
200.m0
S':
:ffifi0
:6,820
Pounds/lin.
foot
S',: 1,850* 6,820:8,670
pounds/lin. foot.
(81)
dr- 21"
8.670
t
-::34.4
pounds/sq. in. (84)
tp-
l?)(zl -
t6
In calculating the amount of reinforcement re-
quired.
it is asJumed that the portion of the base
'designated
(abut), (Figure 3d) acts as a cantilever
beafi (of .eitattgula. cross-section)
having a width
equal io one fa.-ce of the pedestal (ab), a depth
eciual to the effective depth of the base (d1) and
alength equal to (at).
Having ialculated the bending moment as, pro-
posed ab-ove, the
19rt
step is to check the depth
where
(1r
-
of the base, and determine the amount of reinforc-
ing steel required. These calculations are based
on the commonly accepted formulas for reinforced
concrete. (It should be noted that for this purpose
it is more convenient to figure the momenti in
terms of inch-pounds, as the stresses in concrete
and steel are usually given as pounds per square
inch, whereas in figuring soil lbading foot-pound
units are used, as soil loading is uiually itated
as pounds per square foot.)
For balanced desi(tn, that is, conditions in which
both concrete and steel are stressed to their full
allowable capacity, the required depth (ds) of the
base may be rletermined as follows:
a,:i#k_
should therefore be placed within the limits of
the beam width (ab). However, additional re-
inforcement
should be installed to reinforce the
base between the points (gt), and also at (uf),
us.rng_ the same type and spacing of bars as deter-
mined for the beam section (ab). This additional
reinforcement
insures that the entire area of the
base is reinforced and weak spots eliminated.
Obviously, the reinforcing- bars should extend
entirely across the base. Also, there should be a
set o{ reinforcing bars parallel to each of the axes,
i.e., four sets of bars for an octagonal base, three
sets Jor. a hexagon, etc., thus providing strength
in all directions.
There should be at least 3 inches of concrete
below the reinforcing bars at the bottom of the
base. Reinforcement in other parts of the founda-
tion should be covered with not less than 2 inches
of concrete.
E.rample No. 6. Determine bottom reinforcement
for the foundation referred to in example No. 1.
Figure bending loads
72"
Line(m,w):,
-36"
Load (m,.,,
:!9i*4 :
357 pounds/sq. ft.
Load (q, r,)
:
357
+
522
-
879 pounds,/sq. ft.
Load (v, p)
:
803
-
357
:446 pounds,/sq. ft.
Figure moment (M5)
Line (ab) :29.8"
Line (ta) :45" ,
Line (gt) :
18.65"
29.8',Y 45"
-i?4
tql"
X 879
Pounds'/sq'
ft'
18.65
X
45 45
X
2
-
u4
x87ex---
29.8
X
45 446 45
X
2
14442/\3
45"
X
2
:184,000in'-lbs
:
153,000
:
62,300
(8s)
(86)
(87)
Mo:
f":
depth of base, measured from top of concrete
to centerline of reinforcing steel. (inches)
bending moment in base.
linch-pounds)
'
safe working stress, reinforcing steel in ten-
sion.
(pounds
per sq. in.)
("/",0,
)
:
ratio of effective area of rein-
forcing steel to effective area of concrete.
ratio of lever arm of resisting couple to depth
(d').
rvidth of beam (line ab, Figure 3d). (inches)
effective cross sectional area of steel reinforce-
ment in tension. (square inches)
j-
b,:
A":
If the design is balanced, that is, the actual
d-epth of the base (d1) is that calculated by equa-
tion (85), the value of (A") may be determined
as follows :
A": b" dr p"
If the depth (dr) is greater than required by
equation (85), in which case the steel is stressed
to its full capacity but the concrete is under-
stressed, the value of (A") becomes :
.Mr
,'"
-
f"
jd,
18.65
X
446X 45
144X3
Total (Mo)
'/)v
45X2
/\e/\
3
:
51,900.
:451,200
in.-lbs.
.
If the depth (ds) is less than required by equa-
tion (85), it is recommended
that ihe diminsions
of the base be changed to give the required depth.
In case circumstances make it impossible to in-
crease (dt) to the required dimension, it will be
necessary to increase the amount of reinforcement
used. The determination of the amount of rein-
forcement required for sdch special cases is be-
yond the scope of this article, and reference is
made to the various publications
dealing speci-
fically with concrete design for further detaili.
Having calculated the cross sectional area of
steel required, a selection is made as to the dia-
meter,.shape, number and spacing of bars which
will give the required area. It ii recommended
that the center-to-center distance be about 4 inches
if possible, but not less than 2l times the bar
diameter for round bars, or 3 times the side di-
mension for square bars. Generally speaking, a
large number of small bars (1, s/s,
o,
%
inch)-are
preferable
to a smaller number of larger bars.
It should be borne in mind thaf the area of
reinforcement determined above is the amount re-
quired for that portion of the foundation having
a width equal to (ab), Figure 3d, which was as-
sumed to be the cantilever beam carrying the en-
tire bending load. This amount of reinforcement
Check depth of base for balanced design (equa-
tion (85)
f"
:
18,000
p.
:
.0089
j:
'87
b": 29.8"
f"P"j:138.7
I
-
4il:oo
0t(hnrlnccd' :
Y
t.lg-z
x,
zg:
:10.5"
Since the actual depth is 21 inches, whereas
only 10.5 inches would be required, the concrete
will be understressed, and the area of reinforcing
steel should be calculated by equation (87).
451.200
A"
:
tsPoo
x
.87
x
2l -
1 37 sq' in'
lJse
)1
inch deformed square bars (.25 sq. in.
area).
Number required
#+
:5.5.
Use 6 bars within
the width of beam (ab).
29.8"
Spacing
?
:4.96".
l;se S-inch spacing,-en-
tirely acros.
-tid"
(gf), which will require
{11
:13
bars per set. Four sets of bottom reinforcing
bars will be required for the octagonal foundation.
t7
19d. Reinforcemnt
to Resist Stresses
Due to UPlift
As explained
previously, the wind moment cre-
ates a positive sbil load on one side of the center-
fi""-, utia i negative load on the opposite side' In
oi-frlr-*otas, ihe action of the wind tends to lift
tt
"
fo""a"tibn on the negative side. This upward
i;;;; oi "uplift"
effect, G resisted by the
-*gigh!
;i iht
"o""i"t"
base itself, and by the weight- of
ihe- earth fill on top of the base. It therefore
be-
cornes necessary to reinforce the top,of the base,
to resist the reiulting negative bending moment'
--tfr"
pro"edure is qiit" ii-itur to thaf described
foi1t
"'rp*ard
soil'reaction
(Section 1.9c)' The
ioua r.tt in the area
(abfg), and the outline of the
itt"o."tiiut beam carrying ihe load is (abut) as in
S..lio" 19c. Howevei, i., this case the load is the
*Li"t,t Der square foot of concrete base, plus the
*"iilt i i"r tor"t" foot of the earth fill, and is uni-
ir#it iistrituted, thus simplifying the calcula-
ii;;:'Aiter
figuring the moments, the reinforce-
ment is determined
1n exactly the same manner as
exptained in Section 19c, using the equation
Moment
2%!L;570X
+-
E%q
y57oX
4+Z
Total (M")
From equation (87a)
218,500 inch lbs.
A":-l8p00X.87X22
:
119,000 in.-lbs.
: 99,500
:
218,500 in.lbs.
-.636
sq. in. within beam
width
(29.8")
^-Mo
^'-
f"
jdt
IABLE 2
GonrlonE
Apptylng io Foundotlon Dcslgn
lJse
rft-inch
deformed square bars, at 10-inch
centers.
19e. Bond
In order for the reinforcement
to be effective,
the'-st-rength
of the bond between concrete and
;;i;;t? be sufficient to permit the reinforce-
*""1 t" develop its full strength. The bond stress
;;;- t" ialcul'ated
by meais of the following
formula:
V,
U:
EJA;
(88)
where
""-';:
bond stress
per unit of area of surface of bar'
(Pounds)
>": ;;;;f 6erimeters
of bars
-within
the limits or
-
it. beam width
(ab)' (inches)
Erample No. 8. Check bond stresses in example
No. L.
Bottom reinforcement
V.
-
11.578 lbs.
(See examPle No' 4)
>.:6
X.5 X
4:12"
By equation
(88)
11.578
u:-nffil:53
lbs.
Bond stress for bottom reinforcement
is satis-
fr.tlil
"t
ts por"as is
permissible (see Table 2)'
Top reinforcement
Figure shear
gz#y-
X
57orbs.
2W-xsto
Total (V.)
2o:3X.5X4:6
s427
$:-
6ffikT -48lbs'
(87a)
:
300lbs./sq. ft.
:27Olbs./sq. ft.
:T-701bs.,/sq. ft.
In this case, (ds) is the depth of the base from
the centerline'oi
the upper layer of reinforcement
;;ih;-i;;i;*
of the bise, and (M-)
!s
the bending
*o*.ttt a"" to the uplift forces (inch--pounds)'
Eramble No. 7. Determine top reinforcement to
r.Sri
"'pfitt
in the foundation
ieferred to in ex-
ample No. 1.
Weieht of concrete
150 lbs./cu. ft.:r.Ztt.
Weieht of earth
60lbs.,/cu. ft. X 3 ft.
Totat
:4,480 lbs.
:
947
:5,427 lbs.
(88)
*
These figures may be slightly incresed by making "U"-bends on the
""a";l;|iif,l.i",i[f
*?Ii;," is recommend_ed as most satisracrory ror rounda-
tionJ iiijre tipe-.
-
riri ionstantJ ttiiiiii ilztr niiture are presented as a matter
of intqest.
The bond stress in top reinforcement
is satis-
factory, as ?5 pounds would be allowed.
19f. Bearing Stresses
The bearing stresses
(where th.e steel tower
rests on the cincrete
pedestal) seldom cause any
aif1."ltu, but should lre checked as a
-safety
pre-
.rrlio".'tfte
bearing stresses consist of
.the
stress
a""-1o *i"d pressuie, plus the stress due to the
dead load as follows:
Bearing stress:
4M*/7tD" +
(w'* W")'/z'D'
(37a)
(See
Sections 11 and 12.)
ilquation
(3?a) gives the bearing stress in
po""tt p.t ii.,eil Toot of shell circumference'
These stresses are spread over the are-a of the base
;"". tfr.tfore for
prictical purposes the unit bear-
i.,gjsttess can be
-determined
as follows:
Mlxture: Cement'
Sand. . .
CoarEeAEgreEat''""'
I
2
4
I
2
5
fb Safe baring load on concrete
(lbs./sq' in')
'
500 375
fi Ultimate compressiv strength
(lbs'/sq' in') 2.0(n 1.500
f.
Safe unit stress in qtreme fiber of concrete
--ii.
ompression)-(lbs./sq.
in').."
" "'
800 600
fa Safe unit stress in concrte due to vertical
--"i".i-fai.co"al
tension)
(lbs./sq' ir).
'
40 30
fD
f.
(f.
i)
(f.
ir,
i
F%J
{"=oikJ
Safe unit strss in concrete base due to
nunchinc sher.
(lbs./sq. in.)...'..'.. 120 90
Safe working stress, steel reinforcement in
tedsion.
(lbs./sq. in). .
" '
18,000 18,000
(inch-pounds).
15,600 16,000
(inch-pounds) . .
138.7 88.9
Ratio, lever arm of resisting couple to
depth
(dr).
.87 .89
Ratio, modulus of elasticity of steel to that
of concrete,
15 l5
Ratio. efrective uea of tension reinforce
ment to efiEctive ilea of concrete ' ' ' '
.0089 .0056
*u Safe bond stres
(concrete to steel rein-
--i6rje.&ti
*i irnit of arm of surfae
of bar. (pounds)
60
75
45
m
t8
in which
l2r*
r,: width of the tower base ring. (inches)
fb: unit compression stress on concrete.
(pounds/sq. in.)
Equation (37b) may be modified slightly, de-
pending on the exact shape and arrangement of
ihe base ring (or base plate), but in the majority
TOP OF
PEDESTAL
fr:
FIGURE 7
of cases it may be used in the above form with
reasonable accuracy.
For guyed towers, equation (37b) becomes:
this case are given for illustration only, the design
has not been changed to take maximum advantage
of the allowable stresses.
The stresses in foundations of this type should
not exceed those commonly accepted as good engi-
neering practice in reinforced-concrete design, for
the particular mixture of concrete used. As a mat-
ter of convenience Table 2 is presented to show
allowable stresses and miscellaneous constants ap-
plying to two grades of concrete quite generally
used for foundations. It is strongly recommended
that the 1 :2 :4 mixture be used in practice, the
figures for the 1 :2:5 mixture being shown primar-
ily as a matter of interest.
19h. Suggestions and Recommendations
The calculations explained above provide for
reinforcement to resist the stresses due to the
various types of loading. It is good practice, how-
ever, to install additional steel as a means of
tying the foundation together, to form an integral
unit. The same size bars are used for this purpose
as for the main slab reinforcement, and the de-
signer must use his own
judgment
as to
the num-
ber and location of the bars. Figure 4 represents
what is considered good practice, and is offered
as a guide.
In the case of very large foundations, consider-
able concrete and weight may be saved by con-
structing the pedestal with a hollow center, as
illustrated in Figure 5. Of course, the inside form
is left in place. It should be noted that the base
slab extends all the way across, to provide protec-
tion and bond for the reinforcing bars.
Foundations supported on piles should be so
constructed as to allow the tops of the piles to
extend about 6 inches into the base, with the
bottom reinforcement about 2 inches above the
piles. (See Figure 6.)
Considerable inconvenience is sometimes en-
countered in setting the tower in place, due to the
difficulty of lowering the heavy vessel over the
foundation bolts without bending some of them
or damaging the threads. Figure 7 illustrates a
method of overcoming this difficulty. A sleeve
nut is welded to the top of the bolt, and so placed
that the top of the nut lies slightly below the
surface of the concrete, with a sheet metal sleeve
around it. The tower may then be placed in posi-
tion without interference from the bolts. Stud
bolts are next inserted through the lugs on the
tower, and screwecl into sleeve nuts from the top.
4M. W,
+
w"
,r 17+
?r D,
4M,
r
,r DF
1-
R"+W"+W"
z'D,
(37b)
(37c)
Nomencloture
fr:
19g. Allowable Stresses in Foundation
It is to be noted that in actual practice the depth
of the base in the examples given above could be
reduced, if desired. All of the stresses for diagonal
tension, punching shear, bending (upward ancl
downward) and b-ond in the reinforcement are well
below the-allowable values. As the examples in
Ar
:
elfective cross sectional area of steel rcinforcement ir ten'
sion
(square inches)
For balanced design
Ar: b" dr pr (86)
If depth (dr) is greater than required by equation
(85)
e"
:--14.0. (87)
tr ldr
For top reinlorcement of slab to resist uplift strcsses:
o.: -r1,, (87a)
ts
Jdt
a
:
area of base of foundation (sq, It.)
ar: plan area of foundation pedestal (sq. ft.)
B
:
barometric pressure (inches Hg)
ba: width of the critical section
(equal
to the width of thc face
of the oedestal) assumed to dct as a cantilever beam resist-
ing the'bendini stresses (line ab, Figure 3d)
(inches)
b'- width of critical section which serves to resist the diagona!
tension stresses.
(line ar br, Figure 3.) (inches)
c
-
distance from neutral axis of foundation base to point of
maximum stress. (feet)
c' :
distauce from centroidal axis of foundation base to any point
under consideratiofl.
(feet)
D: outside diameter of tower. (feet)
Dr
:
inside diameter of tower.
(feet)
Do: tower diameter measured over insulation. (feet)
Du
:
diameter oI Ioundation bolt circle.
(ieet)
dr
:
short diarpeter of foundation base.
(feet)
dc
:
short diameter of critical section for diagonal tension
stresses
(see Figures 3 and 3c). (inches)
dr
:
effective depth of base of foundation, measured from top of
base to centerline of reinforcing steel. (inches)
.,SLEEVE
NUT
4.F4 .
''a 'c
'.4.'..y.4
4.4
"
:.WELD
t9
dp
:
short diameter of foundation pedestal (feet)
Ec : modulus oI elasticity of concrete.
E!
-
modulus of elasticity o{ reinforciflg steel.
e : eccentricitY.
(feet)
This iactor ia the distance from the centroidal axis of the
foundation to the point at which the resultant of the dead
load and the rvind ioad intersects the base of the foundation.
The eccentricity can be calculated as follows I
(12)
Pw: total wind load (pounds) to be calculated as followsl
P*. : pc Do H
(8)
p: wind pressure on a llat surface. (pounds per sq' ft.)
Dc
:
wind pressure on projected area of a cylindrical torver.
(pounds per sq. ft.)
pb: penetration or sinking oI pile under the last hammer blow,
on sound rvood. (inches)
pr : ratio, effective area of reinforcing steel to effective area of
concrete,
'":(A"/u"a')
Rr: horizontal wind reaction or shear at base of tower, (poutrds)
Rc : horizontal rvind reaction at collar. (pounds)
Rs: pull on guy rvire due to rvintl pressure. (pounds)
_R"
I(s:
S.n t
or,
Rg:cscd
Rv
:
vertical component of pull on guy wire. (pounds)
R"
: (Rs
f
Rt) cos d
Rt :
initial tension on guy wire, (pounds)
Eouation
(12)
sives the eccentricitv at the condition of
oobrest stabilirv, that i", with the miiimum dead load. This
is the value which ordinarily is used for design purDoses,
however. it is obvious that the eccentricity for maximum
a""a toia
".nditions
ian be calculated by
''ubstituting
the
value of (W) in equation (12) in plaCe of (Wt). The
marinum valtie rvhich it is possible for- (e) to have and still
maintain the stability of the foundation is
tr{r
t2
em.x:
-,
Or
emir
:
-
Circle:
Values of (e-"") for various foundation shapes are as r: radius of gyration of the base of the Ioundation (leet). Its
relation to the moment of inertia can be expressed as follows;
( 1e)
(19a)
(22)
(22a)
(22b)
(22c)
(40)
(41)
(45
)
follorvs:
Octagon: ens: 0.122d
Hexagon; em.': 0.121d
Square: emax
:
0.1 18d
d
em!::
.l-
The value of (e) as calculated by equation (12), and based
on the minimum dead load (Wt) should ,r.i'.,'exceed the
value calculated by equations (19) or (l9a).
F: barometric
pressure. (inches Hg)
f
: height of hammer fall. (feet)
fu: unit bearing stress on concrete.
(pounds,/sq in )
(See equa'
tions 37b and 37c)
fc
:
safe unit stress in extreme {iber of coucrete
(in compres'
sion).
(pounds/sq' in.)
f"' :
ultimate compressive strength oI c-oncrete
.(nounds,/sq
in )
i" : iiiii it*.i in' concrete (in"diagonal tension) due to vertical
shear load. (Pounds/sq. in.)
fp :
unit stress in concrete base due to punching shcar' (pounds,/
sq. in. )
I: ar'
r earranling:
ll
t:1;
r* :
rvidth o{ tower base ring. (inches)
S: total unit soil loading. (pounds/sq. ft.)
S: Sr * Su also,
S:S'(1+k)
(17)
(2s)
(l)
(59)
Sr: unit soil loading due to dead load. (pounds/sq. ft,)
Srh: ulit soil loading due to minimum dead load (pounds/sq. ft.)
to include the rveight of the empty tou'er, the loundation and
the earth 6ll only. It does not include insulation, platforms,
piping, liquid, etc.
Sz: unit soil loading due to oyerturning moment. (pounds/sq. ft.)
Sa: total maximum unit shearing load, (pounds per lineal foot
of pedestal perimeter)
Sr: Sa * Sr
(81)
Sr:unit shearing load due to dead load. (pounds per lineal foot
oi pedestal perimeter)
-
\Vs+.W"+Wp-(apSr:r')
-{
*
Lp
,,,
- t2d,
(81 )
fr : safe working stress, steel reinforcement in tension'
(pounds,/
sq. in. )
H: height of tower. (feet)
hr: height of foundation. (feet)
hr
:
height oI collar (to which the guy wires are attached) above
foundation. (feet)
f
:
moment of inertia of the base of the loundation. (based on
dimensions in feet)
j :
ratio of lever arm of resisting couple to dePth dr. (See
table 2)
k : Iactor bv which the soil loading due to dead load must be
-uiiiptiia
to equal the soil loa-ding due to overtutning, as
{ollows:
kSr
:
Sz, also
.ea
7.
Values of k for various foundation shapes are as follows
a 1<-
Octagon, k: -J:fr:
o ? )-
Ilexagon: k: ";-'
Square: u :
*'1'"
Circle: ,.:
*1'"
L: lever arm of wird load (feet) to be calculated as follorvs:
I:h,f
lt
(r)
Lp:perimeter oi {orrl"tior pedestal. (feet)
Mr: bending moment in base. (inch-pounds)
Mc : iegative bending monrent at collar. (Ioot-pounds) (see equa-
tion 53)
Mr : overturning monetrt about base o{ foundation. ({oot-pouflds)
So: maxinrurr unit shearing load due to overturning moment.
(pounds/lineal foot of pedestal perimeter).
For pedestals of various shapes, the values of (Sr) are as
follorvs;
(82
)
(83
)
(83a)
(83b)
( 83c)
(3)
(11)
(s7)
(68)
(72)
(72a)
(72b)
(72c)
srrr : maximum allowable unit soil loading. (pounds/sq. ft.)
Su
: load on each foundation bolt. (pounds)
Sg: unit soil loading due to pull on guy wires. (pounds/sq. ft.)
Smrn: total unit soil loading under minimum dead load conidtions.
(pounds/sq. ft.)
St: unit stress in tower shell due to bending moment (Mt).
(pounds/sq. ft.)
t :
shell thickness. (feet)
u
-
bond stress (between concrete and reinforcing steel) per
unit of area oI surlace of bar, (pounds)
V: velocity of wind. (miles per hour)
Vs : vertical shear load outside the critical section (see Figures 3
and 3c). (pounds)
W :
total weigtrt on soil (pounds) calculated by' the iollou'ing
equation:
IIr
Uctagon: 5s:
j14dr"
Mr
llexagon' Sr
:
-gJZdt
trfr
Square: so
:
.nag:p
^Mr
Lrrcle: 5r::
. / 6)d,p
W:Wt * W.
tr{p: maximum positive bending momeilt between collar and base.
(foot pounds) (see equation 54)
Mt: bending moment about base of tou'er, (foot'pounds)
(;
Nr,: P*
(+)
(26)
Mu
:
bending moment in base, due to uplift forces. (inch-pounds)
N : number of foundation bolts
q : (E"/Ec) : ratio, modulus of elasticity of steel to that oi
concfete.
P : safe load which each pile will support. (pounds)
20
W": rveight of auxiliary material and equipment supported by the
foundation (pounds), including liquid in the tower, insula-
tion, platforms, piping, etc. (Does not include weight ol
tower. )
1\'r: rvoiglrt of hanrmer. (pounds)
Wp: *"1*1r, of foundation pedestal (top course). (pounds)
W": rveight of empty tower. (pounds)
Wt: nrinimum dead load .(pounds) rvhich is the
yeight of the
einpty to*'er plus the weight of the foundation, inLluding the
earth 6l! ou top oI the base.
Z :
section rnodulus of the base of the foundation (to be based
un f,,urrdatiorr tlimensions in feet) as follous:
Z :.1
c
r :
3.1416
d: angle rvhich guy uire makes with the vertical. (degrees)
f,o: sum of perimeters of reinforcing bars within the limits of
the beam width (ab). (inches).
NIr: P* L (7)
Simplified Design for
Tower Foundations
Curves reduce design time for octagonal
reinforced concrete tower foundations by
quick selection of base size, thickness, re-
inforcement
area and unit bond stresses
Andrew A. Brown, Union Carbide Chemicals Co.
South Charleston,
W. Va.
DBsrcNBns
oF FouNDATroNs have used many different
locations for sections and beam widths to compute bond
shear, bending moments, and diagonal tension shear.
Since agreement on these important phases is not com-
plete, this presentation uses The American Concrete
Institute Building Code Requirements as a guide for
reinforced concrete design and the allowable unit stresses
therein. The usual assumptions are followed as to the
behavior of reinforced concrete and soils.
For simplicitn the derivations of fornulas are based.
on the inscribed circles of the octagonal base. This does
not influence the accuracy of the final results. The foun-
dation engineer is ever mindful of the fact that a sub-
structure design based on inexact soil bearing determina-
tions, concrete with variable strength, and loads which
can be off 10 percent or more, is not very definite. The
application of good judgment
coupled with experience is
more important than carrying out computations to more
significant places than the informatior
and assumptions
waftant.
Foundqtion Size. As the size of the foundation is the
first_design requirement after the permissible soil bearing
has been established, the formulas used for this determi-
nation will be derived in that order.
When the resultant of all forces acting on the founda-
tion strike the base within the kern, the forces acting on
the. soil can be represented graphically by a right .eg.rlu.
cylinder resting on an ungula of a right regulir cylinder.
If it is on the edge of the kern the soil reaction forces
form an ungula whose
base is a circle; when it is outside
the kern, the ungula has a base in the form of a circular
segment (Figure 1). The volumes of these solids are
equal to the total weight supported by the soil, and their
moments about the center of the base are equal to the
moments of the external forces acting on the foundation
about the same place. Then the eccentricity
,,e,,
meas-
ured from the center of the foundation equals
ea
o
5a
'ie
oC
sO
E=
o,-
OLL
(M)
which is equal to the moment of the forces acting on the
bottom of the foundation divided by the total forces
acting on the base.
Resultant Within the Kern. For the condition where
the resultant is within the kern (the area inscribed by a
lnscri bed
Circle
Equ i vo lenl
Squo re
ACI 1208
Section for Bond
ond Mornent
ACI 1204
(o),1205(c)
FIGURE l-The resultant of all forces is within the kern.
radius equal to
/s
of. the diameter of the circular founda-
tion) the maximum soil pressure P is equal to the total
height of the right circuiar cylinder and ungula drawn
to graphically represent forces acting on the base.
For this condition the maximum soil bearing
D_
,
-
*
(1+g\
7R,\
D
/
and the minimum soil bearing equals
the height of the soil pressure cylinder or
t:
w
(1-
B"
\
z.Rr\
D
/
Let V equal volume of cylinder and ungala which
equals W, the total vertical load.
To get the general formula, let the maximum soil bear-
ing equal unity and h equal minimum soil bearing, then
the total load
w
: 7R2h
*
rz'Rz (1
-
h)
For a value of
|lers
than
r/s,
the maximum soil bear-
D
ing (unity) can be computed in terms W and D. As an
example, for
elD: .tl,pr:
*
(r
+
.B) and
p*,o.
:
w .2W
A
(1-.8):
i
external moment of ail forcep
Total vertical Ioad (W)
2t
SIMPLIFIED DESIGN FOR TOWER FOUNDATIONS
. .
'
If 1.8 is reduced to unity or P, then
P,,ir.:
f
,
tn"
height of the right cylinder and the height of the ungala
becomes
8/e.
Then
.irpz/
1 \
5zgz
*:-i(\r+L.o)-9-orcuR:
Where C, is a coefficient which when multiplied by
the product of the maximum soil pressure
and radius
squaied will give W, or the total volume of the cylinder
and ungula for this condition. For the values of
f,
,
the
coeflicients C* were computed, Column 8 Table 1, and
C values, Column 9, were obtained by dividing
/e\
C,R'!by *
(;/'
Resultant Outside the Kern. For the development of
the equations for moments and total forces acting on
the base when the resultant force is outside the kern,
refer to Figures I and 2, which show this condition'
To get the volume of the ungula of height P, whose
base is bounded by the angle
-+
d as measured from the
X axis, we have dV
:
d A P'. dV is a volume whose
area of base is dA and height P' and is located a distance
R"o"
{
from the Y-Y axis. Then by similar triangles
P-
(Cos
d Cos
a)
pr
-
r
r \v"."
---
/
: dA:2R Sin { dx and dx:R Sinddd.
-
(1-Cosa)
FIGURE 2-The
resultant of all forces is outside the kern'
c
e/D
M/2v e/D
.457
.436
.415
.395
.374
.354
.Bt4
.294
.275
.256
.238
.220
.202
.185
.168
.153
.138
.125
.079
.t67
.2E4
-403
.583
.811
1.099
t.463
1.92t
2.505
3.235
4.170
5.370
6.97
8.S4
11.65
14.99
19.60
ao.tn
.0603
.1045
.1516
.1988
.2448
.2879
.3275
.3626
.3927
.4172
.4354
.4493
..4567
.4557
.4537
.4408
.4297
.4t07
.3927
36'52',
45" 34',
53'08',
60'
66" 25',
78'28',
84' 16',
90'
96" 44',
r01'32',
107'28',
113" 35',
120"
126" 62',
134" 26',
143" 08',
154" 09'
1 80"
.10
.15
.20
.25
.30
.35
.40
.45
.50
.55
.60
.oD
.70
.75
.80
.85
.90
.95
1.00
v
CvB2 Y /4(e/d\2
Reultant inside kern
Resultant outside or on edge of kern
t000
.r0
2?5
.250
.225
.200
.20 .30 .40 .50 .60 70.80901.0
FIGURE 3-Curve used to determine soil bearing or diameter of foundation base'
r3.5
20.
r4.75
22
fABLE l-Coeftlcients
for Yorlous e/d Volues
.12 |
1.602 *l 27.82
.11 | 1.6711 34.52
.lo I r.zqsl le.ns
.os I 1.8251 56.34
.08 | t.grol zl.s,l
.oz I 2.013 1102.7
.06 I z.tzt 1117.3
.os I 2.244 1224.4
.04 i 2.880 1371.8
.035 | 2.454 l5oo.8
.0660
.1198
.1823
.2518
.3269
.4068
.4S04
.5773
.6666
.7679
.8504
.9440
1.038
1.128
t.226
1.312
1.404
1.488
t.57t
|
.s0
I
l.ao
l.ru
.70
.65
.so
.55
.50
.45
.40
35
.85
.80
.75
-70
,65
.60
.55
.50
.45
.40-
.oo
L
.to
.20 .25 30
Deduclion
for
Fill ond Slob
o
o
t
U)
o
o
450
ACt
R(.707-cos4
of Ungulo
for Sheor
t205
(b)
.1y substitution,
2R9P.
dv
:
-aa-
co;)
(cos
d
-
cos a
)sin:t'dP
and V
:
a*rro1co,
c
-
cos a)
sin2
ddd
-
2R2P1
[l'*,
-cosa
(+-+si^cc.,d
)]"
(1 --Cosa)f
l
Or V (W)
-
CRzpl where C:
2
f
Sin3a
,
Sina665za-2e65al
ft-cos"ll 3-]r--
2.--_J.
,,,
The.moment
o{ any ungula
which represents
the forces
apptred on the base of the foundation
about the
y_y
axis is the summation
of the product of th" differential
volumes,
dV and R Cos
{.
So dM
-
2R3P1
(1
_-Cos;;
[(Cos d-Cosa) Cos
CSin'z ddd]
2R3P- la
"o
M
:11--
c*
O)
","*'
d sin2
d
-
cos a cos
c sin2
d) dc
:
^
3R'3
. [.---f /Lr,"or-r\-cosasin,cla
(1-Cosa)
|
B
\4""'aY-Y)--3
l"
2R3P.
( 1
-
C"-",
FIG-U_RE
5-The
soil reaction
is the sum of the forces in the
shaded area.
or M
:
CRBP, where C
r:
--1--
(l
-
Cos a)
_
By use of equations
I and. Z, Columns Z, 4, 5 and. 6
of Table 1 were computed
for values of K or angle alpha.
Column5 :#:
+andColumn6:,V,
.-
+
(z\''
\D/
_ Th:
curves orr Figure 3 were plotted by using Columns
5, 6, 7 and
g.
From these .rrru", the size of tie founda_
tion can be obtained
for a permissible
soil b"a.irg o,
conversely,
the soil bearing can be computed for a kn"own
foundation.
The formula for soil bearing is
w
P,
:
C",
where W
:
yeight of foundation
and equipment
and
"
"
:
.eccentricity
caused by wind ,.ro*"rrt,
seismic
torces, etc. and
C
:
a numerical
coefficient
for the respective
e/D
value.
With the maximum
soil bearing given
^_
w
"
- Pr"'
which locater*
:
C andD
:
+.
The relation between K and
f
is sho*r, by the curve
on Figure 4 which was formed by using Columns i and 5
of Table 1.
Foundqtion
Thickness.
After getting the size of the
base, the next step is to determine its thickness. Since
the missible maximum
unit shear is 75 psi this is usu_
23
(2)
Cos a $i1s al
-
I
3J
a
f Cos a Sin a-
2Cos3 a Sin a
SIMPLIFIED DESIGN FOR TOWER FOUNDATIONS .
O *,orn of Footing Resisting
Sheor
:
C r R
(See
Toble 2 Col.l3).
@ uo,rr. ol slress Prism
lyhose Bose is o Tropezoid ond
Segmenl oI Circle
.
CP5R2(See lobte
2 Col. 3)
@ ,0,r." of stress Prism
.25 .30 .35 30 .45.5055.@ .70 .80 90 1.0 3.0 3.5 40 45 5.0 60 70 80 90
FIGURE 6-Curves for computing shear for diagonal tension.
ally the controlling factor. In many designs this limits
the strength of the concrete to 2,500 psi for the most
economical foundation. The soil reaction considered in
computing diagonal tension is the sum of the forces acting
between 90 degree radial lines drawn from the center of
the base through the two corners of the equivalent square
and bounded by section B-8. This section is parallel to
the side of the square at a distance "d," (depth of con-
crete) from it. One can see by Figure 5 that these forces
can be represented by a section of an ungula whose
height is Pa, a wedge whose base is a trapezoid abcd and
(.707-
Cos a) P.
height of
-]1
-
cos a-
and a force solid whose area
of base is the area of the trapezoid abcd and the segrnent
of the circle whose chord is cd and of height Ps. This
f,t I
latter area tr
L
* -(1-2K')')R2.
The r'orce is R2Po
f,7r I
L
* -f
,
-2Kr)z_1
and is Column 3 of Table 2. (See
curve 2, Figure 6.)
When K is .1465 or less, this area is a segemnt of a
circle. The volume of the section of the ungula can be
solved by application of limits of 45 degrees for
{
in
computing the volume.
By integrating and substituting the values of the trigo-
nometric functions for the 45 degree angle, the force V
:
, ,
'*'="t
. [.1
I 7g5
-
.1427 cos
a]
(l-Cosa)'
This formula provided the value in Column 4 Table 2
for the various values of K (a).
The volume of the wedge is
:
R2P4(.707
-
Cos 4)2(2 Cos a
+ 2.828)
6(1-Cosa)
and for the respective K and 4 values the volumes are
recorded under Column 5, Table 2.
These two columns are added (See Col. 6) and the
results are plotted producing Curve 3 of Figure 6.
The width of the footing "b" for diagonal tension is
2R (1
-
2k). When a is 45 degrees or less, it is 2R Sin a.
These values form Curve I of Figure 6 and are tabulated
in Table 2, Column 13.
Bond-Bending Momeni. The slab is now investigated
to determine the area of reinforcement and unit bond
stresses. The moment of all forces to the right of Section
A-A, Figure 1, determines the area of steel, and the sum
of these forces is the shear used in computing the bond.
Section A-A is located by passing a vertical plane through
the foundation along the side of the equivalent square.
The external forces acting on the base can be conceived
2R2 P-
(4
v
:
(l
-6;;d)
)"ttt"'
c cos d-Qe5
a sin'z P)dd
TABTE !-Vqlus5 to Colculote Diogonol Tension, Bond, Moment ond Beqm width
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 E I IO 1t t2 13
K d
v
CPsRz
Sec, Ung.
C'PnR2
Wedge
C/PrR2
Col.
4+5
CPrR2
Ungula
CPrR2
Seg, Cyl.
CPsR2
Mom. I
una. I tr,t.
CPzRs I
Seg. CyL
2Rslnc
CR
Octag,on I "b"
CRICR
,10
.15
.20
.25
.30
.35
.40
.45
.50
36" 52',
45" 34'
530 08'
60'
66" ?,'',
780 28
84' 16',
90"
.1635
.2954
.4254
.5354
.6254
.6954
.74ru
.7754
.7854
.0660
.1198
.1611
.1860
.2029
.2144
.2302
:::::
.0193
.0547
.0951
.7726
.2067
.2357
.0660
.1198
.1804
.2407
.2980
.3497
.3958
.4369
.47&
.0668
.1198
.7823
.2518
.3269
.4068
.490l{
.5773
.6666
.1035
.2955
.4473
.6142
.7527
.9780
7.773
1.389
1.577
.0076 I .0132
-0203 I -0961
.0422 I .oz2g
.oz2s I .12s9
.1140 I .rsor
.1658 I .2829
.2294 I Bsz4
.8049 Ls195
.3s22 I .6666
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.73
1.83
1.91
1.96
1.99
2.OO
1.28 I 1.20
1-43 I 1.40
r.68 I 1.20
1.83 I 1.oo
2.00 I .80
2.oo I .60
2.oo I .40
2.00 I .20
2.00 I .00
Diagona Tension Bond Bending Mom. Width Beam
24
@ro,ur.
of Stress
prism
Whose Bose is Segment of
Circle
r
used in Computing Sheor
=
Cp3R2
@
Votr.. of Stress
prism
Which is on Ungut0
,
used
in computing
sr,.o,
=
c16R'
@
*,0,n of Fooling ot Section A-A used lor Sheor ond
Eendirq Momenl
=
CR
@
,or.nt
:t"_tlT.r
Prism (UngutolAbout
Section
A-A,Fis.,=jl;]:-
O
Moment of Stress
prism,
Section ot Cylindar
About secrion o-o
=
'18t"
as being in the shape of an ungula of height
pz
and. a
segmeqt
of a right circular cylinder of height
p3.
The
sum of the two volumes is the shear force, and t-he sum
of their moments about A-A is the bending moment that
determines
the reinforcement.
The weighis
of the con_
crete slab and earthen fill are deducted irom the vertical
forces. This is easily accomplished
by reducing the inten_
sity of the uniform bearing load acting on the bottom of
the base.
The volumes for the ungula have been computed
earlier for obtfiing
soil bearing and those values for K
equal to or less than .5 are shown in Column 7 of Table
2 and Curve B of Figure 7. (See Equation
i for V.)
The volume of the segment of the cylinder is equal to
the product of the area of the segmenl and
p..
The area
is easily computed by making use of the fact that the
middle ordinate is KD. Values for the respective K" are
shown in Column 8, Table
Z and. plottei as Curve A,
Figure 7.
.
T!" bending
moment equation is derived by substitut_
ing R (Cos
f
-
Cos a) for R Cos
{
in the development
of the formula for moment
about the center of the foun-
dation.
This gives Iut:
fj*
|""r"*d_-cosoj,si.,,p6p
2Rsp1
[
r
/r \
n-c;;iL-- +(it'"
46-o)-
2cosaSinsd
-cos2"(+--.Is;"r-)]:
By- substituting in this equation
the trigonometric
val_
1gs_
for the respective
angles cor.esponding
to the Ks,
Column
9, was obtained
and Curve D plottej
on Figure 7.
The moment on the forces
whose configuration
is a
segment
of a cylinder (see Figures t and
2) is derived
as follows:
/a
dM
:
2RrPs
|
{Cor O
-
Cos a)
Sin2 d d C
)"
:2RBPg
:2RsPa
Cosa(p-+
sin 2 c)
l-
sirr
6
L--s--_-
l- sin, o
L--.-
+
30 3.5 404550 6.0 z0 8090
SinaCosza_aCosa
]"
l
*:
,,
2R'.P,
, [:
r, *
4 cosz a;
(1-Cos")
LB'
-
asuae653a-
4
The values obtained
for the angles a (K) are noted in
Column 10 and form Curve E, Figure 7.
The widths of the foundation
at the sections are equal
to 2R Sin a and. are shown in Column 11, Table 2, and
Curve
C, Figure 7. Column 72 and. the dotted curve
(Figure
8) indicate the width of beams for any octagon.
Use of Curves. As an illustration
of application
of the
"l*9r:
th-" following information
is given: height of ves-
sel, i12 feet; diameter,
I feet; the anchor Lolt circle
requires
a l0-foot octagonal pier; top of pier is one foot
above grade and 6 feet, 6 inches above the bottom of the
foundation;
permissible
soil bearing 5,000 psf (pr) at 5
feet,
6 inches below grade;
wind pr"rrr.",
Sb pri oi hori-
zontal projection
of the vessel.
-
.
Operating
weight of vessel,
200 kips; vessel empty, 100
kips; and test weight, 300 kips.
The diameter of the
.base
required under operating
conditions
will be determined
first.
The moment of wind force
about the bottom
of the
foundation
is 112 x.03 x B x 62.5
:
1680 krp_feet.
30 .3s .40.45.50.55.60 :o.ao .so to
FIGURE
7-Curves for computing
shear for bond a,,d bending moment for reinforcement.
$"",aSinsa-r*#-]
2s
SIMPLIFIED DESIGN FOR TOWER FOUNDATIONS . . .
Estimate the weight of the foundation using a 22 foot,
6 inch octagon, two feet thick.
Pier: (82.8) (6.5) (.15) :
Bl kips
Slab: (419
-
82.8) (.3) :
101
FilI: 336.2 (.35)
:
118
Total
:300
Weight of vessel (operating)
:
tg6
W:SO6
1 680
EccentricitY
"
:,|| :
3.36 feet, e2
:
11.3
s00.000
-
(11.3) 3,000
is obtained from the curve on Figure 3 as
'153.
Then
T)
-
3'36
:
2l-9 ft.
.153
Next try a 22 foot,0 inch octagon with a thickness of
1 foot, 6 inches.
The weight of concrete and fill becomes 280 kips and
W
:
480 kips. To compute the maximum unit bearing
":#:
g.s
f""t#
:
+:
'159.
From the curve used above, C
:
13.5 and
480.000
P.
-
'""i,
-
,
:2,900psf (3,000'
This is considered to
^ 1
r3.5(3.5),
be near enough to the allowable soil bearing' To strive
for closer agreement is believed to be inconsistent with
the accurac! of the established bearing value of the soils
and therefore would be a waste of time.
The unit bearing under the foundation for test condi-
tions and one-half of maximum wind load is found to
be 2,370 psf.
To investigate the 1 foot, 6 inch slab for diagonal
tension, the
"area
of the lO-foot octagonal pier-is used
to compute the side of the equivalent square of 9'1 feet'
With t'he e/D of .159, K is found to be .88, by use of
Figure 4 and. KD
:
19.35 {eet. The distance from the
Abouf the Aufhor
Charleston, W. Va. and an engineer
in Design and Construction, IJnion
Carbide Chemicals Company, South
Charleston. Mr. Brofn's professional
experience includes Several years in
the Bridge Department, State Road
Commission of West Virginia. He
has been a consultant on bridges for
several cities. During his 12 years of
active duty in the United States
Navv some of his billets were: De-
sign'and Construction Ofiicer, Fifth
Naval District, RO in CC, Naval
Druw
Missile Test Center, Point Mugu, Califomia, and Public
Works Ofiicer, Naval Station, San
Juan,
Puerto Rico,
and Naval Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. He is a
member of International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineers and has BSCE and CE degrees
from West Virginia UniversitY.
Brown
center of equipment to the point where the diagonal
tension is computed *#* l.l7 or 5.72' Then K'D
:
11.0
-
5.?2
:5.28
and P*
:fji!-^
^]
2,900
:
790 psf,
-
\
1e.35
/
and Ps
:
2,900
-
(790 + 625)
:
1,475 psf. K'
:
5.28
_- ,4"
22.0
By referring to the curvqs for computing shear for
diagonal tension (Figure 6) and using K
:
.24, the
width of the footing resisting shear is 1.04 (11.0)
:
11.45 feet. The shearing force it
:
(.515) (1,475) (ll'?)
+
(.23) (790) (11')
:
92,000 + 22,000
:
114,000
pounds. t
:
*=frffi a88)
:
68 psi
( 75 psi
maximum allowed.
The section for computing bond and reinforcement
is
taken along the side of the equivalent square, A-A Figure
1. Then K,D
: r 1.o
-
(+)
:6.45and K'
:
.2e3
",
:
(-tt-,f
2,eoo: e65 psr
Ps
:
2,900
-
(965
+
625)
:
1'310
Psf
By use of the curves on Figure 7, the shear for bond,
the'bending moment and width of beam are computed
for K'
:
.293.
Width of beam: (1.82) (11)
:20.0 ft. (circle): (1'96)
(11) 0: 21.55 ft. (octagon)
:
120,600 J-
36,800: 157,400 lbs.
Bending moment
:
(1.08) (e65) (113)
+
(1.83) (1,310) (113)
l0
:
139,000 + 319,000:458,000 ft.Jbs.
458
Area of steel required per foot
:
(20) (14) (1.44)
:
1.74 sq' in.
Per
ft. of width.
Since wind forces contribute more than 25 percent of
the moment, stresses can be increased one-third so the
area becomes (.75) (1.14)
:
.85 sq- in. A six-inch spac-
ing each way of No. 6 bars
-
.88 sq. in. I0
:
4.7 inches
1 5 7.400
and bond stress is
:
lzoy 1rg 1.asn47;:
137 psi.
Some foundation engineers prefer to base the steel and
bond requirements on the middle one foot wide strip.
Under this condition the force for bond ;t
:
(1,310)
(6.45) + (%) (6.45) (965)
:8,450
+ 3,110:11,560
pounds.
The bending moment ;t
:
(6.45'z) (%) (1,310) +
(%) (6.+5'2) (965;
:
27,300 + 13,400
:
+0,7A0 ft'-lbs'
(.75)
&0.7)
et
:
ffi
:
1'51 sq' in', afive-inch spacingeach
way of number 7 bars
:
1.44 sq. in., l0
:
6.6 inches.
11,560
:
142 psi.
u:
(6.6) (.BB) (14)
r3.15)
(96
Shearforbond:
(.76) (1,310) (11')
+
-
The design for the top of the slab reinforcement, "top
bars," which are required by certain combinations of
loading, is left for the reader. ##
(965) (11r)
10
26
Calculation
Form
for Foundation
Design
For complete
design of octagonal
foundations
for stacks and towers or
for estimates
only, this form will
solve the problem easily and quickly
Bernqrd
il. Shield, Celanese Chemical Co.,
Pampa, Texas
Iu rrre DESTGN oF FouNDATroNs
and. structures for
chemical
plants, the structural engineer normally is not
too concerned with a highly theoretical, or complicated
mathematical
approach. From a practical standpoint, the
design
,assumptions
quite often are not accurate enough
to justify
such an approach.
Since the chemical industry is such a fast moving, often
ghySinS,_
arrd complex field, the design engineelr often
lacks sufficient
time to make an accurate theoretical
analysis or sometimes even a very thorough practical
analysis.
Quite
often he must wade throug-h a lengthy
article or text concerning
an unfamiliar pioblem, Jr u
problem
which he has not worked recently. Whiie the
time schedule suflers and other details of the job
are
neglected,
he must set up the problem for practical
analysis. For many problems of a rLpetitive nature, much
time is consumed in setting up the sketches and frame_
work for an analysis rather than in simply solving the
problem.
.Ifow
many times have you heard the question,
,,When
will the foundation
drawings be out?,, i hr.." heard it
many times, quite often as soon as a request for appro_
priation for a new installation
is approved. Faced with
this situation, the engineer must corxtantlv seek solutions
to his problems
that will give safe and economical designs
and use a minimum of his own time.
.
The following
calculation form for octagonal founda-
tions for towers and stacks was devised wiih this idea in
mind.
. .Y"^h"":
used the prototype
of this form quite success_
fully for about seven years
ind believe it is worthwhile
to pass on to others. The form is largely
self_explanatory
with
the.nomenclature
and design ,r,"ihod
being explained
as th6 solution progresses.
Design Bosis. The following general comments
should
be of help in using the form 1t
"
firrt time. Moments are
computed
about the centroid of the base of the pad,
ignoring any shifting of the neutral
axis as loads- are
applied. Soil stresses are computed using the section
T:9".1"r."j
the base pad around its axis of slmmetry. The
slightly- higher soil stress which would be obtained by
using the section modulus around a diagonal is ignorej.
Stresses causedty a moment in the base pld ur" coirputed
according.to
the ACI code by compuiing
the moment
along a line which would coincide with'the side of a
square. of equivalent area to the pier. Two_way reinforce_
ment is then provided
similar to the normal method of
reinforcement
for two-way
reinforced footings.
fn,computations
of forces, the area and stress diagrams
are divided into simpie geometrical
shapes for eale in
computation.
The design of tensile reinforcement
in the
pier.
is a practical
rather than a theoretical
approach.
Anchor. bo_lt lengths
_and
hooks are designed acco.dirrg
to the ACI code for
_hooked
piain bars. the length wiii
depend upon the design stress used for the boltsjso if a
designer
wishes to use a stress which differs from that
shown on the anchor bolt table, he may easily change
the length.
If he desires additional
safety, he may choose to use a
lower design stress for sizing the bolts #d ..r* the lengths
given in the table. I prefer using higher anchor bolt
stresses than some designers,
taking adriantage of the
/3
increase in allowable
stresses for*combinea-
toaairrg i,
which wind is a factor. This will of course give anihor
bolts which are smaller in diameter and longe-r in length.
.
f have a great deal of confidence in the reliability of"de_
sign stresses in steel but very little confidence in the al_
lowable
bond stress for a smooth bar. Many times anchor
bolts are installed without proper cleaning and with
thread cutting oil all over them. So, who knows what
bond stress will be developed?
I believe much work remains
to be done to devise. and
prove by tests, a really good method of design for img"
anchor bolts. In the meantime,
I prefer to rlse a desi[n
r.vhich I believe to be safe and economical,
and ,".ogri"
the right of other engineers to use their own criteria.
It should be noted that the use of this form is not
iimited to the complete design of a foundation. Should
it be desired to obtain only the size of the foundation
pad, for such things as estimating or layout, one need only
proceed
through.Step
5. Step 15 with Figure 3 are quite
useful to transmit information
to a draflsman, and the
anchor bolt tables are useful in fabrication
of anchor
bolts.
.
Thg
.nef
time you have this type of design problem,
give this form
a try. It is easily ,e.rised fo, .p""Ll .*"r.
You may lot appreciate
its merits so much if yo, orriy
have one foundation
to design. If you have two or more,
I think
-you
might begin to-like it. If you harre 50, yo,l
will probably
become downright fond oi itl
Procedure.
Considerable
time and effort are usually re_
quired to make a detailed and accurate design fo. octag_
onal foundations
for towers,
tall reactors, preisu.e vessel-s,
or stacks, particularly
if the designer is'unfamiliar
with
the problem. Consequently,
a complete design is often
not made, and this may lead to either an uniafe or un_
gcgnomigal
design or both. This method provides
suf_
ficient design detail for a safe and economical design.
A relatively inexperienced
designer can use the form, but
such work should always be checked
by an experienced
designer. This form makes such chelking
easy. The
finished calculatiorr
provides a neat, underst'andable,
and
legible record and should be maintained
for record pur_
poses.
This form is intended for the complete design of foun-
dations which have relatively large base pads in relation
27
CALCULATION FORM FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN . . .
to pier sizes. It can also be used for foundations which
have relatively large pier sizes in relation to pad sizes;
however, for this condition the designer must be alert
to make necessary changes in the calculations. Referring
to Figure 2, the changes which will be necessary are as
follows:
When Dz > 0.45 Dr, d will be a negative number, and
along with area (3) will drop out of consideration. Di-
mension C will also have to be computed by other means
than as shown. Therefore the calcuiations for shear and
moment as outlined is Step 7 will have to be altered.
When e is zero or a negative number, the calculation
{or shear is unnecessary and Step 11 may be omitted.
D6Dlc. ouleide
lnrul. fL
=e4(74)(%tl)
DlAGONAL
TENS!ON
FIGURE 2-Stresses due to flexure, bond and diagonal ten-
sion are computed along these sections.
Refer in the ASA bulletin to Figure 1 and Table 3
and list wind pressures for each height zone for the plant
site as follows:
For height zone, T,
Pr
:
0'6 (*
)-
*
Value from Table 3
For height zone,'12,
Pr:0'6 (
)-
For height zone, TB,
Ps:0'6 (
)- _lbs,/sq.
ft.
For height zone,Tn,
P.r
:
0'6 ( lbs,/sq. f t.
Compute and record on Figure 1, the values of P1, P2,
etc., and the values of La,L4 etc., for the size tower being
used.
a
a
E
E
!
a
I
o
lnsul.
:
o
-l
.6t
lrt
ol
EI
rl
rO
F
in.
F
ta
o
-
b
t)
t-
'L
"ot
E!!
+Cc
FIGURE l-Record dimensional data on this figure.
Step 1. Record dimensional data on Figure 1. Depth
betrow grade, h5, should be deter-rnined by a reliabie
soil survey for the site. The pier diameter, D2, is usually
about 1'-8' larger than the tower skirt diameter.
'Ilhe
pad
diameter, D1, and pad thickness, h1, must be assumed and
solved for by trial and error.
For selecting an initial trial pad size, the foliowing
method is suggested.l
Where wind load is likely to govern:
,/M"
O,
:2'7{
s
Dr
:
Trial dia. across flats, ft.
Mt
:
Total moment about base (See Step 2), ft.Jbs.
S
:
Allowable soil stress, 1bs/ft.2
(Suggest using 1,800 lbs fte for first trial.)
Wind load computations are based on the A.S.A. bul-
letin "Minimum Design Loads in Buildings And other
Structures," A58.1-1955.
28
lbs.,/sq. ft.
lbs,/sq. ft.
An orbitrory I ft. il odd
for vopor linert lodderl
7/
u
E
F
Top
ol iF
rol ro
DIACO}IAL
FLEXUR E
F LEXUR E
BON D
Wn
:
Weight of reboiler, full of water: lbs.
Step 2. Compute total overturning
moment, M1.
M'u: Moment due to wind:
L. (Pr) :
L, (P,) :
L. (Pr)
-
L.
(P,):
As :
Area of fill
\
:
Yrr1. o1 6ur.
lbs.
Ibs.
1bs.
lbs.
lbs.
lbs.
ft.3
Lbs./ft.2
lbs./tt.z
lbs./!1.2
lbs./f.t.2
X
ft. lbs.
ft. ibs.
ft. Ibs.
Tot. M-
Mn :
Moment due to reboiler weight:
Wp (C):
ft. lbs.
Mr :Total:M,v*M":_
.-ft. lbs.
Step 3. Compute vertical
loads.
A,
:
Area of base :0.828
(D.r) :
0.828 (-...-...-..'...-) :
_=_- _.' _ sq. ft.
Az: Area of pedestal :
O.B2B (Drr) :
0.828 (..
---.-)
:
_ .-__. sq. ft.
X
Wr,:Wt.of pedestal :A,
(hr) 150:_
X ._-=-X 150:_
_lbs.
Wr,,:Wt. of foundation:Wu
* W.
=
-
*
._-:_
Ibs.
wr
:
wt. of fill :
A, (hr) 100:_---
x _=-
X 100 :
Wr: Wt. of tower at time of mounting on foundation.
. . . .
:
Ibs.
We: Wt. of tower accessories and contents installed after
mounting:
Wn: Retroiler wt.
Ww: Hydro. test water
Insulation
Piping
Platform and ladders
Other
Wo, Total:
W: Max. wt. on soil: W.
* Wr
+
Wr
+
WA
Subtract W*
We
:
Wt. of finished tower, empty
W,: Wt. of Iiquid when operating
Wo: Wt. of tower, operating conditions :
Wn
*
W,
.--. _-..--
-
-
lbs.
:
--
lbs.
Step 4. Compute maximum soil Ioading.
Sa: Allowable soil stress at site and depth ,:
_lbs,/ft.z
Neglect maximum theoretical Ioading with tower full and full
wind load unless tower operates liquid full.
Section modulus of fdn. pad :
l:0.109 (D1s) :
0.109 (_) :
Case 1. Tower operating with full wind load.
Sr
:
Soil stress due to load :
W,/AL
-
_/_:
Sz
:
Soil stress due to wind
.:
Mr/Z :
_-=--./.-=-- :
S
:
Maximum stress :
S,
* 52 :
__ /_:
Case 2. Tower tested full with negligible wind.
S: W,/Ar :
lbs.
lbs,
Ibs.
lbs.
IJse maximum, Case 1 or Case 2, must be S So
29
TABTE l-fyp6 I Bolts with t8Oo Hook
Proiection
Sleeve
-dic
x
-
in.
in.
Sta
d
Net**
Area
Hook
A
Thd.
Serles
Min.
L**
op0
z-1.
4.9 ii
ui h-E
<do
D=6d L l/2" for bolts l/2" to 7/9"
D=8d !t/2" for botis l" lo 2l/2"
See "Anchor Bolts Detailing Dimensions"
on last page oI this aticle
L1A,
r%,
tBA"
rt4"
tsl,
2"
2%'
Step 5. Check stability. The rnost unstable period is
usually
just
after mounting the tower on its foundation,
prior to adding the weight of accessories.
Erection S^io.
: (W
-
WA)/A, -S.,
: (-
-
-_)
lbt./fr.,
S-ro. (Soil stress on windward side) must be 2 O
This computation will give a resultant minimum soil stress
which is on the safe side for stability because the vertical load
is computed with the tower stripped of accessories and the over-
turning moment used in computing S, includes mornent due to
accessories. Should the designer so desire, the moment can be
reduced for this check by substituting the tower diameter for
(Do+ 1) in Figure l, eliminating reboiler moment and recom-
puting moment on tower in a stripped condition as it normally
would be during erection. If this is done, stability under operat-
ing conditions should also be checked as follows: (See Case 1
above)
-
]bs./ft.
Subtract Ibs.,/ft.
lb's.,/ft. and must be 2 0 Operating Smin.:
S,:
Sz:
Step 6. Compute dimensioru and loads for computa-
tions of stresses in foundation pad. Compute size of
square pedestal with equivalent area of octagonal pedes-
tal, A2. (See Figure 2.)
IACl-318-PAR
1208 (a)]
a: lTr: V ft-'- ft.
b: .414 (Dr) :
.414 (-)
:
c:.707(b):.707(__-)
:
d:/zDr-/ru-
"
ft.
m
:
a * 2 d2 (d2 is in ft., here)
t_
Y:b*c
L
+
(
.____,
-
Sr:Su-Sr:
se:Sn-su:
lbs {t2
ft.
ft.
ibs ftz
lbs/f.t2
lbs/ltz
lbs ft2
ft.
g-: /r.:.t^
dr(s,
)
(d, is in rt.
)
"
,/"
D,
I
I
/\-
l!_,
-
s,,::h+#(sn)
(d, is in rt.)
+
\-/
Srr:Sro-S,
:
Srr:Sr-Sro
+
ft.
ft.
lbs/f t2
lbs/fu2
o _wr*wt _
u3--
^ - J\1
Sn:Sr*Sr-S,
lb"./I*.,
lbs./ft.z
I
-r
30
-
Lbs/ftz
TABIE )-lyps 2 Bolrs wirh 9Oo Hook
ProJection
-
ij1.
Sleeve
-dio.
x- in.
D= ?d t a/2"
Thresds
lzd min.
See
-
"Anchor Bolts Detailine Dimensions,'
on l6t page oI this aticle
-
Slze I Thd.
d
I Serles
Net**
Area
IImk
J D Y
Mln.
L*x h
OO
ZN
4-g";
4rV'o
%'
0.126 o,-9, 0,-8, o,-4, o,-6n o'-7,
o.202 o,-11t O'-L7D o'-5, o,-a, 0,.9,
0.302 1,.1 t,-oil 0,-5n 0'-9, |,-0,
% 0.419 t,_3,
o'-6, 0'-11
].Dl
_l
7%',
I
1/t'
|
.9-
-t
aa
181" I
a6
'-
I
q<
ltz, I Eq
-IEJ
7%" I ::'o
--t
d iiN
2D I Eir
-t
ors
2%'
I
o@u
--l
2r4',
I
0.551 t,_6, t,-5D 0,.7, 1'-0' t,-5,
o.728
y-gn
1,-6, 0'-8" |,-8,
o.929 7'-tlr l,-9n o,.9, 2'-Ot
r.155 2'-OD 1'-11 0,-70, t,-54 2,-4,
1.405
0'-77' t,-6,
1.980 t,_0, L'-9"
2.652 2'-11" 2'-9" 2,.o, 3'-10'
3.423 t,-4D 4'-6i
4.292 3,-8, 3,-6, L'-6t 2'-6D
Sl.p
Z.
Compute total moment in pad along a section
at
the
edge_of the equivalent square pedestal:
"See
Figure
2, Section R-S.
_
Computations
are made according to
,.Building
Code
Requirements For Reinforced Concrete,', ACI
g15-56.
AREA
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
X
l'rSs
IN SQ. FT.
:(cXb)
_ _x
:(cXb)

:
(SHEAR, lbs.)
X ARM,ft
X
(%c* d)
:
MOMENT, ft. lbs.
X
LOAD, Ib6.
Xsu
_.-x
x( + \:
X
(%c*d)
x
(-.-.*_
):
X
(t/sc
I
d)
X( + \-
X
(%c* d)
x
(.-*_):
x%d
:
(c)2
X
)rx
X
)rx
S-
:
(c)'
-
(_
'/sS*
:(dxD1)
XS"
:x
-X
:(dxD1)
X=--X
X
X
,/,5,
x%d
Totals
: \,/
-/\
V:
.--lbs.
Mu: ft. lbs.
Step B.
d, req'd:
d, req'd:
of pad required for flexure.
-V
:
__
-
_._
in.
f.rc:28 day compressive strength of concrete :
lbs,/inz
fs
:
Allowable tensile stress in steel. :
lbs,/in2
D, is in feet in formula, see Fig. 1; M, is in ft. lbs.
The following factors may be obtained from tables in Concrete
Design Handbooks or computed as follows:
K:lc/2 kj:=_/2
X
_-X
:
.......=--- l!s/in2
fc: 0.45 frc
:
0.45
X
k-
I
-
fs
t-I
,';f" 1+
j:1-'/sk:l-
d,
f
bar diameter
-i- 3 in. must be
:
or (
assumed h,
+
-.-_-
+
3 in.
:
_--_ in. Actual d, used
Compute depth
/M"
!
KD,
J=
1n.
3l
CATCULATION FORM FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN . . . Step 10. Compute bond stress for steel design above:
20 :
Sum of bar perimeters.
Step 9. Compute steel required for bottom of pad for
flexure. (Ref. ACI 318, par t204-e)
' :
Number of bars across D'
X
bar perimeter'
:
___ x
-__._:
_ 12M. .-_t2( )
A: 0.85
='-,,,^t
. :
0.85
-
--
in.2
p :
Computed bond stress, lbs./i1.2
f" (j) d, _x_x_
v
tn.
M" is in ft. ltrs. See Step 7
d, is in inches. See Figure i.
*Allowable
p:
1bs./in.2
lbs./in.:
>0jd,
:
Use
-
No.
-_-
bars at __
in. o.c. (distribute
V
:
Total Shear, lbs. See Step 7.
uniformly) both ways across Dr.
d, is in inches, See Figure l.
Steel supplied
:
--_
X
-
:
=
--
in.2
*Ref.
ACI 318, Sec. 305
Step 11. Compute shear unit stress as a measure of
diagonal tension along Section f-g, Figure 2.
Stress indicated on Volume of area-shess. Shear for
Area on plan. stress diagram. Geometrical shape diagonal tension
(4)
+
(5) se
:
s,
a#
t.l
(The numbers here are for defining the
geometrical shapes o,n Figure 2. FilI in
blanks at right for computation.)
:
2
(-+-
-)
(- )
:
lbs
(4) S,,
-
s*'
1"11-;
2
lbs
lbs
Ibs
lbs
:-(_
)
(
_\
2',-
e +
2 Srr(e)2
u11
-
g
:/c- (-
-
'1
s,o
:t,.(?)(+)
:-l
_I_
I/_ \
4'-
s,,
=f
(1)
r'r
--l
_
\ / \
4'-
s.^
-
S,,
1"1,
12
(s)
(6)
\t )
(6)
+
(7)
:
12
(-
- -)':--lbs
V":Total shear for diagonal tension:Total of above------
--lbs
Compute diagonal tension shear unit stress, v:
V",:Total shear across Section f-g (See above), lbs
m: Length of Section f-g (See FIG. 2)
:
___
inches
m 1Cl^
d" is in inches, See FIG. 1.
-
-lbs/in.,z
(_
)
(_) (__
)
Allowable v:
-lbs/inz
Ref. ACI-318, Sec. 305.
32
Step 12. Compute flexure in top of pad due to uplift.
W/:- (150)
+
(100):
-lbs/fu2
Figure 2, Section R-S.
Wr:Uniform downward load on areas (1), (2) aod (3), See Figure 1, and using an average weight of reinforced
Figure 2.
concrete
:
150 lbs/cu. ft. and an average weight for
:
h1 (150)
+
hs (100)
earth fill of 100 lbs/cu. ft.
AREA IN SQ. FT. X LOAD, Ibs ft2
X
ARM, ft.
:
MOMENT, ft. lbs.
(1) bXc Xw, XG/2*d)
:
x-x- r(-=-+-):
(2) c2
XW/ X(c/3*d)
:
(----),
x- x(
^
+-):
\5 /
(3) DlXd
XW/
)(d/z
:
Mu, Total moment
i:
ft. Ibs.
Step 13. Compute steel required for flexure in top of
d, is in inches. See Figure 1.
pad.
--
12Mu
- -
12X
Ars
:
0.85
-:
0-85
fsjd, X X
Mu: Moment due to uplift across Section R-S, Figure 1.
IJse
--
No.
_.bars
at
---
inches on center.
(Distribute uniformly across D. both ways)
Steel supplied
:
Number of bars X Area each bar.
in.2
Step 14. Compute size of anchor bolts.
Refer to Figure 1 and compute moment at base of tower
as follows:
Mnw: Moment at base due to windr
ft. lbs.
ft. lbs.
ft. lbs.
ft. Ibs.
M-*: ft. lbs.
Mn:Moment due to reboiler from Step 2 - - - - - - -
:
Mr:Tota1 moment at base:Mnw,*ME - - - - - - -:
N
:
Number of bolts:
_(,,N,,
should never be less
then B and preferably 12 or more)
ft. lbs.
ft. lbs.
in. dia.
Dn: Dihmeter of bolt circle
:
Fl:Tensile force, due to Ma, per bolt:*(4 M1,,/NDu)
-
(wr/N)
: (4X
-/--X-.)
-(-/-):_-._-lbs.
Ftr: initial tensile force due to tightening nut. - - -:
(5,000 lbs. is suggested for "Fr")
F:Total maximum tensile force
:
Ft
*F
Fr - - - - - - -:
Net Area (At root of thread)
:
F,/Allowable stress
:
--
in.2
Size of anchor bolt (Add
/s'
to size determined above for corrosion.)
:
ft.
lbs.
lbs,
Net Area of selected bolt.
:
in.2
See Tables 7 and 2 for detailing dimensions of anchor bolts, and for net areas to use in selecting bolt sizes.
xThis
simplified formula is not exact, but is always on the safe side.
33
o
a
o
o
i
UseJ'dao.
rJ'
long
golvonized iron aleevss.
Fin. Elov.
=
-
No. Dio.
use- J'dio. bolfs
iE 3 t ies ol t2" o.c.
*-borr
ol
-'o.c.
both woYs.
y'-'borr olJ'o.c. bolh woYe.
()
n
1
EL EVAT IOT{
Step 15. Pedestal steel and reinforcing steel placement'
For vertical steel in pedestal use greater of following
two steel areas:
(l) As: Net area of anchor bolts.
: in.z
(2) As: No. 5 bars at (max.) 6 inch spacings.
tn..
Use No.
bars distributed uni-
formly around pedestal in octagon as shown (Figure 3)
As:
in.2
Anchor Bolts Detqiling dimensions. Tables I and 2
can be used for fabrication simply by marking or circling
the desired bolt size and shaPe.
*Total
length:P*S+L+A
***Net
AteA: ao, in,z
**
Design basis for L:
:
Computations are made using an
allowable stress of 26,600 psi' Allow 10,000 psi for the hook
Thic cketch ia for uss itl drofting finiehed drowing:'
PLAN
FIGURE 3-Foundation details.
and develop the remainder of the bar strength in bond over
length, L.
t'
:
ft ut
-
fs'u'
rdp
Where: fs: Allowable stress at root of thread
:
26,600 psi.
ao: Net area at root of thread, in.2
p:Allowable bond stress for 3,000 psi concrete:135
psi.
fsrr: Allowable stress over gross area due to hook
:
10,000 psi.
a": Gross area of bolt, in.2
ACKNO\{LEDGMENT
There have been rony fine articles published on t-his subject and I wish tc
*tr-"*I"a".- tfr. lnfo.uation which I have gained from them. In adglition,
e@d @m;entr from Celanese engineers, particululy the late
L'ldie {ay9{s
6f Chalotte. North Carolina, and Willard Johroon
and womac soward Mth
eim*-"i'fii[op. f"*.,'have contribuied to the developmqnt-o{
-thjs
paper. I also wish io reognize the uork o[ our draftsroan, Don Staflord, in
the drafting of this {orm,
LITERATURE CITED
l
Wilbur, W. E., "Foundations
for Vertical Vessels," Pnrnoreuu RETTNEB'
34, No. 6, 127
(1955).
About the Author
Bernard H. Shield is an engineering group leader
with Celanese Chemical Company, Pampa, Texas' He
supervises a dePartmental grouP
hahdling mechanical design phases
of plani alterations and expansions
including project engineering, me-
chanical, electrical, and instrumen-
tation. Mr. Shield holds a B.S. de-
gree in civil engineering from The
IJrriversity of Texas. He worked with
the Surface Water Branch of the
USGS and instructed in the Civil
Engineering Department of the Uni-
veriity of Texas before
joining
Celanese. He is a Registered Civil
Engineer in the State of Texas, a
member of Chi Epsilon, Tau Beta
Pi, ASCE and TSPE.
34
Use
Graph to
size Tower
Foofings
Dimensionless
numbers,
computer
calculated
and plotted
on graphs,
sim-
plify sizing
of octagonal,
square
and
rectangular
spread
footings.
J. Buchonon,
Newcastle
University
College,
Newcastle,
N.S.W., Australia
Gnaprrs oF srMpLE dimensionless
numbers
may be used
to size spread footings.
These numbers describe the action
ot the footing under a known Ioad system and allow the
user to select a footing
size that wiil maintain
stability
without
exceeding
a specified
maximum allowable
soil
Deanng pressure.
.
A typical footing arrangement
is shown in Figure 1.
As in the usual treatmeni
the soil under tfre fo&;ng is
llk"" .1".
be perfectly
elastic, and no credit is allowed for
tne sorl tateraL
support.
When the moment (M) is negli_
FIGURE
l:Typical
footing
anangement
for tall towers.
gible compared
with t_he dead weight (W),
the soil bear_
ing pressure is uniform
over the *f,ol" u.# of the base of
the footing as shown in Figure
2(a). As the moment
increases,
l!: .r.iJ
pressure
diitribution'"h*.rg"r,
as shown
in Figure
2(b), (c) and (d), until it reachei the extreme
1111-r:,rr:ctice
impossible)'case
shown in Figure
2(e)
where the structure
is
just
balanced
on one corner of the
footing and the bearing pressure is infinite
at that point.
If M is increased further
the structure must topple.
-
So long as the allowable
pressure is not exceeded, all
of these possible
arrangementi
are inherently
stable. How_
ever, at some stage in the sequence,
the maximum
soil
pressure,
th.at is the pressure af the extreme point on the
leeward
side, becomes equal to the allowable pressure.
As the moment is increased
further, the pressure at this
point exceeds the allowable and the structure is in danger
of toppling caused by differential
settlement.
For any particular
footing shape (square,
octagonal,
etc.) and. orie.ntation,
a pressure
pattern as shown in urry
o1e
.of
the diagrams_ of Figure
2 prescribes
a unique
relation bgtwegn
W, M, the maximum pressure
p,
,La
the plan size of the footing-described
by some character_
istic dimension L.
-
F-or any such case the dimensionless
groups, which may
be formed from these variables-
wLWsW
-M-,
rrp, ]f,i_,
etc._
have fixed values.
,
The graphs-of Figures Z and. 4 show the relationship
between two of these groups,
/w
r/
"
w
M
_w
and
--_
Pt.2 ',
for footings having square and octagonal plan shapes and
tne onentatrons
shown.
The terms of the first g.roup and the footing shape are
the design data.
Calculution tf this group
and reflrence
to
-
the graph for the footing ,t apJ specined gives the
value of the second group fiom it i"t tfr" size of the
footing may be calculated.
-
_
Figure 3 includes
all the cases where the whole of the
base of
-the
footing is loaded as in Figure
2(b)
;
that is,
where there is some pressure
over the i"hol" of
'tLe
lower
face of the footing. The upper limit is at the point where
the minimum pressure
is 05 percent
of the maximum.
B?9"9 this,point
the effect of th" moment load may
safely be neglected.
Figure 4 describes the cases where only part of the
base is Ioaded
fas
in Figure
2(d)
].
The lower limits cor_
respond
with cases where only about one tenth of the
base area is under load. Actual designs will rarely ap_
proach
this condition or go beyond it. fne ,pp", iiroii,
of Iigure 4 correspond,
o1 cor.se,
with the lower limits
of Figure 3.
.
Fo.
?
given loading system on a footing, there is, except
Ior a ctrcular
tooting some critical orientation of the axis
of rotation
which produces
the highest maximum
soil
pressure.
For both the square and the octason this orien_
tation is the axis passing
through two verlices.
The curves for the octagonal footing have been calcu-
35
(d)
(b)
(a)
(c)
FIGURE 2-Changes
in soil pressure for tall towers'
lated on this basis. Similarly,
for a completely
unre-
strained structure
on a square footing, the curves for the
afi.""f axis should be used for calculating
the minimum
size of footing.
If the struiture
is restrained
so that rotation about only
orr" t*i, is possible, as for instance in the case of a pipe
rack standird, a more economical
design results if a
;q;;t; footing is arranged so that this axis is p-arallel to
one side. ThJ approprilte
c,,rve is then used for calcu-
i;;i.;;f the fooii"g tir". ln this orientation
the required
size of the footing
is somewhat
less'*
--irr
r,rch a situition, however,
an even more economical
d*ig" *ry ,"rrlt from using a rectangular
footing with
its
fieater'side
perpendiculai
to the axis of rotation'
-
fir" curves *uy b" used equally well for design of rec-
tangular
footings by using the factor
q the plan aspect
ratio of the footing.
,
-
dimension
perpendiculal t9 the.axis oi rotation
*
diinension Parallel
to the axls
In these cases,
L: dimension
perpendicular to the axis of rotation
Usually a will be greater than 1, but if for some other
reason a'rectangular-footing
must be laid out so that a
is less than 1, tfie graphs may be used in the same way'
The procedure then is to find the size of a square
footing *hi"h, with the same loading, would produce a
maximum bearing
Pressure
"f
I
frtit is done auto-
Wa
and
5p
as
tions, values of the parameters
zl and
p have
been added
to the graphs, where in Figure 3,
minimum
Pressure
'-;;i;;;;;;G
and in Figure 4,
!:
ttne
ProPortion
of the width of the
footing under load'
Knowing the value of the appropriate
p.arameter
and
of th" *rii*r*
soil bearing
pi"tt*", P, the load distri-
bution over the lower face o1 the footing and the re-
ili;;A
thickness and reinforcement
may then be calcu-
Utea Uy the methods of Marshall3 or Brown'l
In this connection
it should be particularly
noted that
*h";
"
portion of the footing is unsupported
by soil-re-
;;i;" tiere are shears and, more important,
bending
moments in the unsupported
section
of the slab in the
oplotit" sense to those-usually
considered-in
the design'
t'Iiere st."rses must be evaluated and the slab design may
reouire modification
to resist them
(e'g' by the addition
of iop bars to resist the reverse moment)
'
In common with all other methods proposed for esti-
*uii"g footing size, the calculation
must be a trial and
"rro,
!ro."tt.
The known data are usually:
.
Structure
deadweight
("mPty, working and under hy-
drostatic test conditions,
if required)
;
o
Wind and other eccentric loads;
o
Pedestal size and weight;
o
Depth of footing base below
C."Pq
(from knowledge
of trost Iine leve-I or situation of desirable load bearing
strata)
;
o
Allowable maximum soil bearing
pressure (P)'
For full details of estimation
of these see Brownell and
Young2 or Marshall.s
The moment load (M)
9a1
t{en
be caTculated from the wind load and depth of footing
base below ground. The total deadweight
(W), however,
comprises, i'esides the weight of the structure and the
pedestal:
o
The weight of the footing itself, and
o
The weight of overburden above the footing'
These can only be calculated
when the footing plan
size and thickness have been fixed. Thus it is necessary
matically by using the grouPs,
marked on the
graPhs'
M lwt
w{
-F-
As is usual with dimensionless
correlations,
the units of
the terms must be consistent. The length unit will usually
be feet; the force unit may be pounds, kips, tons, or any
other convenient' Typical sets are:
LWMP
ft.
lb.
Ib. ft. lb'/tt''
ft.
kips
ft. kiPs kiPs/It'z
fr
tons
ft. ton *o/t"
When the size of the footing base has been calculated
it is necessary to calculate the thickness and reinforce-
ment necessary to resist the shears and bending momelts
in the footing itself. For convenience in these calcula-
*r, w
^
/E is les thm 0.73, the situation is revened, but in this
-'fr'YE
*"i *,i**
rectangulrfmting
with uis of rotatiou
parallcl to a
side shoulil still be red.
36
to guess initially a footing size so that (W) can be esti-
mated, and then to refine this estimate by trial and error.
Often, and particularly for deeply based footings, the
siab thickness is of minor importance at this stage, since
extra thickness of concrete onlv displaces overburden of
not greatly different density. If the initial estimate of the
thickness is reasonably good. final adjustment will have no
great effect on the deadweight (W).
_
It is usually desirable to compute separ.ately the footing
size required for several critical load conditions. These
are:
.
Minimum weight and maximruu nind effect, e.g., in
course of construction;
o
Working weight and maximum u'ind;
o
Test conditions-filied with tater ancl 50 percent of
maximum wind moment.
The evaluation of the first and last of these depends
on the design and method of construction, and no useful
general rules can be given. A reduction in wind load for
test conditions is allowed since it is most r.rnlikely that the
test period and the maximum rvind would coincide. Since
tho construction period is normall1, much longer than the
=l
;
456 8t0
200 300 400
lwlE
ur'p
FIGURE S-Relationship
between two dim,ensionless numbers
for all cases where some- pressure acts on lower base face.
0.3
0.2
*l-' o.rs
0. I0
0,09
'0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.5
0.5
o.4
0.04
0.5 0.6 0.8 I 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 78
w /TE-
M/P
FIGURE 4-Relationship between two dimensionless numbers
for cgses
^w-here
pressureicts on only part of Iower base face.
(i.e. Fie. 2d).
test, no such allowance is possible for min. wt. and max.
rvind effect.
The procedure to be followed is iliustrated in the fol-
lowing examples.
Exomple-Ocfogonol
Tower Footing. A footing is to
be designed to carry a. tower 54 feet high and 4 feet in
diameter to be placed on soil for which the maximum
allowable bearing pressure is 2,000 lb/ft.,
The frost line is 4 feet below grade and the pedestal
top is to be 1 foot above grade. The footing base 1s made
20 30 40 60 80 t00
l'
P
I
W: Weight of ,structure, footing and overburden
M: Moment of wind load and any other eccentric
loads about the center line ol the base of the
footing
P: Maximum allorvable soil bearing pressure
L: Characteristic length: square-length of side
octagon-width across flats
rectangle-length perpendicular
to the axis of rotation
(See Figure 5)
PIan aspect tatio of rectangle
_
Length perpendicular
to axis of rotation
Length parallel
with axis of rotation
(See Figure 5
)
For other cases, a: 1
Minimum Dressure
,z (.tlgure Jl
::
-
_:+-
lvlaxlmum pressure
p (Figure 4)
:
Plgp-crrJion of the rvidth of the footing
which is under load.
37
SIZING TOWER FOOTINGS.
. .
5 feet beiow
grade, i.e., 1 foot beloru the frost line'
The design" maximum
wind velocity
is 100 mph'
The ma*"imum
wind moment ahout the base of the
footing is calculated to be 200,000
ft' lb' (M)'3
Tower weights are as follorvs:
Empty Tower
30'000 lb'
Appurtenances
and working contents
9,000 lb'
Water fitt for hydrostatic
test
40,000 lb'
For a pad estimated
to be 13'5 feet across flats and 1
foot thici< rvith an octagonal pedestal 6 feet across flats
""J
+ i.", deep and ctay nit of density
90 1b'/ft'3, esti-
mated u,eights are:
63,000 lb.
33,000 lb.
,-*
?5
=
78.6 It,2
0.318
L
:
8.86 ft.
so that rotation abor'rt onlv one axis is
\V
PL:
)\
Lr
-
-"
.
65.8 ft.:
0.38t)
T,
:
8.1 ft.
Restrained
possible.
Concrete
Fi11
Then calculations
for the three critical conditions are:
EmPtY
Working
Test
w (1b.) 126,000
13s,000
i66,000
M (lb. ft.) 200,000
200,000
100,000
P (lb./1t.2) 2,000
2,000
2,000
\v
i* 0.63 v-63 u.G.s v-G,s
1.66
r/
&3
M\ P
:5'00
W
,f..r, nraoh) 0'405
PL2
'
:
5.54
:
15.11
0.423
0.585
67.5
83
0.423 U.5u5
12.61
11.9
L2
L (ft.)
63
0.105
t2.47
Thus the assumed size is too large and could be re-
duced. The next trial rvould assume a l2-foot
octagon'
and the minimum size would probably be somewhere
near this figure.
Exomple-Squore
Tower Fooling. A square footing
is to be designed to carry a total estimated deadweight
of 50,000 po.,nds and a maximum
overturning
moment
of tOb,OOO Ib. ft. on soil having a maximum allorvable
bearing pressure of 2,000 Lb.lft2.
*
-/*
:0.5t/-Ii:2.5
M!F
Unrestrained.
Diagonal axis
#:0.318
(from graPh)
Aboul the Aurhor
John
Buchanan is a lecturer in
chemicai engineering
design at New-
castle l]niversitv
College of the Uni-
versitv of New South Wales, Tighe's
Hil1, N.S.W', Australia'
tle holds
B.E. (Chem.) and M.E. (Chem') de-
grees from the University of Sydney'
Mr. Buchanan
held
Positions
as a
design engineer
with I\'[onsanto
Chemicals Ltd. and Union Carbide
Ltd. in SydneY
Prior
to accePting
his present
Position'
38
C
.9
o
o
t
o
-TL
cl
I
t
FIGURE 5-For rectangular
footings,
"a" is usually
greater
than one.
Exomple-Rectongutor
Fooling.
For the loads as in
,h" ,qrur" footing e*ample above, assllme a
:
3 (short
side parallel rvith axis):
]t
-
/'E
,o.i
rl
x 25
:4.34
M\ P
wu
:
0.505
(from graphs)
PLT
L.
:
7.5.
=:
1'18.5 ft2
0.505
L
:
12.2 ft.
1:
+.1ft'
The rectangle
required is l2'2 ft' x 4'1 ft' having
pian
"r""
+g.S ft"a, ,gri.rst 65.8 ft2 for the square footing
under the same conditions.
In each of the above examples
the maximum
pressure
*itt U" equal to the allowable,
and the pressure
distribu-
tion may te immediatelv
sketched
after finding the value
of the parameter
p o, ,i fronr the appropriate-
graph'
Considering
the essentially
rare
-and
transitory
occur-
rence of the riaximum
moment load, the- basic assumption
;;;-;i;he
t"ginnitg
are sufficient
for most applica-
iio".. ffr" ,rsrr..r!tio,
of perfectly elastic soil, however'
is
not entirelv sonlnd and in tritical cases the advice of a soil
mechanics'expert
should be sought'
LITERATURE
CITED
1
Brou'n, A. A' HvorocangoN Psocrssrro & Plrnorruu
RsrrNet 42' No' 3'
141
(1963).
",'d,.*"'"ir.
L. E. and Young, E' H' in
^-"Process
Equipment Design"
ch#ri" ti,
^u"i'v*1.
l"t
"
Wile"v' and Sons ( 1959 )'
sMarshall.
V. o. l'nrnorru*huu'"""
37; No' 5 Desisn Suppl'
(1958)'
Buchanan
E. Czerniqk, The Fluor Corp., Ltd., Los Angeles
IIr,RB's A NElv AND srlvrplrrrED METr{oD of solving con-
crete column problems consisting of an axial load com-
bined with diagonal bending. The method can be used
to determine the combined stresses and the eccentric-load
capacities of reinforced concrete columns from known or
assumed positions of the neutral axis. The approach is
unique because it provides greater accuracy with less
computation than methods used up to now. It consider-
ably simplifies the stress analysis of many structural com-
ponents used in Hydrocarbon Processing Plants, e.g., pipe
supports and rigid frame structures for supporting ex-
changers, compressors, etc. The method bypasses the
usual, time consuming, tedious computations of principal
axes as well as the need to rotate all computed properties
about the principal axes. Significantly, the method is
valid for both elastic and plastic stress distributions. ft
thus unifies in one, simple approach the straightline and
the ultimate-strength methods now used in reinforced
concrete design.
The methods of analytic geometry and the basic equi-
librium equations from statics may be applied to a.variety
of problems involving stress analysis. The term 'analytic,
preceding'geometry'
implies an analytical method,
wherein all results are obtained algebraically, with any
diagrams and figures serving merely as an aid in visualiz-
ing the problem. All given data must, therefore, be ex-
pressed in coordinates with respect to a suitable set of
axes (preferably
selected so as to make the coordinates
as simple as possible). The procedure will be illustrated
by the rather intricate problem of axial load combined
with diagonal bending.
In general, when bending in a concrete column occurs
about both coordinate axes, and there is tension on part
of the section, the effective portion of the reinforced con-
crete section (transformed area) resisting the applied
load is not symmetrical about any axis. Though the unit
stresses may still be expressed by the well known formula:
P
_.M*"*oMr",
Ar*I,
such a process is rather laborious because all the values
must be related to the principal axes through the cen-
troid of the acting section. Thus, for each assumed neutral
axis, one must repeat the numerous and tedious compu-
tations of : the centroid of the acting section; the orienta-
tion of the principal axes; moments of inertia about the
principal axes; and, not the least, the calculation of load
Simplified Design Method for
lnfricate Concrete Column Loading
Combined biaxial bending and axial Ioad
on reinforced concrete columns present
difficult design solutions. This method bypasses the usual tedious computations
eccentricities with respect to same principal axes. No
wonder, then, that 'exact' solutions have been consistently
avoided by practicing engineers. The technical literature,
though abundant in advice on the 'how to' side of prob-
lem solving, is extremely meager when it comes to specific
examples, except maybe for the most simple cases.
Should You Trusf Compulers? The increasing use of
digital computers has somewhat improved the situation.
Computer programs are now available that can accom-
plish the tiresome solution through successive approxima-
tions, at extremely rapid rates. Ilowever, when ihe engi-
neer views the computer output sheet, he may sometimes
bewilderingly wonder
just
how accurate these results
really are and whether he could and should put his trust
in the modern marvel of technical automalion 'design
via computerization.'
Needless to say, the engineer has
no right, nor authority, to abdicate his responsibility for
professional judgment.
The responsibility for structural
adequacy must always be his, irrespective of the methods
or tools used to come up with the answer, be it a slide
rule, desk calculator or a giant electronic computer.
Ifence, if he is to make the most out of the new to-ol, he
must possess some simple means for spot checking the
machine. In the case of biaxial bending on concrete
columns, the method outlined below could probably serve
such a pu{pose.
Two Design Methods. The Building Code requirements
for reinforced concrete (ACI 31S.5G) permiti columns
subjected to combined bending and axial load to be in-
vestigated by two methods:
o
The so-called elastic method in which the straight line
theory of flexure is used, except in regard to compressive
reinforcement.
o
The ultimate strength method on the basis of inelastic
action.
Ultimate strength design is relatively new in American
Codes, and hence some of the old timers may feel ill
at ease 'r,r,ith
new concepts and new criteria. It will be
shown, through illustrative examples, that the same ap-
proach applies throughout the full range, from elastic
analysis to elastic-plastic and ultimate strength con-
siderations. In the straight line stress distributionmethod.
the code requires that colurfins in which the load
p
has
an eccentricity greater than
/3
the column depth t in
39
]NTRICATE CONCRETE COLUMN TOADING . . . ,
either direction, the analysis should be based on the use
of the theory for cracked sections, e'g', that the concrete
does not resist tension. This e/t allowance does not apply
in ultimate strength design. At ultimate loads, flexural
tension in concret-e is insignificant,
and the Code requires
that it be comPletelY neglected.
filethod of Anolysis for Rectongulqr Sections' In the
case of rectangular sections, it is convenient to choose one
corner as thelrigin and Iet the axes coincide with two
sides of the rectaigle' In Figure 1: O, B, C, and D are
,h"
"o*"r,
of the
liven
conirete section' Line
QR
desig-
nates the neutral a*is
1line
of zero strain), and intersects
the x and y axes at a and b respectively'
Let the toordinates of the eccentrically applied load,
P, be i and
!;
and the coordinates of any given rein-
forcing bar, of area Ai be x1 and
Yi'
The" inte.cept form of the equation of the neutral axis
QR
is:
i**:'
Now, assuming that the stress fi at any point (xi,yi);
is proportional ti its distance from the neutral axis, then
Uy'*,it,iptying
fo, the stress at origin (o,
9),
by the ratio
oi tf," dittr"Jes of point (x1y1) to that of (o,o) we ob-
tain the general stress formula:
r,:t
(t
-+ -
ItJ
"\ a b/
The engineer need not keep track of. the sign, as the
stress foniula will automatically result in positive stress,
or compression, for all points lying to the left of the neu-
tral axis (see Figure 1) and negative stress, or tensron
beyond the neutral axis'
The coordinates of the centroid of the triangular area
under compression, OQR, ate a/3 and b-/3' Hence, the
average compression stress within the effective concrete
section will simPly be:
FIGURE l-In rectangular sections, choose one corner as the
origin.
compression, is a triangle. In the general
.case,
when line
QR'ir
partially outside the concrete section (see Figure
fr,
o.r"'o, more smaller triangles must be subtracted from
the over-all larger one. This is illustrated in the following
examples.
Reinforcing Steel Slress. The stress in the reinforcing
bars is obtiined by multiplying the value (f1) in the
seneral stress formula, by the modular ratio, n, the ratio
It tt
"
modulus of elasticity of steel to that of concrete'
Section 601 of the ACI Code gives the ratio, n, as equal
to 30,000/f'".
H".rc",'thl stress in any bar A1 designated by coordi-
nates xi and yi is:
r
---t
-
rci
-
rrri
: nt^( t-
f.:_
-
+) '^'.\'
"
b/
and the load in said bar, having an area Ai is:
F"r:f.rXA,
The total load carried by the reinforcing bars (tension
and compression) is the summation of the loads in the
individual bars:
F":
,irr"'A'
where N
:
total number of bars.
Similarly the steel load moments about the coordinate
axes will be:
N
M'"":
i
,",*, and M'.r:
i
u",r,
t-f
i=1
The above formulas are completely general and the
engineer, if he so wishes, may use diflerent diameters for
thJ individual bars, and he may or may not arrange the
bars with symmetry about either axis. However, since the
same modular ratio n was apptied to both tension aird
compression bars, we did piesuppose
-that
the bond
between the steel and concrete remains intact, and they
deform together under stress. That is, the steel in the
comp.essio-n zone can withstand a stress only n times that
in the concrete. In reality, this is not exactly so' Because
x: a/3
ab
M'"*: fo
-e-
X
f,,:fo
O-%-/t):/s1"
v:b/3
and the total compression load in the concrete:
F"
: (Average Stress) X
(Area)
:'/s f
oX /z
ab: t"
+
It can also be shown that, for equilibrium, the load
F" is located at coordinates, af 4,bf 4;hence, the moments
oi the compression load in the concrete, about the x and
y axes are:
t:r.*
(in x direction, about
v
axis)
M'"r: f
,+
(in
Y
direction, about x axis)
(The reader may note that a2bf24 and abz/24 are simply
ihe ,ralues of the section moduli of the effective concrete
area, in the x and y directions respectively')
InFigure 1, the intercepts of the neu-tral axis, line
QR,
are shoi., smaller than the corresponding dimensions of
the section. Hence, the effective concrete area under
40
FIGURE
2-Example l. Find eccentric load
p
and moments
about centerline.
of plastic flow in the concrete, the compression bars are
stressed more than indicated by elastic analysis. Codcs
have recognized it, by assigning higher values to the re-
inforcing bars in the compression zone. Section 706(b)
of the ACI Code requires that: "To approximate the
effect of creep, the stress in compression reinforcement
resisting bending may be taken at twice the value indi-
cated by using the straight-line relation between stress
and strain." Ilowever, in permitting this use of 2n the
Code limits the stres.s in the compressive reinforcing to
be equal to or less than the allowable stress in tension.
In the examples that follow, the stress in the com-
pressive reinforcement
shall be made equal to:
I
-
#8 Lorr
f",
:2nf, <
f, (Compressive
reinforcement oniy)
hence, use: fo
:
0..15 f'"
steel stresses are reached
FIGURE 3-Generally
QR
is partially outside the concrete
section-
(c) Tensile stress in steel governs when:
i-+a>r-1-
fi
a b
-
.45f'nn
When this happens limit the stress in the extreme tension
bar to (-f,
).
Ffence, use:
X
,
Y
-,
r
ft
_
I f __
a b .45f"n
+1350
+337.5
+225
-1462.5
-
787.5
+9oo
hence, use: fo
:0.45
f'"
Ai
:
0.79 sq. inlbar
where f1 is the allowable tensile unit stress in column re-
inforcement.
Also, a correction shall be made for the con-
crete area displaced by the steel bar by subtractins (fr)
from the steel stress in said bar. Hence, comp;ssive
load carried in bar A; will be:
F"r:Ai (fri-fr):A, (2n-
1) fi
Governing
gt1s55-(6ncrete
or Steel Tensile. In the
general stress formula for fi, the stress at origin (o, o) is
designated as fo, and is the maximum compressive stress
in the concrete. According to the ACI Code, Section
1109(d): "The maximum combined compressive stress in
the concrete shall not exceed 0.45f.,. Foi such cases the
tensile steel stress shall also be investigated.,, Ifence, fo
will equal to 0.45f"' only if concrete governs, or when
concrete and steel reach simultaneously maximum allow_
able values (balanced design). To determine the value
of fo, compare:
("/al y/b) to 1
|
(f
,/0.45f,.n)
where x and y are the coordinates of the tension bar,
farthest away from the neutral axis.
(a) Concrete stress governs when:
f
1+-
'
.45f
"n
_f
,
-
'r
'o-
n
(r- :-+)-
\
a b)
ft
Exomple I. Find the maximum value of an eccentrically
applied load P, and the moments about the centerlines
of the column shown in Figure 2, when the neutral axis
is
.in
the position indicated. f'"
:
3,000 psi f,
:
20,000
ps1.
Solution:
30.000
n
:
,1_:
10
fo
<
0.45
X 3,000
<
1,350 psi
ft
=
20,000
Psi
a: 12" (given)
O:f#,
X t5
:
20,,
hence,
TABLE I--Coordinates,
Stresses, Bar Loads and Moments
for Example 1
.
(+*+-,)
I"i
(psi)
M'",
t
(In-kips)
t
(In-kird
0
B
1
2
4
+ 4,500
-14,625
-
7,875
+18,000
+ 8.45
-202.13
-108.85
+ 33.78
0
0
2.
7
7,
I
I
X,Y-
-
l..-\
ab
Load on reirforcile bars
Load on concrete e?ective section
Total
(b) Allowable concrete and
simultaneously when:
-
0.88
+53.16
-268.75
+161.37
+ 42.%
-t44.38
-
tD.m
+ 33.7E
-
83;90
+256.35
*
Loads in compressive reinforcement corrected for area of concrete displaced by bar.
4t
INTRICATE CONCRETE COLUMN LOADING .
Coordinates, stresses, bar loads and moments are tabu-
lated in Table 1. Also see Figure 3.
The load and moments in the concrete are calculated
next.
o
_
1.35x12x20_ 0.34x3x5
:53.16kips
,
"
-
-E--
6
M'"*
:
54.0 x 3.0
-
0.84 x 0.75
:
161'37 in-kips
M'"r: 54.0 x 5.0
--
0'84 x 16'25
:
256'35 in-kips
+
172.45
after bending, we write the general equation of the
strained plane, in intercept form:
where a, b and c are the intercepts of the plane on the
x, y and z axes, respectively. It is immediately apparent
that z is a measure of the strain, and the constant c is
the maximum strain, which conforming to usual nota-
tion, may be written as eo. Constants a and b designate
the neutral axis as before. Hence, the general relation-
ship for the strain ti at any point x1, yi may be written
as:
The engineer should not have any qualms about using
the constant E" at ultimate strains. Since the stress in the
concrete shall be limited to 0.85f"', any hypothetical
stress above this value will be subtracted' The equation
of the line for which f1 reaches the value 0.85f'" may be
written by making fo equal to eo X
1000f"' (Note: E" is
assumed equal to 1000f'").
or
/
"
,\
0.85 f'.
: eo
X 1000 f'c
\,
-;-;-/
(Note that f'" cancels out)
which for the specific case of eo
:
.003 reduces to:
j-+lo:r
from which the intercepts on the x and y axis are seen to
be X,
:
0.717a and Y,
:
0.717b respectively.
Stress in reinforcing bars:
xvz
-t--r--
I
abc
r,:r"
(r
-#-+J
v:
-J-qrq"
8i: o
(,_+_+)
Multiplying both sides of the strain equation by E" we
obtain:
,,:r"(,-+-+)
52.28
The eccentricities of the load with respect to the cen-
terlines of the concrete section are:
E*: 10'00
+
2.05
:
12.05"
Ey:7'50
-3-29:4.27"
Results:
P
:52.28
kips
M*: 52.28 x 12.05
:
630 "k
My: 52.28 x4.21
:220
"k
It should be noted that in above example the ratio e/t
is less than 2/3 in either direction, and according to Sec-
tion 1i09 of the ACI Code could have been analyzed as
an uncracked section. The example was selected on pur-
pose, so that the interested engineer may comPute, for
the g.os, transformed section, the value of the maximum
allowable load at the same eccentricities, and compare it
with the 52.28 kips calculated for the assumed cracked
section in Example 1.
Uttimole Strength. The term "ultimate strength design"
in reinforced concrete denotes an analysis based on in-
elastic action. It focuses attention on ultimate rather
than design loads. As in elastic analysis, it is assumed
that plane sections normal to the axis remain plane after
bending, and as is common in a reinforced concrete col-
umn, tensile strength in concrete is negiected. The de-
parture is, that stresses and strains are not proportional
at ultimate capacities. Section (A603) of ACI Code
permits "the diagram of compressive concrete stress dis-
tribution to be assumed a rectangle, trapezoid, patabola,
or any shape which results in ultimate strength in reason-
able agreement with comprehensive tests." Furthermore,
it iimits maximum concrete strain eo to .003, and max-
imum fiber stress in concrete to 0.85f"'. The stress in
tensile and compressive reinforcement at ultimate load is
limited to the yield point or 60,000 psi, whichever is
smaller.
Now, when the position of the neutral axis is known or
assumed, the magnitude of the ultimate load P, and its
eccentricities, which result in the
prescribed limit strain,
may be easily determined by using the same approach
as before.
From the assumption that plane sections remain plane
42
r",
:
nro
(,
-f -;)
=
r,
About lhe Aulhor
Eli Czerniak is a principal design engineer with The
uor Coro.. Los Anseles. He coordinates computer
Fluor Corp., Los Ange Angeles.
-Lle
coordrnates computer
applications for the Design Engi-
.""rino T)ent.- reviews manual tech-
niering Dept., reviews manual
niques and develops new m( elops new methods
nlques ano oeveroljs rlcw lrltrLrruus
and
procedures better adaptable to
and pr
systems conversion in automating
the design and drafting of refilerY
units. Mr. Czerniak received a B.S.
in engineering from Columbia Uni-
versity in 1949 and an M.S. in Civil
Engineering from Columbia in 1950.
He-is a registered engineer in Cali-
fornia and has published a number
of technical articles. He has had
-
field experience as a civii engineer
Czerniak
and woiked in design and
drafting
with Arthur G. McKee Co. in Union,
N.
J.,
for two years before
joining Fluor in 1953 as a
struitural designer. He soon headed up the structural
design and drifting on various projects until assuming
his present position.
\x.
t',
FIGURE 4-This drawing helps visualize the problem in Example
2.
and, as before, a correction for the concrete area dis-
placed by compressive reinforcement
shall be mad.e by
subtracting
the concrete
stress from the steel stress, when
determining
the load in the compressive bar.
Exomple
2. Compute the Ultimate Load
p,
and its
eccentricities
with respect to the centerlines of the sec_
tion, for the neutral axis given in Example 1. Use yield
point of reinforcement,
f,
:
40,000 pii. Figure 4 is
drawn to help visualize the problem.
/B
,/-'-
Solution:
X,:0.717x12:8.60,,
Yu:0.717 x20:14.34"
fo
:
.003 x 1000 x 3000:9000 psi :
9.0 ksi
l
/_i!!in
triangle OXuYy concrere stress equals 0.85r"
:
2,550 psi
fo
-
0.85 f'"
:
9000
-
2,550
:
6,450 psi
(maximum
value of excess stress)
I-oad on concrete effective section
o _9.0x12x20
2.25x3x5
'rrc-----l----
6 -
:221.80k
and the moments about the coordinate axis
M'"*
:
360x 3
*
5.63 x 0.75
-
132.57 x2.lS
:
790',k
M'",: 360 x 5
-
5.63 x 16.25
-122.57
x 3.58: 1233,,r
Tabulations of the calculations are given in Table
,
-
215
*:-lgg-:-1'oB"
+ 967
Y:--199--+4.86"
E*:10+ 1.08: ll.0B,,
Ey:7.5
-4.86:l.gg,,
6.45 x 8.60 x 1.1.34
TABTE 2-Loads on Steel and Concrete for Example
Hence, for the concrete section shown, a maximum
ultimate load of 199 kips (divided by the proper load
factor) may be placed at distances 11.0g inches and,2.64
!JL
#1+
43
Pointl xi
I vi
xi yi
t----
12 20
fi
psi
Ultimate Stresses
F,r
kips
M"y
Concrete
psi
Steel
psi
0 I0l0
B l0l1s
Xu I 8.601 o
Yu
J o 114.3
1 t 2.5t 12.
2 I rz.sl 12.
3 I 17.51 2.
4 I 2.il 2.
+1.00
+0.25
+0.283
+0.283
+0.167
-1.083
-0.583
+0.667
+900(
+225(
+255(
+255(
+150(
1600(
2550
2250
2550
2550
1500
::::
2550
+15,00(
-40,00(
-40,00(
+40,00{
* ro.z,
-
31.6
-
31.6
* zs.o,
-
553
-
553
+ 134
-
395
-79
+74
Load and moments on steel
Loads and uoments on cotrcrete
Total
_
22.9
+221.8
-1005
+ 790
-
266
+1233
+198.9
_
2t5
+ 967
*
Loads iu compressive reinforeement corrected for area of concrete displaced by bar.
inches from the centerline.
U#idAI
,*idffion
TALt
desig
lii':
..
Close centerline distance,
high towers,
weak clay soil and hurricane
winds gave
Phillips some interesting probtrems
Edword V. French
Phillips Petroleum Compony, Bortlesville, Oklo
SEVERAL UNUSUAL conditions faced Phillips' en-
gineers in the design of a common foundation for two
iall fractionating towers. The towers wcre to be located
in the Phillips' rcfinerv ncar Sweenv. Texas.
The design conditions presented these diffir:trlt prob-
lems:
.
The tou,ers \\'ere fairly high and clos': to one an-
other.
o
The soil consisted of a relativcll' u'cak clay.
o
Horizontal forces werc to be based on hurricane
winds and aerodynamic vibrations'
!:l
o
Each tou'er had to be structurallv inclependent of
,.'.:
the other and each self srrpporting.
'll ,,
Loyout Sfudy. A study of proposed lavouts indicated
that it was economicalll' advantageous frorn a piping
.
',
vier,r,point, to spacc the torvers close to ont: another'. An
s
inve;tigation shorved that for indepenclent Iottnclations.
;,St,,
$r
T
ffi
ffi
'{R.,
!.jiT*?.,1
f::il.q*ttl"l
44
FIGI]RE l-Gin pole supports tou'er as it is raised free of
qround'
'*";*
.
".
' d.* *
#";-t:
FIGURE 2-This is the foundation after the fust pour.
octagonal mats at least 40 feet in diameter would be
reqrril6d and that any spacing of about 40 feet or less
would involve a combined foundation.
Although this investigation
indicated that there would
be no appreciable economy in materials using a com-
bined foundation, one advantage was apparent although
somewhat unmeasurable. It is possible that the toweis
may vibrate when subjected to steady winds of 35 to 55
mph velocity. A natural vibration period of 1.0 second
per cycle was calculated for the shorter tower and 1.4
second per cycle for the taller one. Assuming aero-
dynamic vibrations to occur at these frequencies, im_
pulses transmitted by either tower into
a corfinon
foundation
would tend to be damped by the effect of
the unlike opposite tower. This
-damping
would be
effective to some degree whether or" o, both towers
were in motion or regardiess of wind direction.
In view of these factors, it was planned to space the
towers on 28 foot centers using a common foundation.
This spacing allowed adequati clearance
for erection
arrd maintenance operations.
A pian and. elevation view
showing the arrangement and general details is shown in
Figure 3.
Soi! Conditions. The soil at the foundation site is cohe_
sive. Borings were made and laboratory tests run of the
soil samples. A 5-foot top stratum corriirt, of black and
tan organic clay. This is underlain with 2 feet of stiff
tan inorganic clay beiow which lies clayey sand and sand.
Using shear strengths indicated by the tests and Ter-
zaghi's bearing capacity equation, the allowable soil
pressure of 4,000 psf was determined. This was based on
a safety factor of 2 at a 7-foot depth with no increase
permitted
when combining wind and vertical loads. After
the mat had been sized, uniform soil pressure due to
vertical loads totaled only 1,500 psf. domputed total
settlement was consequently small ind a major percent_
age of it could be expected to occur during construction.
Lood Combinqfions. The effects of three separate com-
binations of vertical and wind loads from the towers
were investigated:
I. Vessels ready for operation plus full wind forces
but without operating liquids.
2. Vessels operating plus full wind forces.
3. Vessels ready for operation under water test con-
ditions without wind.
Tower Fqbricqtion. Schedules controlling tower fabri-
cation and tray delivery were coordinated so that the
trays could be shop-installed. Also, platforms, Iadders
and most piping were scheduled for installation imme-
diately after the towers were to be erected. In addition,
backfill material was to be placed before the towers were
45
7t'ffi..2:.. 4
:::Ytfai.=:-:1,l1r,i
i;1i
.a^rui ..n -'
*.
*** .0
o
Verticol bors
qnd
keyed
f #
iii#3
*%.i
^W ^
a
#
*,
construction
joint
tie mot
'u'G*
llild*ry*"
"*%Y#
*&g-ond
pedestol
rogerhe,
**ffi
Jffi@-.,
.*
efi.W
erected. Since the likelihood was remote that both towers
would be left stripped down for an appreciable time, no
"erection" condition was considered other than to check
for stability.
Wind forces were computed on the basis of 125 mph
maximum gust velocity at a 30 foot height. Height fac-
tors were then applied which gave the following pres-
sures in three height zones:
0- 50 feet .... 52 psf
51-100 feet . . .. . 62 psf
Above 100 feet . 72.2pst
These values represent pressure against flat surfaces.
A shape factor of 0.6 was applied to compute the pres-
sure against projected areas of cylindrical surfaces.
Anchor Bolts. In designing anchor bolts, the upper
pedestals were analyzed as cantilevered flexural mem-
bers, loaded with combined bending and axial forces.
Compressive stress in the concrete and tensile stress in
the anchor bolts was then calculated according to the
theory of flexure for concrete. Both carbon and alloy
steel were considered for bolt material, but investigation
showed that an alloy steel with higher allowable stresses
and less tendency to creep under load was the most de-
sirable. The practical limit on the number of bolts that
could be placed around either tower perimeter was aP-
proximately 36. This in effect established the total ten-
sion force which each bolt must resist. Maximum bolt
diameter was not a limiting factor, but by using the
higher allowable stress of alloy steel a substantially
smaller bolt could be used. This was advantageous from
a handling and installation viewpoint. Since some degree
of aerodymamic vibration of the towers is possible, it was
considered imperative that all anchor bolts be preten-
sioned and that under sustained loading; elongation be
held to a minimum. For each tower, 36 one-piece bolts,
projecting 2 feet above the concrete, were equally spaced
around the vessel perimeter. All bolts were threaded on
each end and anchored mechanically at the bottom with
a 2/2-inch thick rectangular plate held between two
torqued nuts.
Octogon Pedestol. Because vertical loads for both
towers were considered equal they were centered sym-
metrically about the foundation centerline. The condi-
tion causing the greatest eccentric loading from vertical
forces alone would result from either tower being water
tested singularly. This eccentricity, found to be consider-
ably less than that caused by maximum wind forces, was
not critical. The combined wind overturning moment
from both towers applied at the top of foundation was
27,750 foot kips. Any wind shielding effect by either
tower was neglected and the overturning moment was
assumed equal in all directions. Because of this, an
octagonal outline for the foundation mat was more suit-
able for limited soil pressure than was a square or
rectangular shape.
Using a maximum toe pressure of 4,000 psf, a 50-foot
diameter octagon was found to satisfy all load combina-
tions, with the number 2 load combination actually con-
trolling the diameter. The weight of the operating
liquids was relaively small when compared with the total
mass and overturning moment. As a result, there was
less than 10 percent difference in the toe pressure andf or
46
-T-
g*=
s;f
-o
ti-
nl
t
=
E
o
b
ELEVATION
FIGURE 3-Plan and elevation showing
spaced at 28 feet on centers.
DESIGN CONDITIONS
One tower is ll/z feet in diameter by 177 feet in
height. The other is 10 feet in diameter and 203 feet
high. Although the towers difiered considerably in size,
there was less than 3 percent difierence in the cal-
culated vertical loads for each. This was found to be
true for both operating and empty conditions. For
design purposes, vertical loads for each tower were
considered equal. Empty tower weights included the
vessels plus all accessories ready for operation, Op""-
ating weights consisted of empty tower weights plus
operating liquid. Other data and conditions which
governed foundation design are as follows:
Tower weight, empty, each 425 kips.
Tower weight, operating each 500 kips.
Maximum velocity of wind, 125 mph.
Maximum allowable soil pressure, 4,000 psf.
Maximum settlement allowed,
/z
nch.
Minimum stability ratio, 1.5.
Concrete-3,0O0 psi in 28 days. Where applicable
ACI Code (318-56) to govern design and detailing.
f" and f" to be increased by one-third where stresses
are due to combined wind and vertical load.
Maximum allowable anchor bolt stress:
Alloy steel, 40,000 psi.
Carbon steel, 20,000 psi.
Unusual Foundation Design . . .
eccentricity between operating and empty conditions.
The stabiiity factor under load combination 1 was 2.4,
and for load combination 2,2.6.
Step Seclion. After the mat had been sized it was de-
termined, by trial and error calculations, that a stepped
section through the center was desirable. This step was
run continuously one foot thick, across the mat center
and for convenience was made equal in width to the
octagon side. At the edge of the step, the mat depth was
set at three and a half feet which with sufficient bottom
steel would approach a balanced design for the resist-
ing moment from soil pressure. This depth was then
continued to the outer edges of the mat in order to min-
imize the steel requirements and to maintain over-all
stiffness. The pedestals were then made equal in width
for symmetry and connected. A minimum allowable
cover of 12 inches, outside of anchor bolts on the 11-
foot, 6-inch tower, determined the 14-foot, 6-inch width.
Mqt Reinforcing. The mat reinforcing in the transverse
direction or perpendicular to face of the step was deter-
mined by analyzing sections across the entire width of
the foundation. Shear and moment at sections through
the center, at the face of pedestal, at the face of step,
and at points between the step and outside edge of mat
were c;mputed. Load combination 2 caused a maxi-
mum moment at the face of the pedestal and step and
at other points toward the edge of mat. Maximum mo-
ment in the same direction through the foundation cen-
terline was caused by load combination 3. To satisfy this
shear and moment, eighty-one
ff
11 bars were spaced
on six inch centers in the bottom of the mat at the face
of the pedestal and step, forming a center strip 40-feet
wide. Alternate bars of the above group, plus three
shorter
f
11 bars along each edge were extended
through the center to the opposite side totaling +7
#Ll
bars to resist moment through the cener. As the moment
decreased toward the outer edge of mat, alternate bars
were discontinued in two stages leaving
f
11 bars on
2-foot centers at the extreme outer edges.
In computing transverse reinforcing requirements for
the top of mat, negative moment on the windward side
caused maximum tension at the face of the step. Here,
+l
#tt
bars were placed on one-foot centers with al-
ternate bars discontinued in two stages both toward the
outside and toward the center, leaving
ff
11 bars at
4-foot to run continuously through the center. In com-
puting this mornent, only the weight of the overburden
directly above the mat, plus the concrete in the mat,
was considered acting downwa,rd.
The heaviest reinforcement in the opposite direction
or parallel to the longitudinal axis of the pedestal was
also required for load combination 2. Assuming the wind
from a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the
pedestal, tension from the wind moment on the leeward
vessel combining with the effect of soil pressure pro-
duced maximum tension in the top of pedestal. This
was near the inside face of the leeward tower. Assum-
ing all the tension to be resisted by longitudinal steel
alone, 22
f
11 longitudinal bars were placed for this
purpose in the top of pedestal. For the same combina-
tion of forces, tension in the bottom of the mat near the
inside face of the windward tower required. 47
ff10
longitudinal bars. These were placed in a 2O-foot wide
strip through the center o{ foundation. Other reinforce-
ment in the longitudinal direction was of a nominal
nature and was placed in sufficient quantities to assure
proper continuity.
Sheor Key. It was first considered desirable to specify
a continuous concrete pour between the mat and pedes-
tals thus providing the best possible shear connection
between the sections. Several factors making a continu-
ous pour impractical were excessive dead loads on forms;
inaccessibility; possible difficulty in positioning bolts;
and unnecessary exposure of the excavation to weather.
A large portion of the anchor bolts and pedestal rein-
forcing totaling some eleven tons would normally re-
quire support from pedestal form work and create a
support problem. Concrete placement in the center
portion of the mat would be difficult with all pedestal
reinforcing and bolts in place. ft was felt that accuracy
in positioning anchor bolts might be sacrificed if a con-
tinuous pour was made. Assuming a continuous pour,
the excavation would be exposed to weather longer be-
fore pouring could begin, thereby subjecting the soil
below the footing level to detrimental change in mois-
ture content.
fn order to eliminate these disadvantages, a construc-
tion
joint
was designed between the step and pedestal
so that the mat and step could be poured first. A 14-foot,
6-inch wide by l-inch deep recess centered beneath
each tower provided a four way shear key between step
and pedestal. This recess also provided additional depth
for maximum bolt anchorage.
Vertical R.einforcing. Particular attention was given to
the selection of adequate vertical reinforcing through
the center of foundation, tying the mat and pedestal to-
gether, because of the unusually high vessel overturning
moment. The two, fourteen and one-half foot octagons
were first assumed to act as separate round stems and
the connecting center section neglected. They were then
analyzed as round sections acting in bending and direct
stress, the critical section being taken at the construction
joint. This analysis resulted in a total of 120 square
inches of vertical bars required for each stem. IJnder
this assumption, these stems could transfer all of the
over-turning moment from the towers without influence
Aboul ihe Author
Edward V. French is a senior
structural design engineer with
Phillips Petroleum Company, Bar-
tlesville. He directs the structual
and civil engineering design phase
of assigned projects. Holder o{ a
B.S. degree in civil engineering
from the University of Missouri.
He has been with Phillips in the
Engineering Department since his
graduation in 1952. Previous to
this time he had two years' expe-
rience in general construction work.
47
from the connecting center section. This connecting sec-
tion became functional when the full depth of the foun-
dation was considered a flexural member resisting a mo-
ment in the transverse and longitudinal directions.
For vertical bars in each stem, 1'20
#9
bars were
arranged into two rows, one row on either side of the
anchoi bolt circle. It was felt that in placing these bars
in two rows, stress from the anchor bolts would be trans-
ferred more evenly and that any tendency for the con-
crete to separate at the construction
joint would be min-
imized. Additional
ff9
bars were then spaced on l-foot
centers along each side of the connecting center section
to prevent separation at the
joint when the entire foun-
dation acted in flexure. Figure 2 shows the foundation
after the first pour was completed and it also shows the
vertical bars and the keyed construction
joint used to
tie the mat and
Pedestal
together.
Gin Pole Bases. The possibility of combining a con-
crete base, which would supPort and anchor the tower
erection gin poles was considered. By providing such
supports, considerable time and labor could be saved
when setting the poles by eliminating the need for tying
down the pole bases. The position of each tower prior
to raising was planned with the tower lying at 45" to
the main foundation axis. The pole bases at the closest
possible position would straddle either tower on approx-
imately 30-foot centers. Figure 1 shows the poles with
the 10-foot by 203-foot tower free of the ground sup-
port. When the foundation was analyzed., applying con-
centrated vertical reactions from the poles spaced at
30-foot centers, it was found that tension across the top
of the concrete might cause extensive cracking. This
cracking, although probably not detrimental, was un-
desirable and to prevent it, additional heavy reinforce-
ment would be required. The estirnated additional cost
of materials to provide these integral foundations was
estimated at
$2,000.
This was considered too costly for
the advantages offered and the plan was abandoned.
As an alternate method, the gin pole bases were set
outward and placed on timber cribbing completely
clear of the tower foundation with cables providing the
necessary anchorage.
Leveling The Towers. The pedestals were poured to
within 2 inches of the finished elevation. As the towers
were erected, the base rings were set on a series of steel
shims which had been previously leveled. Final leveling
of the towers was then accomplished by adjusting shims
and anchor bolt nuts. After all adjustments were com-
pleted, two inches of grout was placed across the top
of pedestal and beneath the tower base rings. Each an-
chor bolt was torqued to an initial stress of 45,000 psi.
No inconvenience was reported by the contractor be-
cause the anchor bolts projected two feet above the con-
crete. Neither was there any difficulty reported in re-
gard to spacing anchor bolts to match the tower base
rings.
Mqteriqls. A total of 383 cubic yards of concrete and
27 tons of reinforcing steel was placed in the foundation.
As mentioned previously, no large savings, if any, in
concrete materials were realized over those required for
48
FIGURE LTower installation complete with insulation,
platform and piping.
two independent foundations. This was substantiated by
further experience when a third tower of similar propor-
tions (t}/z feet x I77 feet) was designed and installed
simultaneously, nearby. This tower was placed on the
usual mat and pedestal octagonal foundation and re-
quired only 140 cubic yards of concrete. However, under
the circumstances which established the design condi-
tions, there were still advantages in the saving of space
in conformance with the best piping arrangement and
in the possible vibration damping eflect gained.
Trend. There is a definite trend in the industry toward
the use of taller fractionating vessels containing more
trays. The experience acquired during the design and
installation of these towers will be useful in determining
rl=
lt
r
[,
;:K:i
l|.::,.4
.:N
:M
:,,#
1#/
#r
i, *
ffi
el::ilNl
:;ag=
P#,,ffi
the feasibility and planning of future units.
rL JJ-
1+1+
NOTES
49
FIGURE 2
FIGUR.E 3
FIGURE 1
/_t
_7 v.__r_k,
s,=
tt/64 (5-8k)
I
\lo
--
K
--6
^
**u')
I t L:r
r8k-5)
rr.rin(2k- 1)
!k-*-r
s2
""'
2(1-k)
E
=
D"X
(2C'lC')
'2r-',
P
:
CrpD"'
M: EP
The capacities of an octagon foundation subjected to
loading ai sho*n in Figure 2 are determined from the
following formulas'.
E-
D'
,a
(1- m)
"
B
'
(1-l m)
P:BE'zp
X
(t*m)l
(1-*)'
M: EP
NOTATION
P: Concentric vertical load capacity, kips
M: Overturning moment capacity, foot-kips
E
:
Eccentricity of load to produce corresponding moment,
feet. E,- M,/P'
p :
Unit soil pressure, kips per sq. ft.
k
:
Ratio of unloaded length of diameter to diameter of in-
--
t".iU"a circle of octag6n. Used in Figure 1 loading only'
m
:
Ratio of minimum unit soil bearing to maximum soil
bearing. Used in Figure 2 loading only.
D.
:
Diameter of a circle equivalent to the inscribed diam-
eter, D, of an octagon, feet. D": 1.04D.
Foundation
sizing
simplified
Tables can be used to select foundations
as easily as capacity tables are used
to select pumps
Dovid H. Konnopell, Girdler Construction
Corp., Louisvllle, KY.
JUST
AS a designer can select a storage tank using
capacity tables, so a structural designer can choose a
forndaiion based on tables of capacities' Entering the
tables with a given weight and moment (or eccentricity)
you can q"iclly select the minimum size of foundation
required. In addition, you can readily determine the
dislribution and magnitude of soil pressures under the
foundation.
How lo Moke Copociiy Tobles. Two cases of foun-
dation loading are considered in developing capacity
tabies. The fiist case consists of a loading which pro-
duces uplift on part of the foundation. This case is
shown i., Figrt"- 1. The second case covers bearing
under the eniire foundation and is shown in Figure 2'
For calculating the capacities of an octagon founda-
tion subjected to soil pressures as shown in Figure 1,
the following formulast are used.
c,:,r/B(t-2k) +
(+-+-
*+k,
)J
k-k'+
(2k-1)
arcsin
(2k-1)
4
r
50
Cr and Cz are coelTicients rrsed to shorten algebriac opera-
tions.
By decrementing k and incrementing m, capacities of
a one-foot diameter octagon are developed based on a
maximum unit soil pressure of one kip per square foot.
The relations of the capacities and eccentricities of any
other diameter octagon) D", to those for the one-foot
octagon are as follows:
f,-
:
[,,,_6,,
X
D* for a given
,,k,,
or
,,m,,value
P,
:
P1 0,, X D,'for a given "k" or "m" vaiue
M"
:
Mr,-0,,
X D*'for a given
,,k,,
or
,,m,'
value
Tables 1 and 2 are illustrative of tables that may be
used to estimate and design footings subjected to the
forces described. The tables were developed on an elec-
tronic digital computer.
ILTUSTRATIVE PROBTEMS
To demonstrate the use of the capacity tables, several
illustrative problems are presented as follows:
Problem l. Size an octagonal foundation for the self-
supporting vertical vessel shown in Figure 3, using the
following data:
p:2000 lbs./sq. ft. (2.0 kips,usq.ft. at 1'-0" below grade)
P"
:
50 kips, weight of tower
M
:
147 ft.-kips, about base of tower.
Since the tables show capacity of foundations based
on a maximum soil pressure of 1 kip per square foot, it
is necessary to first use an "adjusted" value for P and M
to compensate for the larger soil bearing value. The fol-
lowing relationships are used:
"Adjusted" P:
Allow. pressure, kips/sq.ft.
korm
"Adjusted" M:
Allow. pressure, kips/sq.ft.
remains the same for anv soil The eccentricity, E,
Pressure.
Step l-Assume weight of foundation, pier and earth
backfill as 50 kips.
p,:50.0
f SO.O
: 100 kips.
Step 2-Calculate eccentricity and "adjusted" value
of P:
E
-
1+7
:
1.47 ft.
100
''.A,djusted"
p:
190:o
-
5o.o kips
"
2.O
Step 3-Enter tables with "e" and "adjusted" P. Select
ll'-0" octagon (Table 1) (table capacity P
:
51.393
kips, "E"
:
1.429 ft., k
:
0.0) .
Step 4-Check assumed foundation weight:
Pier: 5'-0" Oct. 3'-6" high
:
10.87 kips
Foundation: 11'-0" Oct. 1'-6" thick
:
22.50 kips
Backnr: (100.2-20.7)x.i.1io ,
=##
ili:
P: 50.0 + 53.25
:
103.25 kips
E_
117.0 _
r.42
103.25
Adjusted P -
fq=!
51.6 kips
"2
Re-enter Table 1 and check selection. Inspection indi-
cates 1l'-0" octagon is satisfactory. Since k:0.0, the
distribution of soil pressure is such that 100 percent of
the foundation is under compression; minimum soil
pressure is zero on the windward edge and 2,000 pounds
per square foot on the leeward edge.
Ahernqte Solution.
Step l-Same as in original solution.
TABLE 2-Octogon Diometer
:
l4.OO
korm M
176.466
)74.793
777.147
i65.778
159.048
151.514
143.938
136.362
128.786
721.21,1
r 13.635
106.059
98.484
90.908
83.332
75.756
68.181
60.605
53.029
45.453
37.878
30.302
22.726
15.150
7.575
Capacities Based on 1000 lb,/sq. ft. Allowable Soll Bearlng
Area of Base
-
162.3 sq. ft.
Thickness Wetght(kips)
M
2.943
2.695
2.456
2.228
2.O74
1.819
1.646
1.489
1.345
7.273
1.091
.979
.876
.779
.690
.606
.528
.454
.386
.259
.202
.747
.095
_046
59.949
64.854
69.679
74.387
78.933
83.249
87.4t2
97.574
95.737
99.899
104.062
\o8.221
112.386
116.549
1,20.712
r21.874
12S.036
133.199
137.361
141.524
145.686
149.849
154.01 1
158.174
162.3116
\:33
{.15
i:AB
.00
i.O,5
/.ro
\.ls
l.ts
1 .so
\.ss
1.60
l.os
t.Il
\ :BB
37.009
40.037
43.016
45.923
48.729
51.393
53.963
56.533
59.102
6t.672
64.242
66.812
69.381
71.951
74.527
77.O90
79.660
82.230
84.799
87.369
89.939
92.509
95.078
97.648
100.218
\23
1.15
l:dB
.00
/.05
I.ro
\r#;
l.+s
(
.so
l.oo
l/.ig
\:33
85.596
84.784
83.016
80.412
77.147
73.+93
69.818
66.1 43
62.469
58.794
55.119
5t.445
47.770
44.095
40.421
36.746
33.071
29.397
25.722
22.O47
18.373
14.698
11.023
7.349
3.674
2.177
1.929
1.751
1.583
1.429
L.293
1.169
1.056
.953
.857
.769
.688
.612
.542
.476
.415
.JD /
.303
.204
.158
.1 15
.075
.036
Capacitles based on 1000 lb/sq. ft. allowable soll bearing
Area of base : 100.2 sq. ft.
Thickness Wetght(ktps)
l,-4"
1,-6,
2,-o,
2'-6'
r5.0
22.5
30.1
.J/.O
1,,-01
1',-6',
2'-0,
2'-6'
24.3
36.5
48.7
60.9
fABIE l-Octogon Diometer: ll.OO
5l
Foundation Sizing Simplified . .
Step 2-Obtain "adjusted" values of P and M:
"Adjusted"
":
'B:60:
50.0 kips
"Adjusted" ff
-
117:0:
73.5 ft.-kips
2.0
Step 3-Enter Table 1 with these adjusted values. Se-
lect 17'-U' octagon as before.
Step 4-Same as in original solution.
Problem 2. This problem illustrates the method for
obtaining sizes of foundations other than those given in
the tables. For this problem refer to Figure 3 and use
the following data:
p:5,000 lb.,/sq. ft. (5.0 kips,zsq.ft.) at4'-0"
P, E
235 kips, weight of tower
l![: 990 ft.-kips
In the solution of this problem, the following rela-
tionship is used:
#:+
e1!,:
{#r
"'
for a given
t'k"
or "m" value.
Where D,
:
octagon diameter desired
D
:
table octagon diameter
Pr
:
load to be carried by octagon D1
P: table octagon load capacity.
Step l-Assume weight of foundation, pier, and earth
backfill as 85 kips.
P
:
235.0 + 85.0
:
320.kips.
Step 2-Calculate eccentricity and "adjusted" value
of P:
r.
-
990'0
:
3.09 ft.
"
-
320.0
"Adjusted" P
-
3?o:o
-
64.0 kips
"
5.0
Step 3-Enter Table 2. Closest capacities are P
:
59.949 kips, E
:2.9+3
ft., k
:
0.25 for l4-0" octagon.
P
:
68.819 kips, E
:
3.153 ft., k
:
0.25 for l5'-U' oc-
tagon.
D:
{
640/59.949
X t4xf
:
M.47 ft., say 14.5 ft., and
E: 14.5/14 X 2.943: 3.06 ft.
Step
,[-Check
assumed foundation weights:
Pier: 5'-0" octagon 3'-6" high :
10.87 kips
Foundation: 14'-6" octagon 1'-6" thick :
3g.20 kips
Backfill: (174.1
-
20.7) x 2.5 x 0.1
-
38.40 kips
Total
:
B8.47kips
P
-
235.0
+ 88.47
:
323.47
hips
e
-
.9,9,0'9
-
3.06 ft.
323.47
"Adjusted"
p
-
32J'=47
:64.69
kips
-
5.0
D:
{
64.69/59s49
X
14.0,: t4.62rt.
Since k
:
0.25, it is immediately known that 25 per-
cent of the diameter of the octagon is unloaded and 75
percent is loaded; the unit soil pressure varies from 0
on the windward side to 5,000 lbs. per sq. ft. on the lee-
ward side over the loaded length.
52
Problem 3. This problem illustrates use of tables to
determine soil loading under an existing foundation.
For this problem, refer to Figure 3 and use the follow-
ing data:
P": 300 kips, weight of tower
M
-
373 ft.-kips
D: 1l'-0", diameter of octagon
In the solution of this problem, the following relation-
ship is used:
p,
_
proro,:j
1.0 P P1
fo" t given "k" or "m"
value'
When pr
:
actual maximum unit soil pressure,
Pr: total vertical load,
P
:
Table I octagon load capacity based on i.0
kips per square foot soil pressure.
Step l-Calculate weight of pier, foundation, and
earth back-fill:
Pierr 5'-0" octagon 3'-6" high
:
10.87 kips
Foundation: 11'-0" octagon 1'-6" thick
:
22.50 kips
Back-fill: ( 100.2
-
20.7) x 2.5 x 0.1
:
19.88 kips
Total
:53.25
kips
Step 2-Calculate total load and eccentricity:
Total load
:
300.0
+
53.25
-
353.25 kips.
E
-
373'0
:
1.06 ft.
'
353.25
Step 3-Enter Table 1 for 17'-U' octagon with known
"E." Read P
:
59.102 kips.
m.: 0.15.
p. :
-^814
:
5.98 kips,/sq. ft. ( 5,980 lbs. per sq. ft.
),
59.102
on leedard Ldge.'
Minimum soil pressure ffipr
:
0.15 X 5980
:
897.0
lbs. per sq. ft. on windward edge. 100 percent of foot-
ing is under compression.
The method outlined herein has been limited to oc-
tagon foundations for brevity. Using appropriate for-
mulas2, the same method may be applied to square
foundations with -an overturning moment about both
the rectangular and diagonal axes.
LITERATURE CITED
1
Fork, Chas. A., "Graphical Methods Aid in Stack Foundation De-
sign" Petroleum Refiner 30, No. 3, p Bf (1951).
2
Fork, Chro. A., "Applying Graphical Methods to Square Footing
Design" Petroleum Refiner 31, No. 11, p 145 (1952).
Abouf the Author
David H. Kannapell is a senior
structural engineer with Girdler
Construction Corp., Louisville, Ky.
where he performs civil and struc-
tural design of gas processing and
chemical plants. Holder of a B.S.
degree in civil engineering from
the University of Louisville (1936),
Kannapell has had structural de- iI
sign experience in many large i
chemical plants, synthetic am-
[,.llii
monia, hydrogen production, gas
purification urid .*bid" rnurr,rfi.-
D. H' Kannapell
turing plants. He is currently the president of the
Louisville chapter of the Kentucky Society of Profes-
sional Engineers.
Tower pedestal dowel bar reinforcing
is usually oversized by u commonly used
formula with a high safety factor.
A more economical method is presented
Andrew A. Brown, Union Carbide Chemicals Co.,
South Charleston, W. Va.
K
t.00
.95
.90
.85
.80
.75
.70
.65
.60
.55
50
.45
.40
.35
.30
.25
.20
.t5
.t0
cM-.
Dowel Sizing For Tower Foundations
Trre' srzrNo oF TrrE DowEL reinforcement is usually
the last part of tower foundation design. All combina-
tions of loads and moments are required in computing
the base slab. The pedestal size is usually fixed by the
base ring and anchor bolt spacing. So, with these data,
the size and spacing of the bars can be assumed for
analysis. Some designers use a minimum percentage of
the area of concrete for the reinforcement similar to
concrete column design practice.
Exomple. As an example, the following design data of
an existing column will be used:
M
:
7,000,000 inch-pounds, the maximum moment
o<
t800
154" 09'
t43" 08'
134'26'
I 260 52'
t200
I t3"35'
I 07028'
tot" 32'
95"44'
900
84" t5'
780 28'
72.32'
6stzs'
600
53" o8'
45"34'
3605 2'
.20 .30
cv - .03
30
.04
.60 .80 t.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 60 8.0 t0.0
.06 .08.r0 .20 .30 .40 .60 80 r.0
FIGURE l-Coefficient curves used to find rrnit stress.
20.0
2.0
30.0 400 -cM
3.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 r0. -cv
53
DOWEL SIZING FOR TOWER FOUNDATIONS
P
:
80,000 pounds, the minimum load which includes
the weight of the concrete pedestal
r
:
36 inches, the radius of the inscribed circle
R: 33 inches, the radius of the dowel bar circle
Reinforcement: 20 number B bars, NAs
:
20 (.79)
:
15.8 square inches
n:10
With this information 11r"-e it computed, k values are
assumed and the various determinations made until the
neutral axis is located. Then, the -r-o1 4r" internal
stresses equals that of the external forces.
As a convenience in recording the values, a table is
constructed. This can be revised to suit the individual.
The analysis follows:
e M 7,000,000
r \
-
2.4.\
r Pr 80,000 (36)
/ R \'z 2+ (10) (20)
'79r /
33 \'
2) Strr-2-lpnr
(;)
:
.;tr-\*/ -t.*t
3
(10) z (20) (.7e)
3pn7:
--#
:.Jbt)
7/ (JoJ.
Now try k
:
.26, from Figure 1, CM
:
5.1 and
CV
:
.41 (see table below for complete investigation
which shows ef r
:
2.01 or too small.) The other k values
are tried until the efr approaches 2.43 ("k's" of -25 and
.245 brackets this e/r).
CM+SM
Nore: SV
:
3z'pn (l-2k) and
;
:
16i6y_
g1z)
e/r
It is apparent that the latter solution is not very
economical, and contains a factor of safety out of propor-
tion to the other elements of the foundation. Its use
should be discontinued.
Derivqlion of Equolions
T'he subject of foundation design for tall stills and towers
has been accorded much thought during the past year as evi-
denced bv numerous articles.
-
Other equally important items
srrch as anchor bolts and dowels have been of less concern. Most
writers subscribed to the use of the approximate, inaccurate and
uneconomical formula rffi-*ror this purpose. As expressed
by many, it is safe. Actually it provides a factor of safety out
of
propoition to the other designed elements and is merely an
exp'edi6nt. One would not darJ to oversize the other parts
-of
thL structure proportionally as he would never be retained for
a repeat performance.
To stimulate and provoke thinking toward
-the
d-evelopment
of a more rational analysis for dowel bars, this method is sub-
mitted. It is not presented as the final answer but with the ho-pe
ihat it will influence others to produce something better for
our use.
For this presentation a cylindrical pedestal, or that formed
bv the inscribed circle of thi octagon br other regular polygon
is'used. The working stress design method is emPloyed with.the
attendant assumptio;s. A section that is plane before bending
remains plane after flexure is imposed. Stress and strain vary as
a straighi line and directly as the distance from the neutral axis'
The re-inforcement takes all tensile stress due to flexure.
In the development of the formulas the reinforcement is re-
olaced with an-area of Es,/Ec times that of the steel. In con-
itructinq the transforrned section, the holes in the concrete were
not remloved from the compression area. This should have very
little influence on the end iesults and is partially neutralized by
th" u."u outside of the inscribed circle. It does simplify the
derivations considerably.
The svmbols used are the same as those usually found in
concrete'design manuals and text books employed for teaching
this subject.
Fisure 2 shows a tvpical foundation with the forces acting
on ii and sives the location of the dowels. A section is taken
through thE pedestal
just above the foundation slab and the
forces"acting bn this section are located in Figure 3'
The equations representing the total forces and moments im-
posed on the corr.r6t. and reinforcement are now derived'
Taking the summation of moments about axis Y-Y we have
M
-
M;- M"
:
O or M
:
M" +
M". By summation of the
forces in the Z direction we get P-(V"*V":O
P: V" * V".
The total vertical force acting on the concrete is the sum of
all the stress acting on the segment of the circle to the right
of the neutral axis.
If f"' represents the intensity of stress on the elemental area
dA., then dvc
-
f"'dA", dA"
:
!16*
:
2rsind (rsinddC) f
.'
:
f" (cosd
-
cosa)
By substituting these values in the above,'the
( 1
-
cosa)
3)
SM
M+
SM CV
.410
.310
.340
.380
.360
.48
.51
.52
.50
.51
2.45
2.15
2.45
2.15
2.15
.26
.24
5.10
3.90
4.30
4.77
The unit stress in the concrete can now be computed
for these two k's by using formulas
t:
1"#ffi
ro.
7.55
6.35
7.22
7.O2
3.76
1.79
2.40
3_15
2.01 <2.+3
3.55> 2.43
2.81> 2.43
2.29 <2.+3
2.54> 2.43
concrete, and
fs:
nf"
[R]r(1-2k)l
2kr
for the reinforcement. (Equations 5 and 7)
96 (.25) 7,000,000
:
497psi f"
:
7.22 (36)3
(4e7) 10[33
+
1B]
:
14,100 psi
1B
f.:
96 (.245) 7,000,000_
502 psi f":
:14,600 psi
7.02 (36)3
(502) 10
i33 +
(36) .511
2 (.24s) 36
total force acting on the concrete, V"
cos a) sin2ddd,
Integrating and substitutins
a for / and 2k for (1-cosa) rve
obtain V"
I
,
Equation 1
f"
:
r.:*rr
l!*"r
-
_(1cos a
2
l!*'r
-g6s
a) sin2
o
cos
o
d
o
2f" rs
L,^,,.
cososin-Cl"
:
11
-
t"'
"1
l-
"'8
(ti sin +c)
- 3
-l'
f"r2
l-sin3
a
-
-kL3
stn a cos-
By comparison
4MP
ND-Nrweget
with the conventional method of
the force imposed on the maximum
80,000
Taking moments of the internal stress in the concrete about
axis Y
j
Y, it follows that dM"
:
xdV". The moment of the
force f"'on elemental area dA" about Y-Y becomes dM":
fo' dA" rcos d as x: rcos d. Substituting the values of dA" and
f"' as before, the total mo nent becomes
2f
-
r3
M-- "
" (1
-
cos a;
4 ( 7,000,000)
stressed bar
:
-lO-G6t-
-
17,200 pounds.
The unit stress is
#:21,700
psi.
54
20
sv
:21,200
-
4,000
:
-
f".'
l-a
f
cos a sin a-
2 coss a
KL
B
cos a sin3 al
3-],
Equation 2.
_
The total force V" acting on the steel is found by converting
tle dowel reinforcement into a,n annlrlar ring of equivalent area
of concrete and of width t- The width i. .{"ui t,i tt
"
p..a""i
of n and total area of the dowels divided Uy) 7n.
L.; i"-a;;i
to thq intensity of stress acting on an area dA" which irfo.iiJ
a distance of R cos
6
from axis
y
-
y.
Then dV"
:
f"dA"
:
f" t Rd d
By similar triangles
f"
-
R cos+-r cos a
t
l(1
-
cos
")
,,,
-
f" (R cosd-r cos a)
r(1-cosa)
By substitution dV"
:
,:,,2f"t\ (R cosd
-
r cos a) d p
"
r(I-cosa)
then v*:
,,""t*
.
("t'
,*cosc-rcosa)dp
" r(1-.cosa)
,)o
:
,,2f"**
.[*.r, d-
re.or*l
r(1-cosa)
l_
-'"""*
J.,
_
2f" tR
/_
- r( 1
-
cos a)
(- 7r
cos a)
'
since A"
:
pt T
12
:2'n
Rt
2 Rt
-
pnrz and (1
-
cos a) :
2 k then
v"
:
-
f"P"t'J J"Y,
Equation 3.
"2k
The moment of the forces acting on the dowel bars about axis
Y
-
Y can be obtained by gett"ing the su--ation of the mo_
ments of the forces acting oir all-the small dA areas. dM":
dV" (Rcos
d)
2f tR:
:
-l-
(R
cos
9i-
r cos a)
cos p d /
r(1-cosa)
y-
:,2!tR1 ('t'",*cosd-rcosa)cosddd
' r(1-cosa)
)o
2 f^tR2 l- n ,
-l18oo
: '
' ,'--R
sinpcosp- rcosasinO
I
r(l-cos")L:
""*""'-Jo
Substituting the limits, Ra
:
p;t
,
and 2k
:
( 1
-
cos a) we get
M"
-
ETY,
Equation 4.
About the Author
Andrew A, Brown is a structural
engineer with the Union Carbide
Chemicals
_
Co., South Charleston,
W. Va. His work at Carbide in-
cludes the preparation
of structural
designs, repons and analyses for all
types of frames and ioundations
both new and exisring. Mr. Brown,s
professional
experienie includes that
of a bridge consuhant with 12 years
active dury in the U.S. Navy Civil
Enginecring Corps as a publii
works
officer and 10 years in rhe Bridge
Dept., State Road Commission if
West Virginia. He holds a B.S. de_
gree in civil engineerin.q from the Universitv of West
_Virginia.
He is a member of thc Sociery o['American
N{ilitary Engineers and Tau Beta
pi.
Brown
FIGURE 2-Typical
trons.
-Jo
FOUNDATION
tower foundation showing dowel loca-
dA5
=
1 P66
s.
,6
N
il
N
dA.= 2tzt,nz4r*
(2ydx)
r(cos{-cos*)
Mc+ Ms
q*v;=e
{-rcos*
SECTION X.X AXIS
FIGURE S-Section A.A through Figure I pedestal just
above
foundation slab.
PE DE STA L
A
55
DOWEL SIZING
Now Equation I
FOR TOWER FOUNDATIONS
and 3 are added and multiplied by "."
r(V" f V")
:
f"r3
/sin3
a
,
-k\3
-
:
f"t'
1z
sin3 a
* 3
sinacos2a-acosa
This is the product of r and the total stresses in the concrete
and reinforcement and equals the external load P x r. The total
moment of internal stresses is M. *
M": Equation 2 *4
sinacos2a-3dcos
-
32 cos a sina a
f
24 pn
(+)'"
*#["t"*cososinc-2
(2 sins a *
3 sin acos2 a
/R''
cosasins a{24r"
(:)
f"pnrS zr cos a\
'2k)
-3
pnz-cosa)
4k
(+);l
+
I
3 (a.{ cos a sin a
-
2 coss a sirr a)
-
B cos a sins a
t
-
f"r'
-k
:
f"f3
96k
24
_
2 cos3
CM+SM
:---------i-- whereCM:72(a
*
cosasina-2 cos3 a sin a)- 32 cos asin3 a,
16(CV
-
SV)
/nY
SM
:
24pn
( :
I
r, CV: 2 sins a* 3sin acos2 a-3
acos4
\r./
and SV--3pna.cosd
f"pnrR3'lr
[rr,"
*
cos a sin a a sin a)
-
32 cos c sin3 a I 2+pn Equation 5.
coss a sin a)
M:
Pr
e_
I
M"+M"
(v;+vJ. f"t'
6k -3
pnrrCos d-3 a cos a)
12 (a
I cos a sin d
-
2 cos8 a sin a)
-
32
l6(2 sina af 3 sinacos2 a-3 acos a-3 pnrr cosa
The observation is made that for any value of k or a, CM
and CV can be computed. Tabie t has been computed for the
values of k of .10 through 1.0 and the respective angles are
noted.
using these values, the curves on Figure 1 were constructed
with k and a as ordinates and CM and CV as abscissas.
By the use of Equation 6, the neutral axis can be located.
This is done by assuming various values for k until one is ob-
tained that approximates the
I
of the external forces. IJsing
r
the curves, this determination is rather easy to obtain.
The unit stress in the concrete is found by Equation 5;
. _
96Mk
-c
(cM
* SM)13
Then, the unit stress in the reinforcement is found as f.
nf.
[R f ,( ]
-
2k]],
Equation 7
-
2tt
NOMENCLATURE
N: number of dowel bars
A"
:
6a", of one bar in square inches
D
:
diameter of dowel bar circle in inches
P': minimum total of vertical loads in pounds at the
juncture of pedestal and concrete slab (section A-A)
,
Equation 6.
M: maximum bending moment in inch pounds at the bot-
tom of pedestal (section A-A)
p: ratio of area of steel to area of concrete
n: ratio of modulus of elasticity of steel to that of the
concrete
r: radius of concrete pedestal in inches
R: radius of dowel bar circle in inches
M
: external moment at the section
V": total vertical force in the concrete
V"
: total vertical force in the reinforcement (dowels)
M"
: resisting moment of the concrete
M"
:
resisting moment of the reinforcement
f"
:
ma*imllm unit stress in concrete in pounds per square
inch
d
:
diameter of circular pedestal
f"
:
maximum unit stress in the reinforcing steel in pounds
per square inch
2kr: the distance to the neutral axis measured along a
radius from the point of maximum stress in the con-
crete. (kd)
2 a: the angle subtended by radii drawn from each end oI
the chord which forms the neutral axis
56
TABLE l-Cotculoled Yqtues of numericol coeftitienlr GV and Gil
.57
1.51
2.St
7.O5
9.67
12.58
15.77
'18.85
22.03
25.r2
2A.O3
30.65
32.93
34.79
36.19
36.92
d/.Dt
37.70
.04
.11
.22
.38
.59
.85
1.18
1.56
2.00
2.50
3.06
3.68
4.36
5.r0
5.87
6.71
7.58
8.49
9.42
36'25',
45" 341
53'08'
600
660 25',
7a. 25',
840 16'.
90"
95" 44',
7010 32',
7070 2a'
1 13' 35',
720"
1260 521
134" 261
r43'08/
151'09/
180'
e: eccentricity in inches of M/P
!!
r
r
*j
.9
-
B
F
r000
900
800
700
600
500
400
--.e
F
E
.9
o
=
F
o
&
-
'o
6
r00
90
80
70
60
50
40
,30
2,000,000
I
&
=
;
=
I
=
6
o
L
=
=
.9
N
r
Ei
a
E
G
=
.=
o
o
F
o
.=
o
J
o
=
=
o
a
.il8
t0A
G
oe8/
r
o
@
=
c
=
N
-
J
4
o
J
.=
=
o
E
J
J
60
50
40
30
20
o
o
E
o
a
!.
800
700
600
500
FIGURB l-This nomograph calculates the overturning moment and the unit soil loading in tower foundation
design.
Short Cuts fo Tower Foundation
Design
Graphic solutions to unit soil Ioading and Ioading caused by the
overturningmomentwill
speed up your foundation calculation time
J. F. Kuong
Atlas Powder Company
Wilmington, Del.
"FOUNDATION DESIGN For Stacks and Towers,,
by V. O. Marshall was the subject of a special supple-
ment published in the May 1958 issue of
parnoijurvr
RorrNEn. This article, in turn, supplements Marshall's
article in that it presents two nombgraphs for short-cut
m.ethods- to the analytical formula tichniques requiring
trial-and-error calculations.
.Irr
designing foundations for self-supporting towers,
with respect to the supporting soil, two-main considera_
tions are taken into account I a) the unit soil loading,
and b) the tower stability. These two factors must be
studied. The first so that the maximum load the soil
supports will not be exceeded and the second to prevent
overturning of the tower by external forces, such as
those caused by the wind pressure acting on the tower.
Calculations for this type of foundation requires a
trial-and-error procedure. The size of the foundation
is assumed. Then, the soil loading and stability are
57
50
E
q uotion i
E
r00000
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
.
40000
30000
20000
40
Where.
S
,
Con Be Either
S, 0r S,* And W
ls W 0r Wr, Respectively.
K,ls The Areo Shope
Foclor.
il
d, ls The Short
A
-.\
Oiomeler 0f The Bose -ci
J
.:
a
J
3
J
o
E
o
go
LI
.1000
Squore
$
o
E
=
o
o-
C
.:
F
=
o
=
o
a
C
O

(,
o
J
EN
'6
=
=
tp00p00
e0q000
800,000
700,000
Q)
600,000
A
500,000
s-
(l)
@
4OO,OO0 E
O
3OO,OOO
"E
o)
E
.9
o
200,000
t
o
E
-^
-o
t0
9
I
7
6
5
o
.=
J
c)
o
C
o
o
o)
G.
t
3-
f-.azs ornnon x
o
---/--
- --
r0000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
u')
o
)
t00,000
e0p00
80,000
70p00
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
-E
\<
C
=
rrl
E'
E'
o
J
:
o
cn
+
C
=
<J)
Nomogroph No. 2
Key:W+d+R-K.-S
r000
900
800
700
600
500
10,000
Ngo!-uelsson ;=
.7854 Circle :
E
=
FIGURE 2-Use this nomograph to find the minimum and dead soil loading for tower foundation design.
checked and used as a criteria to determine the suit-
abiiity of the foundation size originally assumed.
In estimating the maximum soil loading, two kinds of
loading must be considered, namely: a) the unit soil
loading due to the dead load (which includes the weight
58
of the empty tower, appurtenances and foundatioli, as
well as the earth fi1l on top of the foundation base)
and, b) the unit soil loading caused by the overturning
moment produced by the wind or any other lateral
forces acting on the tower.
The total soil loading is, therefore,
S:Sr*So
where:
S
:
Total soil loading, psf.
Sr
:
Unit soil loading, dead load, psf.
So: IJnit soil loading, moment, psf.
S, and So are calculated as follows:
wM"
Sr:-i- (2) and Sr:
t
(3)
where:
a. is the area of thc base of the foundation, sq. ft.
Mr, Orertrrrning moment about the base of the foundation,
-
foot-nounils.
W. is th'e rvcight of the empty tower plus the weight of
-
the foundalion itself, including the earth fill on top of
the basc (minimum dead load), plus the weight of
auxiliaries to include the weight of the tower contents
and appurtenances, in pounds.
Z. is thc'icction nrodulus of the basc of the foundation
'
which varics with the geometric shape, cu. ft.
Now, since
and,
a:K(d)2
Z:F(d)3
where d is the short diameter of the foundation base
and K and F are proportionality constants for a given
geometrical shape of the foundation base (octagonal,
round, etc.), and since for cylindrical towers the over-
turning moment is given by
Mr
:
0.0025(v)" Do'H'L (6)
equations (2) and (3) can be written as follows,
so:
^w
u1-
K.d2
0.0025(V)" Do'H'L
F.de
Here,
V, wind velocity, mph.
Do, diamctcr of tower including insulation, ft.
H, height of tower, ft.
L, lever arm of wind load, in feet, calculated as follows:
L:h.+Ll12.
h1, height of foundation, ft.
Furthermore, the condition of poorest stability occurs
when the tower is installed by itself. In otl-rer words,
when it is erected and empty and does not include aux-
iliaries. As explained in more detail by Marshall,l in
calculating the stability of the tower, the maximum soil
Ioading must be used in equation (7) as defined in this
paragraph. Calling the minimum soil loading S'- and
Wr the minimum deadload, we have:
s.*:#ft-
(e)
and the condition of a perfectly balanced system, as ex-
plained in mcre detail in the reference article, is
Sr-: So
( 10)
and for an actual system Sr- should not be less than So.
Nomogrophs. Based on equations (7), (8) and (9),
two nomcgraphs have been prepared which reduce the
time required in repeated trial-and-error calculations.
The first, bascd on equation (B), gives directly the
valtie of the unit soil loading due to the overturning
moment, M1, when V, Do, H and h1 are known.
The second nomograph solves both equations (7) and
(9) when W, Wr and d are known. The nomograph
is the same since equations (7) and (9) differ only in
the value of W which is required to calculate Sr or Srm.
Exomple. Consider the same example given in the
Marshall article (to which reference is madc for de-
tailed calculations) and compare the solutions obtained
for 51, So and S,,, using the nomograPhs presented
here, with those given in the original reference.
The following data are given:
Tower diametcr inc. insulation, Do
:
4.5 ft.
Weight of empty tower. . 30,000 lbs.
Weight of assunrcd concrete foundation volume
based on octagon-shaped base. 63,0001bs.
Weightof earthnll.... ..32,700 lbs.
Minimum dead toad, Wt, (30,000
+
63,000
+
3'.2,7o0) ......125,7001bs.
Weight of auxiliaries, insulation, platforms, piping,
cti.,plusliquid. ......48,500 lbs.
Total height, FI, 54 ft.
Height of foundation, hr, 6 ft.
Assumed short dianreter of octaglon-shaped based, d, 13.5 ft.
K, arca proportional;ty constant for octagon base is 0.828.
F, section modulus proportionality constant for octagon-shaped
base is 0.1016.
To calculate S", multiply Do'H
:
+.5'54
:
243.8.
Calculate L
:
6 + 54
12:
33. Enter 243.8 on D"H
scale (Figure 1) and align with L
:
33 on L scale to
intersection with first reference line. With reference
line as a pivot, align pivot point with V
:
100 to
obtain Mt
:
200,000. Connect 200,000 on Mt scale
with reference point for octagon section modulus fac-
tor and second reference line. Finally, align pivot point
on second line with d
:
13.5 and read So
:
800 lbs./sq.
ft. on extreme left scale. The calculated value given in
the reference is 803.
To calculate 51 (use Figure 2). Align W
:
174,200
on left scale on nomograph No. 2 with d
:
13.5 and
reference line. Connect pivot point on reference line
with octagon area lactor and read Sr
:
1150 lbs./sq. ft.
The reference article gives 51
:
1155.
To calculate Sr- (use Figure 2). Repeat procedure
outlined just above except use W1
:
125,700 instead of
W
:
174,200, and read S1m
:
830. This value com-
pares with 830 as given in the reference.
LITERATURE CITED
l
Marshall, V. O., Foundation Design Handbook for Stocls md Twes,
Prraomuu Rrrrrrn, 37, No. 5, Supplement (1958).
(4)
(5)
(7)
(B)
Aboul the Author
J.
F. Kuong is a process engi-
neer for Atlas Powder Co., Wil-
mington, Del., where he works in
process improvement, trouble
shooting and cost reduction. He is
currently in charge of a technical
section doing technical-economic
studies, process improvement work
and technical support for line su-
pervision. Holder of a B.S. degree
in chemical engineering from the
University of San Marcos, Peru,
and M.S. degree in chemical engineering from the
University of Pennsylvania, he has been with Atlas
since 1954. Kuong worked in the Technical Depart-
ment, Atlas Point Plant until 1956, when he became
technical assistant to the production superintendent.
Kuong has been a process engineer since 1957.
59
SSEL FOUNDATIONS
*sw
i-'s
Foundafion
Design for
8-Legged
Vessels
Using one general equation for
bending moment, the reinforcement
bars for the entire foundation
can be calculated
A_ndrew A. Brown, Olefins Division,
Union Carbide Corp., South Charleston, W. Va.
TrrB rouxoerroN for the SJegged cylindrical vessel
shown in Figure 1 can be designed with one general
equation.
Because of the relatively low height of these vessels, the
unit stresses at full load are usually not influenced by
wind or seismic forces. That is, when the allowable unii
stresses are increased by one-third for loading consisting
of combined maximum vertical and horizontal forces, the
elements of the foundation are not usually overstressed
by such loading.
Bose Slob. The base slab for the foundation is octagonal.
Formwork for this shape is less costly than for a circular
shape, and the distribution of stresses is more uniform
than for a square. The base slab is assumed to be divided
into four equal bands as shown in Figure 2. This is a
view looking up from underneath the footing. The out-
lines of the overlapping bands form soil pressure prisms.
One of them is included in all four bands, six
-are
in
three, four in twq and two are in one band only.
Since all four bands are identically loaded, one will be
removed and treated as an independent
simple beam
span. The reactions are the pier reactions. Section A-A
(Figure
2) is formed by a plane passing through the
center of the piers. The magnitude of the loads or soil
pressures have been drawn to a vertical scale to show
the fraction of the uniform load that is supported on the
span. If the load prism is in all four bands, the load in-
tensity is one-fourth of. u. If. the load prism is in three
bands, the load intensity is one-third and so on.
-
If we let D equal the short diameter of the octagon, in
feet, and P the total load or soil pressure on it (excluding
the weight of the top fill and the concrete slab) the uni-
form load becomes P/A: P/O.BZBD,
:
w in pounds per
square foot when P is in pounds.
The reaction for the beam is P/8.
With these loads, the table of areas and moments is
CONCRETE
GRADE\
\
CONCRETE
SLAB
PiA
=;T-
EAR HEN
f,__
D
FILL
Fig. l-Elevation of typical vessel and foundation.
computed (Table l). The last column gives the moment
of_ the respective load prisms about the center of the span.
The values in the other columns are labeled and are self-
explanatory. The total moment is
-
0.03282oD2 for one
band. The bending moment on a width of beam of one
foot is
*
_0.1035uD2
(D/Z _
*,
_
O.\Z2BwDa
0.414D
0.414D
:
1.25(D /2
-
x)
-
O.o795DluD
where " x" is the distance from the outer edge of the octa-
gon to the center of the pier or reaction.
-
Since two-way reinforcement
is to be employed, the
influence of the two bands which cross this one at an
angle of 45 degrees will have to be taken into account. A
section of unity width is removed from the center of the
span and the value of moments imposed at the center by
these bands are shown in Figure 3.
Let m: moment on the main band acting on unit
6t
FOUNDATION DES]GN FOR S.LEGGED VESSELS
..._
P _ P
"-A
-
D2x.828
SHORT DIAMETER OF OCTAGON, D
,
FT.
Sec.
I-
Area ol
Prlsm Base
-042893D2
II.,. .077067D2
I II-a .oo7359D2
III-b .074719D2
IV .o71067 D2
Totals -207704D2
43096 Dr
3r 904 D lI
2357D mo
r6667 Dlll b
:09048 D E
w/4
Q sparu
S ECTION A- A
SHOWS LOAD DISTRIBUTION ON THE BANDS
Fig. 2-Base slab plan looking up underneath the footing'
I
I
I
I
I
60
:
.-'L
SPAN
j
g
l
$
-*---*"c
Fig. 3-Moments about section of unity width.
width. Then the width at a 45o angle is 0.707 and the
moment is O.?07m. The total moment for the two bands
is 2 (O.7O7m)
:
1.41m, but these ate at +5 degrees to the
main band. Accordingly, the component to be added is
m(1.414
X
0.707)
:
?n and the total moment is 2m'
For one foot width of beam, the bending moment at the
center becomes M
:
21.25(D /2
-
x)- O.0795DlwD
:
lI/2(D/2-
x)-0.159D)wD
(General Equation)
With this moment, the required reinforcement can be
computed. In sizing the bars one should keep in mind
that the steel is located near the top of the slab and the
permissible bond stress is 3.+
Vf ilBar
Diameter but not
to exceed 350 psi.
The pier reinforcement is computed by the usual for-
mula uied for column design. The minimum steel require-
ment would normally govern. The maximum tensile stress
in the pier rebars is obtained when the vessel is empty and
maximum wind or seismic forces are imposed thereon.
The concrete is under maximum stress when the vessel
is full and all other loads are applied.
If the octagon is much larger than the outside to outside
distance of the piers, a section should be investigated at
the plane of the outside pier edge. Reinforcement would
then be required in the bottom of the slab. This projec-
tion beyond the pier reduces the bending moment at the
center of the span.
-L++
1+ 1+
i
i
t
,
I
t
I
{
I
t
L**
About the
quthor
ANnnow A. Bnowx, Captain, Ciui.l En-
g'ineer Corps, [].5, Naaal Resemte, is a
Senior Engineer, Olefins Di,ttisi,on, Uni,on
Carbide Co,r'p., So. Charleston, W. Va-
Mr. Brown's prof essi,onal enper'ience i,n-
cludes seaeq'al gears in the Bridge De'
partment, State Road Commiss'i,on of
West Virginia, and he hcts seraed as a,
bri.dge consultant f
or seaeral ciiies.
Duri.ng his 12 years of actiue duty i,n
the U.S. Nao'!/ some of his bi,llets useT e:
Use R: .1035D22 Use .0323D2p
Publi,c Works Officel', Naoal Ai,t" Station, Hampton Roails,
Va., Naaal Aitr Stati,on, Kaneohe Bag, Hatuai,i, and Naaal
Station, San'Juan, Puerto Rico; Design and, Constl'uctinn
Officer, Fifth Naual Di,strict, Ma'intenance and Operations
Oafficer, Eleaenth Naoal Distri,ct, and Assistant Publi,c Works
Officer and Muintenance Superi,ntendent, Nat;al Air Trai,n'
ing Bases, Pensacola, Fla. He is a, member of Intemtational
Aisociation
for
Brid'ge and Structural Engineers, SAME,
ASCE, and, has BSCE and CE degrees
from
West Virgi.nit
Uni,t-tersity,
Note: The values in this table were extended further than the strength of the
materials of construction and soil bearing determinations warrant. This was done
to check the work. For instatrce, the total area should eqval .4742D X .5D' and
the total forces or reaction should equal one-eighth area of an octagon,
62
IOP OF FOOTING
DISTANCES TO C.G.
IABLE l-Toble of Areos ond l[omenls
Pressure
Vessel Foundation
Design
For vertical pressure vessels, the old middle third rule
requires a safety factor of 3. These data show that a
factor of 1.5 is quite in order
J. A. A. Cummins
Hudson Engineering Corp.
Houston
IF THE FULLEST economy is
to be realized in the design of a
foundation, a complete understand-
ing of its action under various load-
ing is required. This is particularly
true when the wind loading resultant
falls outside the middle third of the
foundation cross section and uplift
occurs. In this case, the soil pres-
sure, or pressure on the soil, varies
in a different manner than when
the resultant falis inside the middle
third. It is emphasized that a factor
of safety against overturning of 1.5
is quite in order, whereas the mid-
dle third rule gave a lactor oI safety
,_
of 3. The use of this data will result
o-lo-
in a precise, and hence more eco-
nomical design and will be consist-
ent with the safety factors derived
from the American Standard Build-
irg Code Requirements
A58.1-
1955, and the ACI Building Code.
Advontoges
of Squore Bose. For
vertical pressure vessel foundations,
a square base is preferable
to an
octagonal or round base mainly be- r
cause of the complications involved
in laying out the steel. An octagonal
base requires at least three layers of (
steel, one on top of the other, and
consequently
a greater depth of con-
crete.
/YY
-
z"- Tu
FIGURE l-In Case I tle resultant is outside the middle third.
rll,.
Cose l-*f* Cose l-f_Cose rrr
i I
r_?..,
P,'co.a
f
2.5
Cose II
Cose III
P2
3.O 3.5
4.5 4.O
63
The base area is practically the same in both cases, but
the octagonal base uses considerably more steel. Furth-
ennore, the form work for an octagonal base costs more
than a square one of the same area. A square base also
permits iloser spacing of columns than the octagonal
base.
The base must be set below ground, the bottom being
below frost line and on undisturbed soil of known char-
acter. A pedestal is required to convey the load of the
vessel to the footing. Ideally it should be circular, but
an octagonal pedestal is cheaper to construct. The mini-
mum depth below grade of the top of the footing is
often governed by the depth required to accommodate
the vaiious pipes which are necessary wherever this type
of vessel occurs.
Overturning And Soil Pressure. In any design, the
factor of safety against overturning and the maximum
soil pressure must be computed first' The size of the base
is then determined by trial and error. Figure 1 shows the
relationship between the soil pressure p at the side of
the footinf caused by wind normal to axis YY, and the
soil pressuie p' at the corner caused by the wind nor-
mal to axis ZZ. The ratio $,raries
with the eccentricity
p
and hence with the factor of safety
fl
:
r7. The curve
shows three conditions: Case I, r,r'hen the resultant is
outside the middle third and uplift occurs for bending
about both axes; Case II, when e", is less than
B
A, brrt there is still upli{t at the corner when bending
6
abottZZ; and Case III, when bending about both axes
produces no uplift.
It can be seen that about
T:2.8,p:
p'. Below this
value, p' is always less than p so that it is only necessary
to investigate p. When
7
is greater than 2.8, the pressure
on the corner is greater than that at the side. The curve
is useful here to determine p' from the easily calculated
value of p. It may be observed that the maximum ratio
of
{will
b"-l ,
:
1.19. For cases where
4
is greater
Y MN
FIGURE 2-The octagonal pedestal is reduced to a square of
equivalent area.
Allowclble Soi! Pressure. Allowable soil pressures
quoted by most soil engineers are usually given as
_a
figure in pounds per square foot at a certain depth.
This is the allowable pressure in addition to the weight
of soil already there. Thus, allowance can be made for
the weight of original soil above foundation depth when
computing maximum soil pressure. This has a net ef-
fect of increasing the given allowable soil pressure by
the weight of soil above the given depth' If this figure
is used, allowance must be made for all backfill which
may lie above the foundation as well as the weight of
concrete and maximum weight of the vessel.
Wind Pressure. The American Standard Building
Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in
Buildings and Other Structures, A58.1-1955, is the
culmination of much study of wind pressures in the
United States and contains recommendations for design
pressures for different areas. It shows how wrong it is
to take an arbitrary wind pressure and apply it to all
Iocalities and to any height above ground as it fre-
quently done today. Specification writers often specify
a figure of pounds per square foot on a projected area
which in many cases is too high for the majority of ves-
sels, but which for very tall vessels, is actually too low.
Also, they will sometimes specify a wind velocity and
omit stating the height at which the velocity is to be
taken. The Code gives design wind pressures recom-
mended for any location in the U.S. and for any height
above ground level. In addition, minimum recom-
mended seismic factors are given and a schedule for
recorded earthquakes in the U.S. with a rnap showing
the locations of their epicenters.
z
p 0.84
than 3.6, it is easier to comPute
P'
in the usual manner.
It is usual when computing soil pressure to test for
dead load plus test load with water and no wind, or dead
load plus operating load plus wind load. Some designers
still use dead load plus test load plus wind load together,
but this is not necessary since the vessel is usually fi.lled
with water only once or twice in its life for testing pur-
poses. However, some companies advocate the filling of
vessels with water when hurricane warnings are re-
ceived, in which case the latter condition should be used
for design, but this practice is not very common.
For computing the minimum factor of safety against
overturning, the empty weight of the vessel should be
used together with the weight of the soil and footing.
64
W MX6V2
:
*
Ptus
u:-
c'+ 2d
Concrele Design. The concrete base should be de-
signed according to the latest ACI Building Code (ACI
318-56). In Figure 2, the bending moment on the foot-
ing is calculated on Section MM and the diagonal ten-
sion on NN with bending about YY axis. The octagonal
pedestal is reduced to a square of equivalent area and
the length of the side C/
:
0.91 X dia. of an octagon. It
can be shown that by turning the equivalent sqrlare
through 45 degrees and investigating bending about the
ZZ axts, the moment is never more than
V2
X
M**.
Since the two-way footing will be designed for bending
about YY, the components of the steel in the diagonal
t-
direction will be 2 X--::
:
\/ 2 X the area of the steel
\/2
in the YY direction. Consequently, bending about ZZ
does not enter into the concrete design.
The ACI Code at present makes no difference for a
square and rectangular footing in the location of the
critical section for bending. It is suggested that a more
correct estimate of moment for square footings would
be obtained by taking moments of the loaded area bcef
about Section MM and distributing the steel computed
over (ef plus 2d) where d is the effective depth of the
base. This is particularly true with a small pedestal on
a large base. The steel outside this critical section could
then be placed at wider spacings. At present, the ACI
Code specifies the moment to be taken and the steel to
be distributed evenly over the full breadth of the base
on Section MM. The diagonal tensile stress is to be
computed from area bcgh on Section NN of width gh.
The computation of bending moment and diagonal ten-
sion about these sections is best handled by use of
formulae. These must vary according to whether the
conditions are Case I or Case II (see Figure 1). Case
III wiil be similar to Case II. The method of design is
probably best illustrated by the following examples:
EXAMPLES
A typical absorber is taken, for example, with founda-
tions to be located in (1) Nevada, (2) Oklahoma, (3)
Central Texas (Figure 3). The vessel is 84 inches ID
X
99 feet-6 inches S-S. The allowable soil pressure is 4000
PSI at 5 feet below grade. The shell thickness is 3.5
inches. Using 4 inch insulation gives 99 inches or 8.25
feet OD.
Erected weight empty 409,620 lbs.
:
We
Weight of water to fi1l 244,500lbs.
:
W*
Maximum vessel weight 654,120lbs.
:
W*
Operating iiquid load
:
Wr
Pedestal 9 feet-3 inches across flats;
weight: 70.84
X
4.25
X
150
:
Wo
Operating design load for mat
:
\{o"
The following abbreviations have been used:
is studied
nd Central
M": Earthquake moment bottom of footing, Ib. ft.
C': Side of square of equivalent area to octagon, ft.
Sg: Soil pressure for mat design, PSF
So: Soil pressure due to total operating load, PSF
St: Soil pressure due to total test load, PSF
S.: Soil pressure due to wind or earthquake, PSF
D: Depth of concrete, ft.
d: Depth of steel in concrete, inches
B: Side of square base, ft.
{mto:
Minimum FOS against overturning
2or:
Operating FOS against overturning
en: Operating eccentricity, ft.
Vo
:
Shear at Section N, lbs.
V-: Shear at Section M, lb,/ft
M-: Moment in footing on Section M, lb ft/ft
S*: Allowable stresses in accordance with ACI Code, psi
Mo: Moment in footing due to uplift at Section M, lb
ft/It
!o:
Sum of bar perimeters in one foot width, inches
S": Shear stress, psi
f: Depth of soil above base, ft.
W" plus W,
:
438,420
Notes. (1) Unit weight of soil in calculations has been
taken at 90 lb/cu ft, being the probable
minimum weight if unconsolidated.
(2) For wind moment calculation allow 2 feet
width for ladders, pipe, platform, etc., i.e.
I
gg'-6"
J
4'- 6"
I
C'
T
FIGURE 3-Example Figure. A typical absorber
with foundations located in Nevada, Oklahoma a
Texas.
H=l06'-o"
L=5'-o"
I
t-
f
B
I
a09,620 lbs.
I
Za,SOO fts.
I
45,100 lbs.
48t52olb'-
M*r
:
Wind moment about bottom of footing at center,
]b. ft.
65
totd OD vessel
:
8.25 plus 2
:
10.25 feet.
This 2 feet is conservative and may be re-
duced by an analysis of all the extraneous
projections.
Example (l)-Nevada. A58-1-1955 gives a 20 PSF
Pressure
zone.
Wind pressure 0
-
30 feet: 15 X shape factor 0.6: 9 PSF
on vert. proj.
30
-
50 feet: 20 ! shape factor 0.6: 12 PSF
50
-
100 feet: 25 X
shape factor 0'6': 15 PSF
100 feet up
:
30 X
strape factor 0.6
: 18 PSF
M*r
: 10.25 (lB
X
6 X 108 plus 15 X
50 X B0 plus
t2)(20X45plus9X30X20)
:
10.25 (11,664 plus 60,000 plus 10,800 plus 5,400)
:
900,606 lb,4t
Let B: 19 feet-6 inches and
D- 1.75 feet
Weight of base 19.52 X 1.75 X 150
Weight of soil above base
90 x
(280
-
7t) 3.25
Operating load on soil
Operating liquid load
-deduct
Minimum direct soil load
Water to fill
Max. test load on soil
Soil pressure under test load
,r"
-ffil*
r.,plusd,/6)(2x-y)
plus
y/B
(Bx-r)]
_2X483,520X4.13
_,e_jxTczr,
(8.42 plus 2.83) (32.40
-
4.13) plus l.2B (48.60
-
4.13)l
I
:
780 (159.08 plus 56.92)
:
168,480 lbs.
vo
S-:ShearStress:
.
-n
-s
(I2C'plus 2 d)
jd
168,480
:
85 PSI
( 100
( 101 plus 34) 0.867 X t7
l"
u2W-" B-C'
M-:
- gn#-(2X
plus u) where u :
z
tt :
/z
(19.5- 8.42)
-
$.$4
(
5.54\2 483.520
M : _)t-i_!----t_ttt| (32.40 plus 5.54)
:
36,700 lb. ft,At
"-m
58.5 X
(16.2)'
Wo: 483,520 lbs. Wp
:45,100
lbs.
Wr
:
99,820 lbs. 99,820 lb's.
,
wb
+
we i4402olb"-
w"
:
90,380 lbs.
As Nevada is a region of recorded earthquakes, see
A58.1-1955, a seismic factor of 0.1 is taken'
M"
:
0.1 (+38,420 x 58.5 plus_144,920
X
2.5)
^_^
:
2,56+,750 plus 362,300
:
2,927,0501b. ftlft.
This moment must be used since it is greater than M*1.
_
w.i,iX,
:
u=*l,,r=r?I::^.
:2.15
)
r.5
?lmin
--nfr,-- 2y2,927,050
-'-
_
_
woXB
_673,720y.19.5
-2.24
n'-
zM. -iX2,gfrrrc -
''-
M.
e:"
wo
_
2,927,05O
: 4.35 feet
673,720
12 M- 12 X 36.700
steel in bottom:
s* xf
:
z6r6ixo.B67x-r,
:1.12
in.z
Use No. 7
@
6 inches on centers
KF- 260 X
12
X
172
:75,300
> M
-
no compression steel
t2
*'+-: *
L39doo
-
13,250 lbs./ft
check bond: v*
=ln_ C,) l l.0g
v- 13,2s0
jd >. 0.867 x 17 X 5.5
The formula at
"otil,rtjtnfffie
and applies only when
M- :
B'
(90
f
plus
150 D) 1
3
-1
\'
-.-u
g
\?-,, /
:-9:q (90
X
g.25
plus 150 X
f .i5)
" (':'-tl;r
tb.tt/tt
4-135
X
12
:0.13 in2
Steel in toP
zosoz x o .s67 x r7
Use No. 4
@
12 inches on centers
KF > M
le
no compression steel
V,
: (90 f plus 150 D) (B
-
x)
:
555 X 3.3
:
1,850 lbs.,/ft.
bond stress:ns6##X
l^6
:
79 psi ok
Example (2)--Oklahoma. A58-1-1955 gives a 40
PSF pressure zone.
Wind pressure 0
-
30 feet 30 X shape factor 0'6
: lB PSF
on vert. proJ.
30- 50 40 X shaPefactor0.6:24 PSF
50
-
100 50 X
shape factor 0.6: 30 PSF
100 up 60 X
shaPe factor 0.6
:
36 PSF
wo: 673,720 lbs'
Wr
:
-28,800
lbs'
W-to: 6a45ZdiE;
W.: 244,500 lbs.
w,
:
s89,42-o lbs.
2,341 PSF
From curve,
Io
12.8
and
o4
)
1 i.e. max soil pressure at side
4 1V-_
_+X
673,720
:
4.265 PSF
soilpressure-3s
(B-2.) 58.5 x
r0.B
Subtract wt. of original soil at
given dePth 90 X
5: 450
Max. soil
Pressure
3,815 PSF <
4,000
Concrete design for 2r5(X) psi at 28 days
fo: 1,125 f": 20,000
adding 33ys percent oversuess for ACI 603 (c)
f": 1,500 f": 26,667
For?o
( 3, proceed as follows:
X:1.5 (B-2") :1.5
X 10.8:16.2
Y,: Yz
(B
-
C'
-
d/6)
-
y2 (19.5
-
8.+2
-
2.83)
:4.13
66
M*r: 10.25 (36
X 6 X
l0B plus 30 X 50 X
80 plus
24)r.20 X
45plus 18 X 30 X 20)
:
10.25 (23,328 plus 120,000 plus 21,600 plus 10,800)
:1,801,200 lb. ft.
ForB: 18 feet;D
: 1.5;f
-
3.5Weplus Wr
:
438,420 lbs.
Wn: 70.84 X 4.5 X 150
-
47,820 lbs.
*82: Se: 1,501 PSF
'Wo"
-
486,240 lbs'
Wu: 72'900 lbs'
w"
: 79,700 lbs'
wo
:
638,840 lbs.
Wr
:
-28,800
lbs'
W^ir: 610'040 lbs'
W*: 244,500 lbs'
Wt
:
854,540 lbs'
wt/82
-
2,637 PSF
-
652,000 lblft
( M*t
ShearstressS":#
_
156,265
(101 plus 28) X
0.867 X 14'
Design moment M-
:
*,, -
C')'z
nlus
fi-
(2
gg
-
3 82 C'plus C'e1
Note: if S* < /3
Sr, then let S.:0 and allowable bending
stress So
:
20,000 PSI
if Sw > %
Sr, compute M- as above and So
:
26,667 PSI
on-
:
''10'
{
rs
-
s.42)2ptrr-1
tl
-
( 11,664
- o 11 ro
8,175 plus 595)
:
17,256 plus 17,518
:34,774[b.tt/tt
Weight of base 182 X 1.5 Xl50
Weisht of soil above
90 x 3.5 (32+
-71)
Operating load on soil
Operating liquid load deduct
Minimum direct soil load
Water to fill
Max. test load on soil
Soil pressure under test load
Seismic factor 0.025 gives M"
610.040 x 18
'Ertr
2 x 1.Bo1,2oo
1,801,200 x 6
(lB)3
Steel in bottom
:
:99.9 PSI < 100
25 X
shape factor 0.6: 15 PSF
30 X
shape factor 0.6: 18 PSF
40 X shape factor 0.6: 24 PSF
M.x12 34,77+ X t2
s, x
os6, d-: 26f67 X 0S67 X
14
:
1.29 ir2/It.
638.840 X 18 1.801.200
h :-: :'t-19 ande-
-
-'---'---,
:
2,82 feet
'o
2xl,Bot,2oo
" 638,84t)
Consult .r*. for4 for tt.:3.19 and obtai,
{
:
0.914
p'"p'
4Wo p
_
soilpressure
:.r
in=2".y
*o,:
\/
/\
Use No. B
@
7 inches on centers
v *
4M-
.-
4x34'774
-ru.+gotbs../ftr^:5.4inches
'E
B-C', lB-8.41
-
.
(1+12:
50,960 ) M, i'e' no compression
KF:260X12X_li_steel
v- 14,490
lJoncl stress:
os67d4: osoT x
t4X 5'+
-
221 PSI < 267
Note: il S* had been I'/s Se, allowable bond stress
:
200 PSI
Uplift-Since
fmin
) 3, there can be no uplift. It is
usual to provide nominal No. 4 @ 12 inch centers in
such cases in the top of the mat, both ways.
Example (3)-Central Texas. A58-1-1955 gives a 25
PSF pressure zofie.
Wind Pressure: 0
-
30 20 X
shape factor 0.6
:
12 PSF
4
X
638,840
54 (18-5.64)
I
:4.189 PSF
0.914
Subtract weight of original soil at given depth 90 N 5
:
-
450
(at corner) Max. soil pressure
a;,O.i,|r$
Concrete design for 2,500
Psi
concrete @ 28 days
f"
:
1,125 f"
-
20,000
and adding 33/s percent overstress for ACI 603 (c)
f"
:
1,500 f"
:
26,667
C':0.91 X 9.25: 8.42 feet B
:
18 D
:
1.5 d: 14 inches
K': l,/B (C'plus d/6)
:
l/18 (8.42 plus 2.33)
:0.6
M*r: 10.25 (2+X 6 X
108+ 18
X 50 X B0+
15X20X45+12X30X20)
:
10.25 (15,552
+
72,000 + 13,500 +
7,200)
:
1,109,580 lb. ft.
For B: 16 feet-6 inch D: 1.5 f:3.5
'Wo"
:
486,240
-
82: S": 1,786 PSF
Weight of base
16.5, X
1.5 X
150 Wr: 61,260 lbs.
Weight of soil above
90
X
3.5 (272-71) W": 63,320 lbs.
Operating load on soil Wo
:
610,820 * B2
:
So
:
2,244 PSF
Operating liquid load-
deduct
Minimum direct soil load
W-in
Water to fill Ww
Max. test load on soil Wt
-
28,800 lbs.
:826,520
*82: St:3,036 PSF
30- 50
50
-
100
100 up
o _M*rx6_
B3
B2
Max. shear Vo
:
i0 -
K)
t3
s" (K plus 1) plus 2 s* (K'
plus K plus 1)
l
Note: if S. < /s
S", then let S*: 0 and allowable shear
stress 56: 75 PSI
if S. > %
Sr, compute Vo as above and S": 100 PSI
v-
-
18'
(0.4t
"12
13 x r'5ol
"
'liHiil;fi,'J?::fl: l;..iti,*]
:
1,853 PSF
:
582,020 lbs.
:
244,500 lbs.
67
Seismic factor 0.025 gives M.: 651,960
( M.r
?mio
:
H
:##fl## :
4.33 )
1.5
610.820 X 16.5
,lo:ffi:4.5-[
As rlo
)
3.6,
Proceed
as follows:
"
_
M*rX6
_
l,log,58oxo
_
Dw
-
B3 ( 16.5)3
:
1,482 PSF
Soil pressure (on corner)
:
So *
1.414 Sw
:2,2+4
+ 2,096:4,340 PSF
-
450
:-
3,890 PSF
Subtract weight of original soil at given
depth 90,t 5
Max. soil pressure
<
4,000 PSF
Concrete design for 2,500 psi concrete at 28 Days.
\o
) 3, procedure similar to example (2).
Dowels. These must be provided to transfer any ten-
sile force from the pedestal into the base. This force is
transferred by bond from that part of the anchor bolts
actually embedded in the pedestal. However it is usual
to design dowels for the full tensile force whether the
bolts go into the mat or not.
Let N
:
number of dowels in a circle Dd inches in
diameter
Let M"
:
the wind or earthquake moment at bot-
tom of pedestal
Let A
:
area of each dowel; WR
-
minimum resist-
ing weight
(48lDd) M"
-wR
Then A:
SAXN
For example (1),
M"
:
0.1 (438,420
X
56.75 +
45,100 X 2.25)
:
2,600,470 Ib. ft.
Wu: (W"
*
W" *
Wr)
:
483,520
^
_(48/104)
)/.2,600,470-483,520
-
716,700
rr-
26,667x32 -
26,667x32
:
0.84 in2
i.e., provide 2 at No. 9 and 2 at No. B at each of B pedestal
faces.
For exampre (2), M"
:
E#ii#
Mwr:
#
**,
For cases where the depth of the base D is small
compared to overall height of tower, M" can be taken
as Mwf
Wo: (Wu
*
Wn)
:
457,440
^
_
(+8/104) 1,801,200-457,440
_
373,890
A-
26,667xN -
26,667x32
:0.44 irP
i.e., provide 4 at No. 6 at each pedestal face
For example (3),
^
_
(+B/104
X 1,t09,580
-
457
,440
6:ff:o'13inz
i.e., provide 2 at No. 4 at each pedestal face
Anchor Bolts. These may be computed as foliows:
Let Db
:
diameter of bolt circle in inches.
N: number of bolts
M': wind moment at base plate
Wn: minimum resisting weight
Then Root Area A
-
(48lD!)
l{--
wR
fsxN
W* is usually the empty weight W", but when the earth-
quake moment is used, W* is the operating weight W" -F Wr,
For example (1), Using SAE 4140 bolts with allowable
stress 30,000 psi
M'
:438,420
X 52.5
:
2,301,700 lb. ft.
.
(+8/104) 2,301,700
-438,+20
_
623,900
_
1
^4
i52
A:
@:600,000:1'u+1n"
LJse 21-tt/s-inch dia. bolts SAE 4140
For example (2),
M'
=-84)-lr*,
:#X 1,801,200
-
1,d46,000 rb. ft.
.
(+B/10+) 1,646,000
-
409,620
\:@:
350,070
480,000-:
O.73 ir,2
Use 16
@
lt/a-inch dia SAE 4140
For example (3) M'
- SX
t,ror,rt0 : 1,013,930
(+B/104) r,01s,930
-
409,620 58,350
a:ffi:frpO6:0.41 inz
Use 12
@
1 inch dia. carbon steel.
(/a" aia would do here, but normally less than 1 inch
not be used)
would
!!
.tf
lf
Aboul the Author
J.
A. A. Cummins is a civil
engineer working in design and
construction for Hudson Engi-
neering Corp., Houston. He at-
tended Nautical College, Pang-
bourne, England, for four years-
then went to Royal College of
Science and Technology, Glas-
gow, Scotland, for four years t(
study civil engineering. He started
his career with a consulting engi-
neering firm in Scotland in 1947.
From 1951-54 he was'a concrete
structural engineer in England,
and from 1954-56 was an engi-
neer and superintendent on a
project to construct. a darn in
Scotland. He
joined Hud,son 2/z
years ago in Ontar,io,. and has
been with the Houston ofiice for
a yeat. A registered professional
engineer, Cummins is a member
of several technical societies.
68
NOTES
59
COMPUTER FOUNDATION.,
DESIGN
;r \ e- E
*
"d"-
""id_- -*
1
##e".
4 &-
"._
'%
&
L"
Btd
?
-:g"r*'
j{Itr\*
"1r
'
'
How to Calculate Foofing
Soil Bearing by Computer
Here's an effective method for
finding the maximum soil bearing
under eccentrically Ioaded
rectangular footings, programed
for a small computer
Eli Czerniok, The Fluor Corporation, Ltd.,
Los Angeles
Mosr on rrrE srRUCTunBs used in hydrocarbon proc-
essing are, to some extent, affected by overturning forces
which, iike the vertical loads, must ultimately be resisted
at the ground. The function of their footings, then, is to
provide that resistance; so that all the loads-vertical,
IateraT, and overturning moments-can be adequately
supported, without exceeding the safe bearing capacity
of the soil.
The factors and causes contributing to the over-
turning effects are varied. Gusty wind pressures on
exposed structures rising high above the ground is one;
the seismic forces for the plants and refineries which
are located within areas subject to earthquake shocks
is another. Impact, vibration, crane frlnway horizontal
forces, unbalanced pull of cables, sliding of pipes over
supports, thermal expansion (or partial restraint) of
horizontal vessels and heat exchangers, reactiorx from
anchors and directional guides, eccentric location of
equipment are some of the additional reasons for the
lateral force design.
The actual mechanics for determining the maximum
soil bearing under a footing are, of course, independent
of any of the causes for the separate force components
used in the various loading combinations met in design.
The computations are the same rvhether the resulting
overturning moment is from vertical loads which are
located off-center (load times eccentricity); from lateral
forces that are applied at a given height above the foot-
ing (force times distance to bottom of footing)
;
or by
some combination thereof. Therefore, the techniques
for the computational analysis, described in this article
FIGURE l-Computer-designed footings for a refinery.
will simply be based on the three resultants P, II, and
M, for the vertical loads, horizontal forces and over-
turning moments, respectively; applied at the footing
6sn116id-'u/ithout giving any special consideration as to
how this combination of forces and moments was ob-
tained. It should be mentioned, however, that when pro-
portioning footing sizes in the design engineering office,
the actual make-up of the critical load-moment combi-
nations could be of economic significance. Figure 1
shows several computer-designed footings in a refinery
under construction. As with the other engineering mate-
rials, some increase is the allowable soil bearing is
certainly justified
when designing the footings for dead,
live and operating loads, combined with the temporary
lateral forces and moments. And due care must be
exercised in establishing the proper design values. Ob-
viously, no increase in allowable soil bearing would be
advisable when the moments, about the footing center-
lines, are due to the eccentricities of long-duration
vertical loads. It should apply only to such loading
7l
CALCULATE FOOTING SOIL BEARING . . .
FIGURE 2-Spread footing during construction.
combinations which are definitely known to include
overturning effects of a temporary nature. Building
codes, recognizing the improbability of the absolute
maximums occuring simultaneously, usually permit foot-
ings subjected to wind or earthquake combined with
other loads, to be proportioned for soil pressures 33/3
percent greater than those specified for dead, live and
operating loads only, provided that the area of foot-
ings thus obtained is not less than required to satisfy
the combination of dead load, live load, operating
weights, and impact (if any).
Design Prqclice. With the almost infinite variety of
soils encountered, the problem of determining the actual
soil pressure under footings could be, to say the least,
extremely complex. As foundation engineers r.vell know,
the distribution of loads and moments-on the footing,
to the supporting earth beneath, is rather highly uncer-
tain. Simplifying assumptions, however, come to the aid.
According to current structural engineering practice,
the soil bearing under the loaded footing is calculated
from static equilibrium, and on the basis of the simpli-
fying assumption that the footing slab is absolutely rigid
and it is freely supported on elasticaily isotropic masses.
From this follows a linear distribution of soil pressure
against the footing bottom. For only concentric loads,
then, the upward pressure is considered to be uniformly
distributed over the fuil area of the footing, and hence
equal to
*.
Wtl".r moment is also present, its contribu-
,A
tion can be evaluated from the simple flexure formula
$,
p.o.,ided that the resultant eccentricity
"
(.o--
puted from
$)
frffr within the kern of the footing
area. By superposition, the maximum and minimum
pressures are simply the algebraic additions of the direct
and bending components,* *
Y
u"d
f
-
+,
respec-
tively. In order to obtain the net increase in pressures,
the weight (per unit area) of the displaced earth and
backfill should be deducted from the gross values. In
72
designing the concrete and reinforcing steel in the foot-
ing, only the net pressures need be considered. When
the position of the resultant eccentric load is outside the
kern, straight forward superposition is not applicable
because the pressure reversal implied by the flexure
formula cannot occur in a footing on soil. When the
overturning effects exist about two axes, the analytical
confusion is further compounded. The technique de-
scribed in this article, however, is completely general,
and hence effective for all cases, with resultant load
locations inside and outside of the kerns. A ciose-up of
a spread footing during construction is seen in Figure 2.
IJnder the superimposed loads, the upward soil pressure
tends to deflect the projecting portions of the footing,
until it would assume a slightly convex shape. The reader
need not have any qualms about the previously con-
jectured, absolute footing rigidity. As stated before, that
assumption of perfect rigidity was made only for the
purpose of facilitating soil pressure computations. This
purpose having been satisfactoriiy achieved, the engineer
must then tackle his next item on the agenda-the
structural design of the footing itself. To accomplish
that, he expediently relaxes the rigidity restriction, and
permits the soil pressure against footing bottom to
deflect upward (not too much though) the outer por-
tions of the footing. To resist them, steel bars are added
to compensate for the inherent tension deficiency of
plain currcrvr". L, isolated footings, the tensile rein-
forcement is placed in two directions, (as can be seen
in Figure 2) with the bars in one direction resting di-
rectly on top of those in the other direction.
Bioxicrt Eccenlricity. When the overturning moments
are about two axes, the footing obviously, will bear most
heavily on one corner, and least on the corner diagonaliy
opposite. As long as the eccentricities from the resultant
Ioad-moment combination are sufficiently small to remain
within the kern, the entire footing is under compression,
and corner pl'essure can be computed from the well
known formula
Flowever, as the eccentricities increase and fall outside
the kern, the computations become quite complex,
even with the simptifying assumption of the straightline
pressure distribution. Because tensile resistance of soil
sticking to the footing obviously cannot be depended
upon, common practice is to ignore from the analysis
that portion of the footing area over which the soil
pressure would have been negative. It is the difficulty
in deterrnining the shape and size of the remaining
"effective" portion which constitutes the major stumbling
blocks in the efforts to achieve a rnathematical solution.
Depending on the location of the resultant of the applied
loads, the effective portions of rectangular footings
could well vary from a triangle, through trapezoid, to
a full rectangle. The line of zero pressure (neutral-axis)
establishes the boundary of what is to be considered as
the effective footing area. From statics, the value of the
resultant of the applied loads P must equal the total
PtM,a*tMrc,
AIxI,
D
T
'lo
I
J
'lr
__t
T
o
I
or
I
l<-
c
on the load location, the efiective area can be one of five possible shapes.
T
i
I
I
T
.o
l_
l
.o
o,
F
-1
FIGURE
reaction of all the soil pressure against the footing, and
the location of P must also coincide with the line of
action of that total soil reaction, which is at the center
of gravity of the soil pressure prism.
For any knou,n or assumed position of the neutral-
axis, the maximum soil pressure under the footing
corner equals the resultant loacl P dividcd ty e
-
I
o
ff,
r,r'here A is the effective footing ar.ea;
eo*
and
eo,
are the first moments of area A about the x- and
\:- axcsi a and b arc- the intcrcepts of the neutral-axis
line on the x- and y-, axes, respectively. The origin
of the rectangular coorclinates is taken at the footing
corner where the soil pressure is maximum. Depending
on the location of the resultant load P (in the quadrant
of the footing rvith the corner as origin) the effective
area can be one of five possible shapes. The ioad loca-
tions that correspond to these shapes (with matching
cross-hatch regions) are shown mapped in Figure 3.
Srobilify. For the resultant load
p
to be within the
kern, the sum of the eccentricity-ratios in the x- and
y- directions must be equal to or less than one-sixth,
.E*E"1
,.".,
D=
+
f
<
7.
The footing is then fully uncler
x
pressure, and hence the whole area of the rectangle is
deemed effective in the analysis. The intensity of the
maximum pressure (at the corner) varies from an aver-
P
age pressure
f
whcn the load is located right at
the footing centroid (zero moment), to twice the average,
rvhen the load is at the edge of the kern. As the sum
of the eccentricity-ratios increasc to more than a sixth,
part of the footing area becomes ineffective in the analy-
sis: stability diminishes and the maximum soil pressure
increases to rncre than trvice the average. Theoreticaliy,
the maximum soil pressure rvould approach infinity, and
the stability zero, rvhen the location of the resultant load
P is placed along any of the footing sicies. Though the
abutting power of the soil migl'rt ofler additional re-
sistance to prevent actual overturning, its value is rather
hard to ascertain. Common engincering practice is to
neglect this contribution of passive pressure (except for
very deep foundations) in the computations of either
maximum soil bearing or stability ratio. The footings
should be so proportioned, that there is an adequate
factor of safety against overturning
."vithout
a depend-
ence upon iateral soil resistance; r,vith a value of 1.5
being the minimum recommended. The r,veight of earth
superimposed over the footing should be included in the
stabilitv calculations. Regarding the resistance to sliding,
L_
73
,/i
I compurE rHE
I
I
croiEiilic-
pnciilinrs
i
I or errtcttvE* AREA:
I
I
A, Oo*Q"r lor,lor, l*tj
L---
o
=
IT
z
o
o
.
see Figure 5 0{
..Corcrete
suppot Anallsis by computer," Hydraarbon Processing & Petroleum Refiner, vol' 42, No' 8' 1963'
DIMENSIONS
D, T
TOTAT LOAD P
ECCENTRICIflES Ex. Ei
COMPUTE LOAD
COORDINATES:
xP: D/2
-
Ex
Y"=l12-Et
COMPUIE INITIAL
NEUIRAL-AX!S
PARAMETERS:
o
=
2Dl too%
b
=
2r (rrentruc
COMPUTE:
kr
=
lxv- YpQov
kz
=
lxv- )GQox
ks: lox- YpQox
kr= lov- )GQov
ks= Qor- Y"A
k": Qov- )GA
COMPUIE MAX.
SOII BEARING:
GIVEN P
Po:
.lll
Gtox
A-;-
b
RECOMPUTE
N.A.
PARAMETERS:
o=fffift
. k, k,
-
k3kc
D
=
[iE=-ETG
IGNORE P"
(INSERT DASHES)
ADD ONE
TO CYCTE
COUNIER
T D TI
p,
= PoLI -; -
El
STORE THE N.A.
PARAMETERS USED
IN COMPUTING IHE
EFFECTIVE PROPERIIES:
OLDo=o
OLD b: b
74
FIGURE'[-Logic
pattern for computer program'
SCIL BEARING ANALYSIS OF RECIANGULAR FOOTING
Exomple
I
SIDE D SIDE T AREA OF FOOTING
GIVEN LOAD P H/ECCENTRICITIES
XY
l5'0c0 10'500 157.500 s0.FT- 250.ooo KIps r.ooo l..0oo FT.
PROPERTIES OF EFFECTIVE FOOTIN6 AREA
CYCLE AREA SGROSS O
Q I
I
I
ox
0Y
ox oY
xY
START ITI TH
l 157.500 r0c.000 s26.875 1181.250
5788.L25
llst^2.500
-
ozor.ssz
2 157.500 100.000
g26.ttts
lrBr.25o
5zBB.t25
ll8tz.50o 620r.562
APT.O
APT.I
APT.2
APT.3
sr.., lL EEARI|\G Ar
,coRNER
1129. t46
psF
1317.370
pSF
50.066
psF
ts5l.84l
psF
PARAI,IETER
S
AB
30.000 2l.ooo
36.964 18. I t3
36.964 18. I t3
Exomple 2
SIDE D SIDE T AREA CF FCICTING
EIVIru LOIO P },/ECCENTRICITIES
15.occ 10.500
I57.500 sc.FT. ro0.oo0 Krps ,]rro ,l,rro
PROP[RTIES OF EFFECTIVE FOOTING AREA
CYCLE AAEA IGROSS C O I I
0x oY ox oY
I 157.500 lo0.00o 826.875 llBl.25o s7aB.L25 rrBl2.5oo
2 ll8'231 75.067 5ol-77e
746.soL zgss.846 6696.222
3 86.690 55.041 298.22L 4A6.?57
1516.686 4044.46'
4 68'778 43.66s 2a2.o49 351.a55 88B.B8z 2788.659
5 6l'483 39.036 166.s73 309.317 680.168 2334.r52
6 60.051 38. l3l L60.272 300.345 64L.569 2253.Or8
7 60.000 38.095 160.0oo 30o.ooo 640.OOO 2250.OOO
A PT. O A PT. I
FT.
I
XY
START I.II TH
620L.562
2688.006
I 289.866
79 1 .004
630. O 75
60 t. 140
600.000
PARAIqET ER S
AB
30.000 2t.ooo
21.786 t2.3L7
L7.422 10.148
I 5.663 8.7e8
15.094 8.147
15.003 8.006
I 5.000 8.000
I 5.000 8.000
SOIL BEARII\iG AT coRr{ER 5000.000 PsF
aPl.2
aPT.3
PSF
PSF .OOO PSF
FIGURE 6-Computer printout of Examples I and 2.
common practice is to assume that it would be provicled
through the friction developed at the footing boitorn.
Com-puter
Progrom. The most diflicult part of the
problem (in both manual
design and in formulating
the
procedures for sequential electronics
computatiori) is
determining
the position of the neutral-a;is whicir is
taken as the boundary line cf the effective footing
area.
The basic computer r.outine develol;ccl for solving liaxial
eccentricity
problems in reinforcecl-concrete,
d.escribed
in..a-previous
article,l can also be used to solve footing
soil bearing problems. That program was modified, sJ
that title headings and data in the printed results rvould
comply with the usual nomenclature
applicable to foot_
ings. The formulas lor the neutral-axis
and the effective
section properties are the same as given in the previous
article, and therefore will not be repeated here. For
background
and development o[ the formulas and criteria
the reader is also referred to the writer,s paper
,,Ana-
lytical Approach
to Biaxial Ecccntricity.,,:
The logic
pattern used in formulating
this program for the srnall
computer is shown flow-charted in Figure 4. From start
to finish, loading of the program deck and data carcls,
computations
and thc print-out of results for the trvo
examples
cited, took less than one quarter of a mintrtc.
Exomple t. The plan of a footing used in a rigicl
frame structure supporting several heat-exchangers is
shown in Figure 5. Determine the maximum soil-bearing
Ior a total vertical load of 250 kips (weight of concrete
foundation
and earth backfill included), located ecccn-
trically rvith respect to the footing centerlines, at a
distance of l'-0" from each center]ine.
Solution.
p
:
250 kips
D*: l'-0"
EY: I'-0"
d
L
75
FIGURE S-Example 1.
CALCULATE FOOTING SOIL BEARING
.-H..,i'.*}*=
Pov = o'o+
*"
FIGURE 7-Distribution of soil bearing under footing.
For these eccentricities, the resultant load is obviously
within the footing kern. Ilence, the full footing area is
under bearing, and the position of the neutral-axis line,
falling outside the footing, has no effect on the geometric
properties used in subsequent calculations. And since the
computer program was set up to start with the full rec-
tangle (by using neutral-axis parameters equal to twice
footing dimensions, see Figure 4), the correct location of
the neutral-axis line is obtained within the first cycle.
Note: The test for convergence requires that the neutral-
axis parameters remain the same throughout two con-
secutive cycles, and whence the extra cycle shown in
the computer printout (Figure 6) results.
Having determined the position of the neutral-axis,
the computer next calculates and prints the maximum
soil bearing (at corner used as origin), as well as the
bearing at the other corners. The soil bearing diagram
shown in Figure 7 helps visualize the results.
Exomple 2. What is the maximum soil bearing, if
because of additional overturning effects on the structure,
the load specified for example i is reduced by 150 kips
of uplift, while the eccentricities are increased by 2t-9"
and 2t-3", in the x- and y- directions, respectively.
Draw separate diagrams of the soil bearing under the
footing for both examples.
Solution. Resultant P: 250
-
150
:
100 kips
Eccentricities
(
E-
:
1'00 * 2'75:3'75 ft"
I
E,,
: r.oo + 2.25
:2.2b
ft.
stability
I
s'R*
:
7.50/3.75:2 0
Ratios! S.Rr: S.2S/2.25
-
1.62 >
1.5
The load is now outside the kern, and with the large
eccentricities used in this example, stability against over-
turning could be critical and should be checked first. It
is conservative to investigate the stability for each of the
two directions separately, since in rectangular footings
stability in any diagonal direction lies in between the
two rectangular components. These two component values
are shown in the readers' interest. The overall stability'
ratio for the diagonal direction was also computed, and
found to equal 1.84. Now, with the resultant load being
outside the kern, part of the footing area must therefore
be neglected. Noting that the eccentricity in the, x-
.D
direction equals
!;
,
it is apparent that the location
of the load is on the dividing line between types I and
III (see Figure 3). The limit of type I effective area
is reached when parameter a becomes equal to dimension
D, (and at which point t)?e III begins) . By observation,
then, parameter a is known to be equal to 15.0 feet
Such deduction would, of course, be helpful in reducing
the volume of computations when attempting manual
solutions. With a digital computer, however, the more
generalized the approach, the better. The results are
achieved by following the systematic procedure of suc-
cessive substitutions of neutral-axis parameters to ab-
solute convergence, which for this example was reached
in six cycies (see Note in Example 1). Computer print-
out results, including the geometric properties at each
cycle, are shown in Figure 6, and diagram of the dis-
tribution of the soil bearing under the footing in Fig-
ure 7.
LITERATURE CITED
rCzerniak.
8.. "Concrete
Support Analysis by Computer," Hvonocemon
Pnotr:ssIrc'ern Petnorruu Rrinea,42 No.8, ll7 (1963).
-'iCz".oiuk"
E.. "Analvtical
Approach to Biaxial tccentricity." Journal
of
the Siiucrural Div., Pr6ccedingi'of the Amercan Society of Civil Eneineers.
sr4 (1962), ST3 (1963).
)"::4'tgY!4-"
-
About lhe Author
Czerniak is a principal design engineer with The
Eli
Fluor Corp., Los AAngeles. He coordinates comPuter
applications for the Design Engi
apphcatrons tor the ljesrgn [ngr-
neering Dept., reviews manual tech-
ffi:;d
;,,ffi" ;;";.;;i;;" ;;';;,h"d'
and procedures better adaptable. to
systems converslon rn automatrng
the design and drafting of refinerY
units. Mr. Czerniak received a B.S.
in engineering from Columbia Uni-
versity in 1949 and an M.S. in Civil
Engineering from Columbia in 1950.
He is a registered engineer in Caii-
fornia and has published a number
of technicai articles. He has had
Czerniak
field experience as a civil engineer
and worked in design and drafting
with Arthur G. McKee Co. in Union,
N.
J.,
for two years before
joining Fluor in 1953 as a
structural designer. He soon headed up the structural
design and drafting on various projects until assuming
his present position.
76
concrete
support Analysis
by computer
Axial Ioading plus two-directional
bending in reinforced concrete sup-
ports is an easy problem for a srnall
computer using this simplified program
Eli Czerniqk, The Fluor Corporation, Ltd.,
Los Angeles
IIanB's A cENERALTZED TEcrrNreue together with all
the formuias especially developed for the iystematic solu-
tion by-a diejtal computer of 6iaxial .....rtii"ity problems
in reinforced concrete. The approach is unique because
in spite of the length and complexity of the equations, the
complete analysis program can be easily crimmed into
the comparatively little memory rpu"" oi the small com-
puter with a core storage capacity of only 4,000 alpha_
merical characters. The program is completely general
and can be used for sections with symmetiical as *.ll u,
non-s).rnmetric
steel arrangements, multiple Iayers of steel,
sections reinforced with more than one ba, ,ir", ,rr,rrrui
modular ratios, rectangular base plates with or without
anchor bolts, and to find the maximum pressure
under
an eccentrically loaded footing with uplift at one corner.
Many constructional components of structures used in
the. hydrocarbon-processing
industry for supporting heat
exchangers, accumulators, drumsr'.o*pr"rro.s,
iipirrg,
etc., are subjected to various combinations of axial ioaJs
ald bending moments. Because precise analysis, except in
the very-simple cases, was found to be raiher difficult,
structural designers in the past had rationalized them_
selves into some rernarkable oversimplified assumptions
that very conveniently blpassed the otherwise tedious
solution. Such attitude of
,,ignore
it and maybe it will go
away" is both wasteful and dangerous. As a rule, fun"c_
tional and more economical, slender structures. built of
higher-strength
materials, are now used in redneries to
support much heavier and larger processing equipment
than the massive rvall supportiof iays pastl Singie col_
umn tee-supports and rigid frames, such as seen under
construction in Figure 1_, when subjected to lateral loading
(e.g.,. from wind, earthquake, impact or vibration) ii
addition to the equipment weights, often involve the load_
moment configurations requiring a stress analysis for axial
Ioad combined with two-directional
bending.
The Neutrol Axis in Reinforced
Goncrete. The major
problem, in both manual
_designs
and in formulating
procedures
for- sequential electronic computation is th!
determining of the position of the neutral axis, the in_
termediary that is needed before achieving the final re_
sults. This computational
complexity in reinforced_con_
crete stems essentiaily from the cornmon assumption that
part of the section is considered ineffective for design
purposes
(cracked-section
design) . Thus, even when the
shape of the cross-section of the reinforced-concrete
mem_
ber might be a simple rectangle, the shape of the con_
crete's_ effective portion (used in analysis) need not neces_
sarily. be one. Depending on the relative values of applied
bending moments to concentric loads, the shape
"f
tn.
concrete section to be inciuded in the analysis could very
well vary from a triangle or trapezoid to a full rectangle.
The fact that the effectiveness tf tt e reinforcing steej is
not always considered constant tends further tJ compli_
cate the anaiysis.
Slress in Concrefe. In reinforced concrete design, the
concrete itself is generally not relied upon to withstand
much tensile stress. (The reinforced-concrete
as a who,le
though is
.quite
capable of resisting significant amounts
of eccentric tension loads as will be ,io*., in Example
2.) It is usually assumed that the tension stresses in ihe
flexural computation are taken by the reinforcing
steel,
whereas the compression is primarily resisted by tie con_
crete. According to Section 1109 (b) of the AbI Codex
FIGURE l-Single column tee-supports and rigid frames"
*
Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 3lg-56)
77
'ttx.v = 9]-3
CONCRETE SUPPORT ANALYSIS . .
FIGURE 2-In rectangular sections, locate origin of coordi-
nates in oroe corner.
some tension stress in the concrete is permitted when, in
addition to bending stresses, there also exists direct com-
pression and the ratios of eccentricity to depth (e/t)
is not greater than
/3
in either direction.
Assuming a straight line stress distribution the stress
at any point (x, y) in the concrete may be written:
l- *
"l
fo,,y
: t"
L,
_; _
i_l
where fo represents the intensity of stress at the chosen
point of origin, and the constants a, b designate the inter-
iepts of the neutral-axis line on the x- and y-axes re-
spectively.
In cracked section designs, where the tensile strength
of the concrete is completely neglected, the stresses in the
concrete must be assumed to exist only in the compres-
sion region. The part of the section, over which f"*,
,
would be negative is said to have thus become ineffective
for purposes of analysis. It is apparent from the stress
equation that the region over which fo",, is negative ex-
tends to all points for which the value
i
*
*
is hrger
than one. It is evident, therefore, that in cracked sections
the intercepts a and b can be also used to denote the
boundary line of the concrete's effective section. Conver-
gence of the two lines until they almost coincide consti-
tutes, for all practical purPoses, the solution of the prob-
lem. For analytical purposes, the steel can be considered
as having been replaced by an appropriate amount of
concrete. The area of this transformed concrete is as-
sumed to be concentrated at a point which coincides with
the center of the replaced bar. The amount of concrete
resulting from the exchange depends on the relative
effectivenes attributed to the materials. In the strictly
elastic analysis, the modular ratio n is the index to meas-
uring the relative effectiveness of the steel over that of
concrete. The area of the concrete substituted for each
bar equals n times Ai. Of course, it presupposes that the
bond between all tension and compression bars and con-
crete remains intact at all times, and they deform to-
gether under stress. fn reality, this is not exactly true.
There is experimental evidence that the bars in the com-
pression region are stressed more than would be indicated
by purely elastic considerations. Building codes, allowing
for this phenomena long ago, permitted an increase in
the stress of the cornpressive reinforcement. The allow-
78
FIGURE 3-The area under compression is a triangle'
able stress values are well above that which might have
resulted from a strictly elastic analysis. Section 706 (b)
of the ACI Building Code requires that: "To approxi-
mate the effect of creep, the stress in compression rein-
forcement resisting bending may be taken at twice the
value indicated by using the straight-line relation be-
tween stress and strain, and the modular ratio n." IIow-
ever, the use of the 2n is not unrestricted, The code states
that compressive stress in the reinforcing should be equal
to, or less than, the allowable steel stress in tension. De-
noting the allowable tensile unit stress in reinforcement
by f1 the equations governing the stresses in the reinforc-
ing steel can be written as:
tensile f
":
courpressive f'.:
The reader should note that in the case of the com-
pressive reinforcement, the bar which is under comPres-
sion is evidently located in the portion of the concrete
which has already been considered effective in the
analysis. Therefore, the area of the bar must be sub-
tracted from the effective concrete area before computing
the necessary section properties. Since this might prove
rather awkward, an appropriate correction is made in
the transformed area of the steel bar instead. As a com-
pensation, the force in the co,mpression bar is reduced by
the amount which would have existed (in its place) in
the concrete. The reduction equals to the concrete stress
times the area of the bar, which is:
l-
" "l f"l1----;-lA,
"L u bl '
With the transformed area concept, the correction is
accomplished by reducing the effectiveness index m by
one. The area of concrete which is substituted for a bar
in compression would be equal to
[2n-
1] or less, times
Ai. Obviously, the or less applies to those bars whose
stress has already reached the limiting tensile stress value.
In transforming the tension bars into equivalent concrete,
no such reduction applies, since by assumption, they
would be located outside the effective portion. Ifowever,
in the limited cases when tension in the concrete is per-
mitted, these bars also displace some eflective concrete.
Hence, they too must have their areas subtracted or the
I
I- *
"l *"
L'-;
-
-il1
[
" "l 2nf,fr-;-
ol=,,
lOOo/o
Compression
V
FIGURE
4-Variation
of five shapes frorn triangle to rectargle.
modular
ratio modified by using ("_ l) instead
of n.
Copocity
of Looded
Section.
The magnitude
of the
largest load which can be sustained
ut .-gir.r, location
(within
the prescribed
stress or strain iir"i"l
constitutes
the measure for the capacity of the scction. F"; ;"t
known
.or
assumed
position of the ne,rtral_a*is
it can b!
determined
with ease from the equation as follows:
Eccentric
Load
p:
t
["-
+ - +]
Where A denotes the over-all
effective area of the cross_
section_and
Qo", Qo"
are the firrt *o*errts
of this area
about the x- and y-axis, respectively.
.
In most- practical
.problerns,
howcver,
the position
of
the neutral-axis
is neither known .ro. .un it U" ."u.orruUif
assumed.
Given data usually include
the magnitude
ani
the position
of the imposed load, as rvell as the material
specifications.
The problem
then becomes
one of deter_
mining the adequacy
of the section to sustain , gi.r"rr-a"_
sign load, u",trrg at a given point, and not exJeeding
a
given stress limitation.
-The
tcatitn of the neutral_axis
may be_,-in itselt of very little interest
to practicing
engi_
neers. Nevertheless,
it must be determined
first,
"U"fo'r"
proceeding
with the more essential task of
"rtut[rfrfurg structural
adequacy.
The general
equation*
fo. tfr"
fui
rameters
of the neutral-axis
are:
x_axis intercept
a:
(r*r-Yrq";
(I-"-{&l
-
(L.
IYeQo,)
(roy-xpeo")
ro*
-
yreor)
y_axis intercept
b:
(r,y
-
ypgy)
(r."
-
xo&.)_- (rs, _ yoQo*)
(roy _
xeQoy)
Where I"* an_d
_Io,
are the. moments
of inertia
about the
x, y-axes,
and I," denotes
the product
of inertia of the
area about the origin. Xn and
yo
are the coordinates
of
tne apptred
eccentric
load.
In the above equations,
all the section properties
obvi-
ously pertain
to the over-all effective
section.'Th"
p.op"._
ti9s. o{ the effective portion
of the concrete
are added
wrth the transformed
properties
of the steel.
Recfongulor
Sections.
In the case of rectangular
sec_
tions, it is convenient
to locate the origin of ,fr" coordi_
nate system in one of the corners
of the rectangle (see
Figure
2) and let the axes coincide wittr
two sides. The
main advantage
is the relative ease with *hi"h th" ur.i_
ous formulas
for the required
section p.op".ties
can be
*t':-xm**:+$+i*P;i,:,:g:*+,$H,B$'J;lf
;fl
*ti'E*#
obtained.
Furthermore,
by choosing (as
the origin)
that
corner at which the concrete .o*pi.riirr"
stress is a maxi_
mum, the number
of possible
shapes of effective concrete
area is reduced to five.
^
In Figure 3 the corners of the given
section are O, B,
C, and D. Line
QR
designates
th"e ,r",ri.ui_u*i.,
and'in_
tersects the-x- and y-axis
at a and b, respectiveiy.
When
tension in the concrete is not permitied,
ihe neutral-axis
line is also taken to represenf
the boundary line of the
portion of the concrete
section considered
effective in the
analysis.
When the neutral-axis
intercepts
are smaller
",1:"
,F;.orresqo.nding
dimensio",
of ifr" section (as
llyl
tn..t'.igur,e
3) the area of concrete ,nder comprls_
slon ls a tnangle.
As one or both of the intercepts
are increased
beyond
the section's dimensions,
the effective
urea p.ogr".r",
from that of a trapezoid
to one of a rectartele.
When the
neutral-axis
falls completely
outside the section, the
whole area is obviouslyunder
compression
and therefore
fully effective. The variation
.f th; h;;;'af,es,
from t.i_
angle to rectangle,
are shown
shaded in Figure 4.
The required
properties
of the effective portion
of the
concrete
for the five possible
shapes can be tbtained from
tne lormulas
tor shape
JV.
The geometric
properties
in
terms of the neutral-axis
intercep-ts
and the section di_
mensions
are shown formulated
below:
AREA:
*
*
[,_(..),_
(+).
]
q".:f
"u,[,-(..)'-
f =)--,
(?'+]
q",:
f "r
[,
-
(';')"-
(r-)i-, (3
l)"+]
r"":f .u,[,-(*J'*
(';,)-_,
(5),+(r.,t
)]
r* :
f
a.u
[,
-
("
;,)'*
(+)'_,
(+)"
+("-J]
,.,:
*
"" [,
_
(:_;,)-_ (o;,).n
(+),
+
_,
(,;.),+]
79
old poromde6 A ond I
-iest
Patomailt A
io axls. L
CONCRETE SUPPORT ANALYSIS. . .
FIGURE S-Computer sequence for properties of efiective
concrete section.
To compute the contribution of the steel is compara-
tively easy. The transformed properties of all the indi-
vidual bars are added. Care must be exercised to assign
the proper effectiveness index to each bar. In order to
differentiate it from the modular ratio n, let the effective-
ness index be designated by m. For tension bars, the
numerical value of m is made equal to n in cracked sec-
tions and to n- 1, when concrete tension is permitted'
For compressive reinforcement, its value is 2n
-
1 when
the bar stress is less than ft. When the stress in the com-
pressive bar reaches (the allowable steel tensile stress)
the value of m is reduced to
ft
-
r]= z"-r
where fo is the concrete stress at the origin.
Therefore, the required transformed properties for
steel reinforcement are:
Moments of Inertia Io":
Product of Inertia I*":
m Ai yi2
mArxiyi
m Ai xi2
Convergence Technique. In the usual design problem,
it is necessary to find the size of the reinforced-concrete
section which can adequately sustain a given system of
loading. Several loading combinations must frequently
be con-sidered, and the tiial sections must be incremented
until all conditions are satisfied. The most laborious part
of the computations (as design engineers well know) is
determining the parameters of the neutral-axis line' The
coordinates- of the applied load are calculated from the
bending moments (usually given with respect to the cen-
terlineJof the section). Together with the properties o{
the assumed section, they are used to determine the
neutral-axis parameters. There will be only one neutral-
axis which will satisfy equilibrium conditions and stress-
strain limitations. When the concrete is not permitted to
take any calculated tension, the neutral-axis line is as-
sumed to be the boundary line of the effective portion of
the concrete. The problem, then, is to find that neutral-
axis which almost ioincides with the edge of the effective
section. The difference betwen the two lines constitutes
the measure of the computational error, which, obviously,
should be kept as small as practicable.
The work of finding the required parameters may fre-
quently be facilitated by following a systematic procedure
of successive substitutions until the desired results are
achieved. To begin with, the distances of the load from
the coordinate axes are determined. With them and the
properties for 100 percent compression (with neutral-axis
parameters equal to twice the section dimensions) the
first trial line is determined. If the neutral-axis line falls
within the section, it is subsequently used to define the
effective section, all the properties are recalculated, and
N
r
-I ^oy
Ll
i=l
N
\t
lr
i=1
N
I
i=1
''
('-;
- +)
Area
Morpent Areas
80
A:
'Ai
mAiYr
N
T
l)
i=1
N
E
l- I
N
T
i=1
Qor:
About the Author
develops new methods
an-d procedures better adaptable.to
systems conversion in automatmg
the design and drafting of refilery
,nits. M1. Czerniak received a B.S'
Czerniak
in ensineerine {rom Columbia Uni-
rersiri in 194-9 and an M.S. in Civil
Ensinlerins from Columbia in 1950.
He'is a r"?iste.ed engineer in Cali-
fornia and-has published a number
of technical articles. He has had
field experience as a civil engineer
and woiked in design and drafting
r,vith Arthur G. McKee Co. in Union,
N. T.. for two vears before ioining
Fluor in 1953 as a
stru"ctural designer. He soon headed up the. structural
design and drifting on various projects until assuming
his present position.
Qoy:
mAt x,
new parameters are determined. The process of substitut_
ing the calculated parameters of the neutral-axis for the
parameters of the effective section is repeated to any de-
sired degree of approximation. The
"onrr".g"r"e
routine
is quite fast, and only a small number of cycles will
usually be sufficient for most practical problems.
Compuier Progrom. When setting up a computer pro-
gram for solution of engineering problems, heavy emphasis
should be placed on the simplicity of the input data and
clarity of the output. With the formulas and procedures
described before, the writer developed a program for
solving biaxial eccentricity problems, on the tasis of elas-
tic action, with a small computer, having a core storage
capacity of 4,000 alphamerical characters. Because of the
widespread availability of these small units it should in-
terest engineers that even without Fortran capability they
can be used for numerous analytical appliiations. The
program was written in SPS (Symbolic
programing
Sys-
tem) and punched into 529 cards, which were latei con-
densed into a 104 card deck. The card reader has a rated
speed of 800 cards per minute, which means that it takes
appro.ximately 8 second to load the whole program. Corn_
putations and printout average one-half seiond per cycle.
Absolute convergence, wherein the neutral-axis paiam-
eters (measured to three significant figures to thl right
of the decimal point) remain the same through two cin-
secutive cycles is usually achieved within eight cycles. In
most instances the results of the third iteratiron seemed to
have sufficed for all practical purposes. In the two ex-
amples cited, six .y.Lr *"." ieq"i.ea for the absolute
solution. From start to finish, Ioading of the program and
data cards, computations and printout of results-for both
examples, took 15 seconds.
Now, after the input data has been entered and ma-
chine digested, the convergence routine starts with
neutral-axis parameters equal to twice the section di_
mensions and computes the necessary
,transformed,
sec-
tion properties from which, together with the load coor-
dinates_new_parameters
are calculated and subsequently
used. Ifow formulas for the section properties foi only
case IV are used in the program to determine all possible
effective-section properties is illustrated in the blo-ck dia-
gram, shown in Figure 5.
. .
A,
.?"!
iteration cycle the equilibrium load compati_
ble with the section properties, load coordinates, limiting
stresses and the newly determined neutral-axis paral
meters, is computed and printed together with maximum lS.l
FIGURE &-Corner column in exchanger structure used in
examples.
compressive stresses in concrete (at corner used for
origin) and steel, as well as the maximum stress in the
tensile reinforcement.
Numericq! Exomples. The reinforced-concrete
section
shown in Figure 6 is a corner column in an exchanger
structure. The allowable unit stresses are: 1,350 psi in
concrete (for f"'
:
3,000) and 20,000 for the reinforcing
tteel.
Example 1. The column section shown in Figure 6 is
Ioaded with a compressive force of 15 kips, and with
bending moments about the centerlines of the section
equal
.to
22.5 ft. kips and 17.5 ft. kips, in the x and y
directions, respectively. Determine whether the section
can,adequately sustain the above loading using effective
modular ratios of n equals 10 for the tensile arrd 2r,
-
I
or 19 for compressive reinforcement.
8or Coordinoles
XY
2,375" 2.375"
2.375" il . 625"
9.ooo" 2.zts"
9,OOO' il,625'
r5.625" 2.375"
t5.625" il ,625"
SIDE O SIDE T
18.000 l4.ooo
AR EA
SIEEL 50. 1600
cNcRT 252.OOOO
IOraL 302. 1600
CYCLE I CNCRT FO
LOAD COORDINAIES
NO. OF BARS A HEIGHT SUII O
xYs#
- 9.000
- 7.000
06 2.640 9.012 14. 116
I,IODULAR RATI OS
NH
1,0.0 19.0
P ARAIT{E T ER S
AB
36.000 28.000
19.200 l5.486NFh
ooI
0x 0Y ox
351.1200 +51.4400 3530.7976
1764.0000 2258.OOOO l6464.OOOO
21r5.1200 27L9.4400
I9994.?916
I35O.OOOPSI STEEL,COHPR I9548 IENSION
I
OY
5530.6624
272 16.0000
327 46.6624
760L LOAD
I
XY
3160.0798
15876.0000
I 90 36 . 0798
,2r20t
STEEL
'4.7200
203.6100
cNcRT 6l.20oo 208.0800
IOTAL 95.5200 4l 1.6900
cYcLE 6 C|{CRT FO t35o.oooPst
282.6450 1902.9860 325r.slL7
1770. t8l7
244.8000 I061.2080
1468.8000 6;(.2400
52f.4450 2964.1940
+722.77t7
2194.42L7
STEEL,COt{pR l54l? TENSION le45{ LOAO t5r28t
12.000 10.200
l2.oo0 lo.2ooNE,,r
FIGURE 7-Computer solution to problem Example
8t
CONCRETE SUPPORT ANALYSIS. . .
Solution. With P
:
15 kips, the eccentricities are:
22'5 x 12
: 18 inches
*: -
l5
t7.5 x 12
ey:-
15
:Il rnches
The solution of this problem is shown in Figure 7, which
is an actual comPuter printout. For these eccentricities
the load coordinates listed with resPect to one corner as
origin are:
XP:
-9
inches
YP:
-7
inches
After convergence, the load caPacity is shown as
15,128 ibs. which is slightly more than the given 15 kips
and hence O.K. The capacity of the section to sustain
this eccentric load was evidently limited by the 1,350 psi
compression in the concrete. Maximum tensile stress was
lg,4i4 psi which is close to the limiting 20,000 value
given; maximum compressive stress in the steel is 15,417
isi.
The final neutral-axis parameters came out to 12
inches for A and 10.2 inches for B, which means the
shape of the effective portion of the concrete section was
a triangle (case I in Figure 4) .
Example 2. What is the maximum tension load which
can be supported by the section of Figure 6, if the eccen-
tricities of Example 1 are halved?
Solution. P
:
? With eccentricities equal to e'
:
9
inches and ey: 7 inches it is apparent that the load is
Iocated at the corner of the section, and since it is tension,
must be opposite the corner used as origin.
The computed tension load capacity
is 14,636 lbs., limited by tensile rein-
forcing stress of 20,000 psi. (Figure
B) Maximum corner stress in the con-
crete
(at the origin) is 760.456 psi
and maximum stress in comPressive
reinforcement is 5,536
Psi,
which as
expected is way below the allowables'
The main purpose of the second
example is to illustrate the often over-
iooked fact that the reinforced con-
crete section, as a whole, is quite cap-
able to resist significant amounts of
eccentric tension loads.
Finally, to show how the individual
bars contribute to the transformed
properties of the section, a short sup-
plementary routine was written that
prints out all pertinent properties of
ihe reinforcement for the converged
parameters. The comPuter
Printed
properties of the steel reinforcing bars
for both Examples I and 2 are shown
in Fisrrr'c 9.
##
Y
TRANSFoRxtO PRLPERTIFS 0F STETL RFINFORCING sARS (fOr
exOmple l)
PARAHTT( B HOOIiLAR RAIIOs N ANO N NUHETR OF 8AR5
10.200 lo.0 lrl.0 06
PARAHE ITR A
l2.oo0
lxYXOo.
s
.\40 t5.625 11.625 10.0
.440 2.275 2.175 19.O
.440 2.175 t1.625 tO.0
.{{o 9.000 2.175 l9.o
.4(O 9.000 It.625 to.o
.440 15.525 2.175 lO.O
IIIIGHT SUH O
T0TALS 9.0121 l4.l16
PARAHETTR A
7 .A44
A X Y llo0.
s
.\40 15.625 11.625 10.0
.440 2.375 2.f75 l9.O
.440 2.375 11.625 l0.O
.440 9.O00 2.175 lo.0
.440 9.000 11.625 L0.o
.440 rr.625 2.r75 10.0
IE I GHT SUX O
T0IALS 9.Ol2r t4. I ]6
ARIA A
UX
4.4000 51.1500
a.1600 t9.8550
4.(000 51.1500
8.1600 I9.8550
4.4000 51.1500
4.4000 10.4500
1(.1200 203.6100
lRfa o o
UX OY
4.4000 51.1500 68.7500
a.15oo 19.8550 19.8550
4.{OOO 5t.1500 1o.1500
4.4000 I0.(500 39.6000
4.4000 51.1500 19.6000
4.4000 10.4500 68' 7500
TRANSF0RHTO PRoptRIltS 0F SThEL RFINFURCING 8^RS (fOr
eXOmple 2 )
PARATETER B XOOUI,AR RATIOS N AIiO I NUHETR OF SARS
?.09t lo.0 t9'o 06
atll
oY 0x oY xY
ha.lrca 594.6187 lO14.2l87 799.2lb1
19.8550 41.1556 \1.1556 47,1556
10.4500 594.6181 24.8187 l2l.\ALZ
15.?4OO 47,1556 677.1600 I78.6?50
39.6000 5e4.6l1l 156.4000 {60. l50o
68.7500 24.nlal lo7q.2ln1 l6l.2Al2
252-6450 I902.9860 r7.tl.r?17 l770.l8l 7
lrI
rix 0Y xY
5s4.61A1 li)74.2I87 799.2187
1f.t556
(7.1556 47.1556
594.6187 24.818I 12I.4812
24.818I 156.4000 94.0500
,14.61A7 1t6'qAOC 4a,0.1500
24.8187 lo1c.2lb1 161.28t2
30.',,600 194.2050 247.0050 1880.&4',1 297','2llf 1685'51'r7
K
14.64
(tension)
SIDE D SIDE T
18.000 14.000
LOAD COORDINATES
XY
I 8.000 14.000
A IIEIGHT
Sf
2.640 9.0 I 2
sUM O I{ODULAR RATI OS
NH
14.116 10.0 19.0
OF EARS
06
I
ox
194.2050 241.OO50
65.7356 12.7L62
259.9406 319.1212
760.456P5I STEEL'cot',tPR
STEEL
CNCRT
TOTAL
CYCLE
30. 3600
27.8109
58.1709
cr{cR T FO
t880.6491 2971.21L7
231.0659 285. l9l0
zltr,1L50 )2L8.4047
5536 TENSION 2OOOO LOAD
1685.r)67
128.9077
1814.4444
-lq676d
7.844 7.09 I
7.9ttq 7.09lNf h
FIGURE &- Computer solution to Example 2.
82
FIGURE 9-Properties of reinforcing bars for Examples 1 and 2'
NOTES
83
FOUNDATIONS
t(
solrF
k_1
g
{
I

Foundations
on
Weak
Soils
John Mqkqretz, The Badger Co., fnc.
Boston, Mass.
Tooav's
pETRocrrEMrcer,
plants are being constructed
in locations and under conditions that require more at-
tention to foundation design than was
".,rto-a.y
in the
past. New plants are often close to water, on filled sites,
where the land is not ideal for foundations. In .""..ri
years the trend has been to higher towers, often com_
bined in groups; equipment has become heavier. More-
over, rigid rcinforced
concrete structures permit only
negligible differential settlement. Tank foundations de_
serve particular attention.
New Design Techniques.
These considerations
suggest
the desirability of design innovations or nonconventional
design techniques. Foundations having negligible settle_
me1!
9a1
be designed, of course, but their cost is usually
prohibitive.
If soil conditions permit uniform settlement
of two to three inches, however, it is often possible to
design foundations
at a considerable saving, without
sacrificing
safety.
It is important to keep in mind that it is easier to
predict the settiement
of fills, placed over uniform de-
posits- of clay, than it is to p."di"t deflections
of pile
foundations
ioaded by a structure and subject
to down_
drag load from subsiding fills. An error in ihe prediction
of footing settlement
in dense sand is not serious; an
error in predicting
the behavior of piles in silt clays can
result in very serious damage indled.
Foundations
on
sandy soil will settle quickly and will be stabilized, pro_
vided no considerable
change in subsoil
water level
occurs. Foundations
on clay settle slowly
and over a
longer period of time, the settlement
aiso depending
upon
water level variation,
but not to such an extent as it
does in the case of sandy soils.
Storqge
tqnk foundqtions
appear
to be unimportant
structures
in petrochemical
plants. Ifowever,
considering
the large investment
in tanks, substantial
economy
can
be reali"ed
if, by proper founclation
design, long main_
tenance-free
tank service life is achie.,"J.
L order to
effect substantial
savings
on tank foundations,
the design
engineer
and the owner must reach an understanding
on
Because today's plants are being constructed
on filled sites not ideal for founda-
tions, a careful check must be made on settling tolerance
and soil preparation
both the tolerable magnitude
of settling
and the time
available for foundation
preparation.
.Nearly
every large tank which is supported
on soil
w-ill
.nave,
aiter years of service, about one or two feet
of differential
settlement
between the shell and the tank
center. The reason for this is the unit soil pressure
at the
tank bottom. For a tank about 150 feet in diameter
and
5O feet high there will_be approximately
130 psi under
the shell and 23 psi in the *lddl"
of the iank.
.
A large differential
settlement
between
the shell and
bottom may cause a tearing
or shearing effect between
the bottom plate
and the she'il. Ho*"r"r,'lu.ge
tanks over
i50 feet in diameter
can be used if aim".."iid
settlement
85
2'
,/,
Cloy t2'
Z
is as large as 24 inches, because of the flexibility of the
bottom ind the roof plates. The effect of the relative
settlement between thi tank and the connecting
pipes
can be overcome by using flexible
joints. Differential
tt is eosier
to
Predict
the
settlement ol tills over claY lhqn
looded
pile dellections
subiect
to
downdrog from subsiding fills
settlement for small tanks (up to about 30 feet in
diameter) should not exceed abott
t/z
inch. If the dif-
ferential settlements under the shell itself are closely
spaced, e><cessive stresses in the shell will occur and the
shell may buckle.
Edge Treament. If the tank site is underlain by a
firm lubsoil stratum, the following three foundation
methods can be used after the topsoil and organic
material are removed:
o
Recompact the subgrade and put a pad of sand or
gravel directly on the subgrade'
.
IJse a sand cushion as above with edge protection
consisting of a crushed rock ring wall.
o
l]se a reinforced concrete ring wall, which supports
the tank edge, with a sand cushion of about 4 inches
inside the ring.
The necessity of using the edge treatment is a con-
troversial subject. Some owners feel that "edge cutting"
is not detrimental and that the cost of the edge treat-
ment is, therefore, prohibitive. Others are of the opinion
86
that the concrete rings are desirable even for the best
soil conditions. As arguments for this reasoning, the
following points are used:
.
A surface level to within
/2
inc]n around the perim-
eter is necessary for proper tank erection'
.
Even small locaiized deflection of the foundation
during operation may cause "hang-up"
of the float-
ing roof.
Edge cutting under the tank shell may cause rupture
of ihe weld between the tank bottom and the tank
shell.
Ring foundations prolong tank life because the edge
of the shell is a few inches above exterior grade; cor-
rosion problems and maintenance costs will be mini-
mized.
.
Some tanks need anchorage (aluminum tanks or tall
tanks having small diameters).
Tonk.
f =
50'
H =30'
CtoyiT= l15 lbs. per cu. ft.
C= 8OO lbs. per sq.ft
,%Z:
v%)
'3'(Port
o)
//zzztzl
6'(Port b)
FIGURE l-ExamPle figure.
Iohn Makaretz is the chief structural engineer with
Th"e Badger Co., Inc., Boston, Mass. He has had a
wide
.experience
in slructural, design
.i;.,l.l.;li*
in building dams, bridges and heavy
.ii
industrial lonstruction. After receiv- i!
ing an M.S. degree in engineering i#
from Lwow Institute o[ Technology
''l
About the Author
and the American Concreie Insti-
in Poland, he practiced structural
l.$}$
engineering in Europe for several rrll
years. Before
joining Badger, he was
}i;1
chief structural engineer with
fi;:::
f,,Tm#r"iJ"; f,:-il:. l?'if;
il
American Society of Civil Engineers, :r1'.;"r @llS,i
the International Association for
i;;: : :: :;i!i:*i';n
Bridge and Structural Engineering
Makaretz
tute. He is a registered professional engineer in the State
of New York, New
Jersey
and several other states.
Weak, Compressible Soil. If the area on which the
storage tanks are to be constructed is underlain by weak
and compressible soil strata, not over approximaiely 20
feet thick, the following methods of foundation design
can be used:
o
If the thickness of weak deposits is relatively shallow
(3 fo 5 feet), it is often advisable to remove the
weak materiais and replace them with well_com_
pacted granular fills. Note that it is necessarv to
extend the compacted fill beyond the tank pe.i*et"r.
.
Io.
deeper, weak soil deposits, it is entirely prac_
tical to surcharge the compressible strata before the
tank foundation is constructed, if time permits. The
purpose of such a surcharge is to increase the
strength of the subsoil and to reduce the tank settle_
ment during operation.
o
The tank foundation may be put on a crust of very
strong filI and allowed to float on weak soil strata.
This is practical where the ground has to be filled
?nyway.
The crust must be thick enough and extend
far enoLgh.beyond
the tank perimet-er
to prevent
lateral plastic flow of the weak subsoils. Ste;l sheet
pilings, concrete rings, or crrshed stone rings may
be appiied to prevent lateral flow of the weak sub_
soils which might cause tank foundation failure.
Sheef sfee/ pilings,
concrete
rings,
or crushed
stone rings mqy
be used Io prevent
lqteral flow ol
weqk subsoils
.
Stability analysis of cohesive soils may be made using
either A. W. Skempton,s methodl o. the balancin[
moments method belween the imposed load and the
shearing stress resistance of the soil strata in question.
In order to calculate the stability of the tank founda_
tion, properties of a clay stratum are required, such as:
undrained
shear value (C) lbs./sq.
fi., aensity
1y;
lbs./cu. fr-.,
F_"
bearing capacity factor' (nondi-".rr;o.rri)',
and the height of the surcharge (d) ft. According io
Skempton, ultimate bearing cipacit'5, of clays ir'""_
pressed as:
gurt: C X N"
*
y
X a (assuming
that the clay is saiurated,
an angle of shearing resistance
/: 0)
The cohesion of th^e soil (C) for our purpose may
be assumed equal to 50 percent of the nonctnfined com_
pressive strength of the,soil. The bearing capacity factor
N" varies from 5.2 for elongated footincs"to
6.2 for round
and square footings.
For rectangular footings,
N" :
0.84
+
0.16
f
X N" (for square or circular footings)
1.5
C
5 o,-
EO'''
o
.9E
tz
oo
$
F
rr
S o,^
s'u
o0s
(/)5
o8
ole
EE-
O+O6
oo
E*ou
25
o/"
Ol The Totol
plont
Cost ln Million Dollors
FIGURE 2-Soil investigation cost as a percent
of founda-
tion, structures and buildings cost.
Where B is the width and L is the length of the
rectangular foundation, in feet.
Although it is very important to establish the ultimate
bearing capacity of clays in which shear failure may
o:c-ur mgre frequently than in noncohesive soils, never_
theless the settlement probability for the foundations on
clay should be considered and its expected magnitude
should be checl<ed. This is especially important if i safetl,
factor of 2 or 3 against ultimate faiture is projected.
E:<ample.
flplying
the dimensions given in Figure 1
to Skempton's formula,
N" :
coefficient 6.2 for round and square footings, 5.2 for strip
footings (nondimensional
)
N. (adjusted t
-- 5.2
F
+
-
5.44
eurt
:
5.44
X 800
+
0.75
X 120 :
1442lbs.per sq. ft.
Tank load :
65 lbs. per sq. ft.
Liquid load :
1900 lbs. per sq. ft.
Pad weight :
240 lbs. per sq. ft.
Total: ZZ* r,rr. per sq. ft.
. +442
-Factor ot saletv:
=
2.
'
2205
2) Using the balancins moment method:
9,r,X
-:CYLXT--
'I
2XCXL
Reduction factorp-
5'44
=0.88
.
6.20
2\B00xi2x3.1l
qurt
--
----12-
_- :
5024 1bs. per sq. ft.
Reduced
es11
:
5024 X 0.BB :4421
lbs. per sq. ft.
(the result should be the same as in Case 7, or 4442 lbs.
per sq. ft.)
Settlement for above conditions. Assumptions: L,,,
87
A
pile toundqlion
for tsnks with
q
reinforced concrele slob
copping
is besf but the most expensive; or, o -foot capping ol crushed
sfone compocted
between
the
piles trqnsters tonk lood to
piles well
liquid limit of clay
:
40
Percent;
eo, void ratio
:
L'2;
Co
"o*pr"tsibility
factor
:
0,009 (L;'o)
:
O'27
'
It is assumed that this strain is constant for the clay
stratum and the clay is normally consolidated (i'e' no
drF.g effect on the surface occurred). The factors as-
sumed above are usually obtained from laboratory tests'
In order to achieve better average conditions for the
Soil investigotions
ore c,
smoll
pqrt of
{,otol plont cosls
Yet
some owners obiect to toking o
sulficient number of borings or
ony at
qll
settlement calculation the 12-foot clay stratum is divided
into two 6-foot layers.
Approximate settlement (in.), A: H X
12
foundation pad was in place at least three months before
tank erection.
The above solution to tank suPport includes con-
siderable risk in comparison with pile foundation design'
Ilowever, the necessity of releveling the tanks several
times during installation still may save money as com-
pared with pile foundation construction. The conven-
iional pile foundation for tanks, with reinforced concrete
slab capping, is the best, but the most
-expensive.
in
"o*pt.i*r,
i"itf, tn" tank cost. Alternatively,
? -caPPing
of ciushed stone, about 4 feet deep, compacted between
the piles, may be used. The compacted crushed stone
"."rio
arches between the piles and transfers tank load
to piles relatively uniformlY'
'i-he
exact prediction of tank settlement is impossible,
except if supported on point-bearing piles, for the fol-
lowing reasons:
o
The stress distribution in thin, weak soil layers under
the foundation cannot be accurately determined'
o
The magnitude of lateral plastic flow in highly
stressed soils is unknown.
Behavior of the crushed stone caP on the piles
difficult to predict.
The nature of the deflection of piles in soft soils
unpredictable.
ls
For part a, p:2' X 120
:
240 lbs. per sq. ft.
3' X 1 15
:
345 lbs. per sq. ft.
3a;Ibr. per sq. ft.
ap: 1900 lbs. per sq. ft.
f
65 lbs. per sq. ft.: 1965 lbs. per
sq. ft.
p -l- ap
:
585
*
1965
:
2550 lbs. per sq. ft.
^
_
6'x 12
Y 0.27
2550
" 2.2
x logro
-85-:5'l
rn'
For part b, p
-
2 X 120
:
240 lbs. per sq. ft.
9 X
115
:
1035 lbs. per sq. ft.
lzzs tu.. per sq. ft.
p
*Ap
:
1275
+
1765: 3040 lbs. per sq. ft'
(Ap for the part b, decreased in accordance with Boussines q
formula)
^
_
6',Y 12
.',
3040
-a-
Z2
,.0.27 X lo1ro
*W5 :3-4in.
Totaldeflectio"=gi*
It is assumed for the above investigation that the tank
88
Relcrtive Cost of Soil lnvesiigotion. Let us consider an
average size petrochemical plant, the total
-cost
of which
is abJut six million dollari. The approximate cost of
foundations, structures and buildings would be about
25 percent of the total cost, or
$l/2
million. Soil investi-
gation for such a plant would require about 10 borings,
*hi.h *ith laboratory analysis and a complete report
would amount to from
$4,000
to
$9,000,
depending on
soil conditions.
Plotting soil investigation cost against 25 percent o{
the total plant cost (foundation, structures and buildings)
we obtain a curve shown in Figure 2.
The cost of soil investigation is small if it is related
to foundations, stmctures and buildings only; in com-
parison with the total plant cost, it is almost negligible.
It is hard to understand why some clients strongly
object to taking a sufficient number of borings; some
object to taking arry at all. A comprehensive soil report
"rriblo
an engineer to design with confidence, repays the
:T:":l
the soil investigation, and saves money for the
LITERATURE CITED
r
Skempton, A. W., "The Bearing Capacity of Clavs," Building Reseach
Consress. l95l.
-;Fim.tairer
of the American Society of
Qivil
Engineers, Tte Journal
of
Soit Mechanic"s and Foundatioro Div., Part 1, Oct. 1961.
y
-
l-
ro*,n
Ite"
p*ap
Graphs Speed Spread Footing Design
When designing square or octagonal
footings, these graphs will cut the
calculation time to
No trial and error
a minimum.
sizing is required
below the foundation must not exceed the maximum
allowable soil pressure. The most severe stability condi-
tions are realized when the vertical load is minimum and
the Iateral loads (winds or earthquake) are maximum.
Severest soil bearing conditions are realized when the
vertical and lateral loads are maximum.
Both graphs were scheduled for an allowable soil pres-
sure of 1000 lbs. per sq. ft. Ffowever, these graphs can
be used for any allowable soil pressure if the vertical load
(including the weight of the footing and backfill) and
the overturning moment about the base of the footing
are divided by the soil pressure coefficient N.
allowable soil pressure in lbs. per sq. ft.
F._ B. vqn Homme, Chief Structural Engineer,
Fluor-Schuytvlot N. V., Haarlem, Holland*
Tnrar,-eNo-rRRoR srzrNG of spread footings can be sup-
planted by a better method. A graph can be used to size
footings with a .ni.ri-.,- of calculations. IJse Figure 1,
to determine the size of square footings, Figure 2 for
octagonal footings.
Stability and soil bearing are the main considerations
in designing spread footings. Equipment must be sup-
ported by the foundation so it will not be overturned by
maximum forces acting upon it. The load on the soil
N:
Yl000:
M1000 :
1000 lbs. per sq. ft.
total vertical load in kips
N
overturning moment in ft.-kips
Squore Fooiings. When
A-A-axis only (Figure 1)
N
the footing can turn
(pipe-rack footings,
on the
for ex-
t2
ro
a
(L
:<
I
+'R
o
o
o
5
*
Subsidiary of The Fluor Corp., Ltd., Los Angeles, Calif
R
Vlooo (KIPS)
-
NOTES'
25
to
l. Dofted D'lines oreto be used for stobility conditions ond the solid D-lines
for soil beoring conditions when footing con turn os well on A-A-oxis osB-B
2. whenfooting conturn onA-A-oxis only the dotted D-lines ore to be used fur
stobility os well os soil beori ng condit ions.
FIGURE l-Use this graph to design square footings.
a.
4
t
3.5'
?4"4-
r, 'aq
A
kP3.
D=5' )=5'
89
{i
bo
)E
)E
uk
h0
(,
o
b,
a
c)
Je
o
*
!
EO
o
9
a
D
I
N
ae
(J-
ri
.H
lr*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
oA
ro
o-
)<
o
o
o
t
90
+-
(Saty
'131 OOOI
Y1
ample), the dotted D-lines are to be used for determining
the size of the footing. When the footing can turn on
the B-B-axis as well as on the A_A-axis, the dotted D_
lines are to be used when stability govlrns. But when
soil pressure governs, the solid D-lines ire to be used. The
stability is smaller when the footing turns on the A_A_axis
than when it turns on the B-B-axis. On the other hanJ,
the soil pressure is greater when the footing turns on the
B-B-axis.
Ocfogonol Footings. In Figure 2, the octagon was re-
placed by the inscribed circlJof the octagon. Th. diff..-
ence in_ soil p:.essure between an octagoial footing and
a circular footing under the same loa"ding conditilons is
not important.
When
Y1000
and
M100O
are calculated,
the point cor_
respondinr with these values can be found in either Fig_
ure 1 or 2.
.
If this point is at the right of the S-line (which gives
the chosen value of the sdbility ratio), the soil p."r"rrr."
q:"TI..
The next greater footing given by the O_tine
(in Figure 1, the dotted D-line foi Jqra.e ftotings turn_
ing on A-A-axis only, and the solid D-line for" sqrare
footings turning on A-A-axis as well as on B-B_axis) just
above the point will take the loads without exceedingihe
allowable soil pressure.
.
If-the point is at the left side of the S_line, the size of
the footing can be determined as follows:
.
Square. footing turning on the A-A-a_xis only. The
footing given by the dottid D-line just
above the point
will be correct for soil bearing conditions, but this foot_
ing will not fulfill the stability ionditions. Draw a straight
line through the origin and through the point (mIn_
tioned above) to the intersection with the S_line which
gives the chosen stability ratio. The next greater footing
given by the dotted D-line just
above tte intersectioi
will fulfill stability as well as soil bearing conditions.
_
Square footing turning on the A-A-a:xis or on the B_
B-axis.. The footing given by the solid D-line just
above
the point is correct for soil bearing conditions. To find
the
.
footing which fulfills stability conditions, draw a
straight line through
_the
origin and through ihe point
to the intersection with the S-line which gives the chosen
value of the stability ratio. The footin[ given by the
dotted D-line just
above the intersectioi is correct for
stability conditions. The greater footing found from both
cases will be correct for stability u, *"ll as for soil bear-
ing conditions.
_
Octagonal footing. This problem can be handled in
the same manner ar u rqrr." footing turning on an A_A_
axis only (see above) using FigurJ2.
Footing Weight. Before starting calculations, the weight
of the footing must be estimated. (To simplify this e;i_
mate, the weights per inch depth of squaie_and octa_
g_onal-shaped
,pedestals
or pads are givln in Table 1) .
The-weight of reinforced concrete is tiken as 150 lbs. pir
cu.. ft. The size of spread footing can now be found Uy itre
following procedure:
1. Fix the size of the pedestal in ft. and choose the shape.
2. Fix-the depth of the foundation below grade and the
level above grade. This gives the totat heiglit of the foun_
dation.
3. Estimate pad thickness in inches.
SQUARE SHAPED
wrdth (ft.)
Welp,ht (klos
oer
l'of Hetght)
2.5. . .. . .. .. ...
3.0............
3.5............
4.0............
4.5............
5.0............
OCTAGONAL SHAPEI)
0.&39
1.036
1.250
1.490
1.750
2.O20
2.330
2.650
2.990
3.350
3.740
4.tN
4.
.F,stimate
pedestal height in inches (which is the total
height of foundatio,
*irrrr. the estimated thickness of
pad).
5. Using Table 1, calculate the weight of the pedestal in
kips.
6. Estimate the shape and size of the pad in ft.
7. Using Table 1, calculate the weight of the pad in kips.
8. Estimate backfill weight in kips.
9. Add 5, 7 and B for an estimated total weight of the
foundation.
10. Deterrnine
the size of pad with Figure I or with
Figure
2, taking into account the weighl of equipment
and the overturning moment about thJbase of ihe foot_
ing. Divide the vertical load and the overturning moment
by the soil pressure coefficient N.
Exomple l. Size a spread footing for a tower
,
54 ft.
high, skirt 5 ft. in diameter, empty weight 37 kiis, ope-
rating- weight 107 kips, test weighi lg7 kips. The Iateral
Ioad due to wind is 10.5 kips. Tlie frost [nL is 3 ft. below
grade. The allowable soil pressure at + ft. below grade is
2000.1bs.
p"I sq.ft. The weight of soil is 100 lbs."per cu.
ft. The minimum stability ritio is 3.5 For tower under
test condition, the wind load is not to be taken into ac_
count. The solution:
o
The pedestal will be 6 ft. wide, since allowance must
be made for anchor bolts, etc. The shape will be octa_
gonal.
o
The base of the foundation will be 4 ft. below grade
(1 ft. below frost line). The level above grade is 1 ft.
so that the total height of the foundation is 5 ft.
o
The pad thickness will be assumed to be 2 f.t.:24
inches.
o
The height of the pedestal is 5
-
2
:
3 ft.
:
36 in_
ches.
o
The-weight of the pedestal is 36 X O.Z7l:13 kips
(see table).
o
The shape of the pad will be octagonal with an as_
sumed size of 16 ft.
..T1"
weight of the pad is 24 X Z.AS: 63.6 kips (see
table).
.
Thg
w91ght of backfill is 0.8284
X (16,-6,)
X Z
X 0.i
:
36.4 kips.
WeiEht (klDs
rrs
1" of Hetght)
9l
GRAPHS SPEED SPREAD FOOTING DESIGN . . .
o
Total weight of the foundation is 13 + 63'6 * 36'4
:
113 kips.
o The overturning moment about base of footing is 10'5
X
( (54
--2)
+ 5)
:
340 ft.-kiPs'
Empty weight of tower plus foundation is 37 * 113
:
150 kips. Operating weight of tower plus foundation is
107 + 113
:
300 kips' Test weight of tower plus founda-
tion is 187 + 113
:
250 kips. The soil pressure coeffi-
cient is 2000 -:- 1000
:
2.
M1000 :
340 :- 2
:
170 ft.-kips;
v1000 :
150 -:- 2
:
75 kips (empty).
M1000
170 ft.-kips;
v1000 :
220 -- 2
:
1 10 kips (operating) .
0;
150 kips (test).
weight of soil is 100 lbs.
Per
cu. ft' The minimum stability
ratil is 1.5. The footing can turn on an A-A-axis only'
The solution:
o
The pier will be 1 ft. wide and square shaped'
o
The base of the foundation will be 4 ft. below grade
(1 ft. below the frost line).
o
The total height of the foundation will be 5 ft'
o
The pad thickness is assumed to be B inches'
o
The height of the pier is 5 ft. minus B inches
:
52
inches.
o
Weight of the pier is 52 X 0.050 -- 4
-:
0.65 kips.
o
The pad wilt be square shaped, and is assumed to be
4.5 ft. wide.
o
Weight of the pad is B X 0.254
:2.032
kips.
o
Weight of backfitl is (4.5'-1') X
(+ tt.-8") X
0.1
:
5.075 kips.
o
Total weight of the foundation is 0'65 + 2'032 +
5.075
:
8 kips.
o
The overturning moment about the base of the footing
is 9.0 + 3 X 5
:
24 ft.-kips.
.
Minimum vertical toad * foundation is B * 8
:
16
kips. Maximum load * foundation is 24
-l B
:
32 kips'
N
:
4000-+- 1000
:
4.
M1000 :
24 -- 4
:
6 ft.-kips.
v1000 :
16 --
4
:
4 kiPs (minimum)'
v1000 :
32 -- 4
:
B kiPs (maximum)'
As in example 1, point 01 in Figure 1 can be found
for 6 ft.-kips and 8 Lips. This point is at the right side
of the S
:
1.5 line. The pad size should be 4'- 6" (use
dotted D-lines) . For 6 ft.-kips and 4 kips, point 02 can
be found. This point is at the ieft side of the S
:
1'5
line and betwe& the dotted D-lines, D
:
1' and D
:
+'
-
6". Draw a straight line "a"
to the intersection with
the S
:
1.5 line (point 03)' For stability, the pad should
be 4.5 ft. wide. A 4.5 ft. wide pad will be correct.
Exomple 3. The footing for a pipe support is square
,hrped and 5 ft. wide. the totul load * foundation is
16 kips minimum and' 32 kips maximum' The overturning
moment about the base of the footing is 24 ft'-kips' The
soil pressure coefficient N
:
4.
M1000 :
6 ft'-kips;
v10O0
:
4 kipt (minimum)
;
v1000 :
B kips (maximum)' This
footing can turn on an A-A-axis, as well as on a B-B-axis'
Minirium stability ratio is 1'5. Check this footing' The
solution:
Find point O, in Figure 1 for 6 ft.-kips and 4 kips' Ifhis
point is between the solid D-lines D
:
4'- 6" and D
-
'5
ft., ,o, for soil bearing conditions, the footing must be
5 ft. wide. Point O, is at the left side of the S
:
1'5 line'
Draw Iine "a" and find point Os. For stability, the foot-
ing can be 4'-6" wide (use dotted
DJines)' Find point
OI fo. 6 ft.-kip's and B kips. For soil bearing and for
stanitty conditfons, the footing can be 4t
-
6" wide in
this case (use solid D-line) . Conclusion: the designed 5
ft. wide square footing is correct. ##
M1000
v1000 :
Draw a line in Figure 2 through
M1000:170
ft'-kips
and a line through
v1000:
110 kips and find point 01'
This point is at the right side of the S
:
35 line, so the
stabiliiy is all right. Point Or is between D
:
15'
-
6rr
line and the D
I
16 ft. line. The pad should be 16 ft'
for operating conditions. Drarv a line through
v1000.:
75 kips and-find point Or. This point is at the left side
of the S
:
3.5 lini, so when the tower is empty, the sta'
bility condition governs. Draw the straight line "a"
through the origin and point Oz and find point 03, which
is the- intersection of line "a" and the S
:
3'5 line'
Choose the next greater pad size D
:
16'. For test con-
ditions, the pad ihould be 14 ft. wide. A 16 ft' wide
octagon will be correct for soil bearing as well as for
stability conditions.
Exompte 2. Size the footing for a pipe rack' The mini-
mum vertical load is 8 kips; the maximum vertical load
is 24 kips; the overturning moment at the top of the
foundation is 9 ft.-kips; the iateral load at the top of the
foundation is 3 kips' The anchor bolts are 5 inches, center
to center. Top of the foundation is 1 ft' above grade'
The frost line is 3 ft. below grade. The allowable soil
pressure at 4 ft. below grade is 4000 lbs. per sq' ft' The
About the Author
F. B. van Hamme is chief struc-
tural engineer for Fluor-Schuytvlot
N.V., Haarlem, Holland (a sub-
sidiary of the Fluor CorPoration,
Ltd.). He holds a civil engincer's
desree front the Technical Uni-
veisitv at Dclfr. Holland. Follow-
ing giaduation, he enlisted in the
Dut& army for two years. At the
end of the tour of dutY in 1957, he
left the army as a lieutenant of the
Royal Engineers. In 1958, he joined
Schuytvlot as a technical assistant,
and was later promoted to
Princi-
pal design engineer and then to his
present posrtron.
van Hamme
92
Use Graph to Analyze Pile Supports
Circular reinforced concrete beams,
tended into the slab to fix the pile at the base of the slab.
Soil conditions were found by analysis to provide little
lateral support to the pile and therefore it will be neg-
lected, thus providing an additional factor of safety. Con-
crete fr'
:
5,000 psi, z
:
7,
f"
:
20,000 psi, ,4,
:
six
No. B bars equally spaced on 5.0 inch radius.
The flexural moment in inch pounds
:
60 (4,000)
:
240,000 in.-lbs. a in inches
:ffi:
10 in. r
:
7 inches.
piles or column foundation supports
in poor soil can be easily analyzed
for flexure and axial tension
Andrew A. Brown, Olefins Div., Union Carbide Corp.,
South Charleston, W. Va.
TuB or,srcw of rectangular and circular reinforced con-
crete beams that are subjected to both bending and com-
pressive forces has been thoroughly discussed in manuals
and textbooks. But very little can be found that is helpful
in working out permissible capacities for circular sections
r'vhich are subjected to an axial tensile force. The purpose
here is to create more interest in this phase of design. fhis
is not considered the final answer to these problems, but a
step toward a more expeditious and rational approach.
Pile-Supported Foundqtions. The many factors which
affect plant locations often result in the selection of plant
sites on mud flats or deltas. Soil bearing values u.e low
there and foundations must be supported on piles. In
many instances, ta1I structures which are in the hurricane
or seismic belts require pile foundations that are capable
of resisting thrust and uplift. Economy and other con-
siderations dictate this requirement.
Exomple: As an example, the following design data of
a reinforced concrete pile will be used:
Outside diameter
:
14* inches. Thrust applied by
wind is 4,000 pounds, The maximum uplift is 24,00:0
pounds. The pile is considered fixed 10 feet below the
bottom of concrete mat, and the reinforcement is ex-
R:5inches. elr:!-:
/n.\
SM:24
ltn\-,,)n:24
3(.216) r:2.03.
A tabular form is set up as Table 1 and various fr values
are used until e
f
r approximate s 1.42 by Equation B. Then
the unit stresses are computed by Equations 9 and 10.
Derivolion of Equotions. Figure 1 shows a typical
foundation and the outermost pile on the windward side
of the foundation. The pile is assumed to be subjected to
a tensile force and thr-r"rst. Therefore, a need exists for a
method to analyze it.
The derivation of equations is based on the assumption
that the stresses vary directly as the distance from the
neutral axis of the pile or as a straight line as shown by
Section X-X, Figure 2. The symbols used are those found
in concrete design manuals or textbooks.
It is noted that by taking moments of the forces acting
on the concrete and reinforcing bars about the diameter
Y-Y that M
:
Pe
:
M" * M,.By summation of the
forces acting on Section X-X we haveV,
-
V"
-
P
:
0.
Then P
:
vs
-
v, and.
Y,"*Y"
:
u.
Y
s-
f
c
To determine the force in the concrete let
f",
equal the
nf.
LR * r (7-2k)l
_
7 (1,290)
t5 + 7 (1-.4e)I
2hr 2 (.255) 7
1.42. pn
:ryH:
.276.
x .216
(+)
":
8.3. z pn ,r
TABTE f
-[55urng
q
k vqlue
qnd
mqke iriol cqlculqtions until e/r opprooches 1.42
Assume
It
From
Curve
CM SM
CM+
SM
COS a
t-2K 3* ln sy*
CV
From
Curve SY.CV t6 (sv
-
cv
CM+SM
elr
:
--
16 (sc-cv)
.25
.26
.255
4.8
5.0
8.3
8.3
8.3
13.1 .50
.48
.49
2.03
2.03
2.03
1.015
.975
.995
.38
.42
.40
.635
.555
.595
LO.2
8.9
9.5
I.28<7.42
7.52>7.42
1.40 0K
SY*
-
(3ft pn) (1.-2h)
96hM
(CM
+ SM)r3
96 (.255) 240.OO0
13.3 (7)3
: 1,290 psi
:
21,700 psi
93
=
UJ
IA
(!lr
=- x
IJ
J
LL
E
F
z.
o
C)
IL
o
USE GRAPH TO ANALYZE PILE SUPPORTS
. . .
AT TOP OF PILES
SOIL PRESSURE
NEGLECTED
TO SOIL
CHARACTERISTICS.
MOMENT ON PILE
=60(4000)=240p00
lN.- LB.
THRUST ON PILES=H/NUMBER 0F PILES=4,00018S.
p
=
-+
+
+
=
+
?.4,oooLBs.(AxtAL TENstoN)
ITI
=
TOTAL WEIGHT
S
=
SECTION MODULUS OF PILE GROUP
PIRALED CAGE
The moment of the force in the concrete about the
Y-Y axis on the same elemental atea: rJM": xdV''
Since x
:
r cos
{
and using dV
"
above the total moment
M-:,
21"'"
. [i...r-cosa)
rinzScosQdQ
' (1-cosa)
Jo
This becomes
*":+(
a+cosasina-2cos3a
F
I,L
ut
co
J
=
The force acting on the reinforcing
bars is solved by
.orr*rtirlg the rei"nforcement
into an annular ring of
"qrlrrut".ti
area of concrete at rR distance
l;om
the center
of pile and of thickness f which equals
T;E
If
f"
equals the intensity of stress on the area dA" a
distance oi R
"o,
{
from the Y-Y ais, dV,
:
fttdA"'The
moment of the force on this area about the same axis
dM
:
f"R
cos
+
dA* By simiiar triangles
l"
Rcosd-/cosa
-:-
f"
r (1
-
cosa)
rcoso
(USED
IN EXAM PLE )
Fig. l-Typical foundation supported on piles'
stress intensity on the elemental area dA"' Then dV"
:
dArfr', dA"f
"'
:2ydxf
"'
and 2ydx:2r sin 0 (r0 d0)
ot ii'-- , iir.
g
d'0. By similar triangles it c'an be seen
(cosd-cosa)
that/..':t"-
1_.oro-,
Substituting these values for dA"f
"',
rve have
v^-,,2t"' ["6oro
cosa) (sin2i,dQ)
'c
(l_cosa)Jo'
By integrating and substituting 2ft for (1
-
cos tr) the
total force in the concrete becomes
2A
- )
_ acos
sln 4 cos
SECTION - PILE
SECTION X-X AXIS
94
f 12 / sinsa
v"::;\-- +'
(1)
Fig. 2-Plan and section of pile through X'X axrs'
=
|?(o
{coso
sin oZ cii3o-srii
:
2 sincd+3sinn .ne2r
-1 ^ ^^
CV
=
2 sinso*Jsino coi2o'-3; C;;
"
. _ 96kM
rc -1gffi-141r3
f,
=nf, [n+r(t:Zt)]
SM=24pr*
t$t
-f
SV
=3pn
rr, coso
=3pn
n(l-2k)
.35
.30
.25
40 50 70 .90 t.0
CV
r.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 70 9.0 tO.O t5 20
CM
Fig. 3-A plot of CM and CV curves.
30 40 s0
Then by substitution
17 _
2f.tR
frsu"
7
*
----=----;
/
(R.or
e
-
r cosa) dE r(I-c(
,
Jo
and
ru
-
2f"tRz
f180"
,,,.--.......-. l,^
" / (l
-cosa) ./0,^totp-rcosa)
cos@dd
th-e moment of the forces in the reinforcement,
about X_X
axls-
.
After integrating between the limits and substituting
bn12
1-
for Rt and Zk for I
-
cos a.
f. ?nrzr cosa
and,M^_f"pn
Rz r r
'":----TE -
4k-
(3) (4)
By subtractinq. Equation 1 from 3 and multiplying by
r the followine is obtained:
About the quthor
r (V"-V")
-
f^r3
--
:
iT
l3
pnr
cos 4
-
(2sirra a*
3 sin q.
cos2 a_
3 acos
a)]
(5)
This is equal to Pr.
Ta
I
o::
=:: _
(sin3 a
-7-
L----r-
-
\-,-
+
)
-4COS
a
2
sin a cos2
A.NDREw^ A. Bnowrv,
Ca,ptain, Ciuit En_
gne-er
Corps, U.S. Nauat Reserae, is a
S enior.E ng ine er, O Ie
fins Dt tilor,iliioi
uarotd,e Uorp,, So. Charleston,
W. Va,
M r.
-B
rousn' s pr o
f
e s si,onal
"*e
ihi"i
"'
ti_
clucl.cs seueral years
in the-Brid,ge
De_
pa-rtme.nt,
State Road
-Comruision
of
West Virginia,, nnd he has seraed, as L
ortdge consultant
for seoeral
citi,es.
-q:ilq;.
During_his
72 years
of actioe d;;;-;;
the-U.S.,Naay
iome of'his biilets w"eri: pubtic
wo,tks officc,r. N"o"l it
"s1;;;;;,'
i;;*,pton
Roads,
v a.,
.N
a u at A;r' s tatioi, *;;;; i"
"riii,"'rt
ii,Zn, and N au at
Station,
San Juan,
pue.rto.ni"o;
bii-gi\ili
Construction
Qficer,
Fifttt Naaat Distri,ct, li"i"i;;";";
ind Operations
Off,i.cer, Eteaenth
Naaat Di\tric;,-;;;"
i;;;;";; pubtic
Works
p
tr
iclr and, Moint enan c_e_ S up er'irit;;-;;
"fi';,
"t
Ait T r ain_
i?{
!?"11,
Pensacota,
Fta. ie i, ;- ;;;;"; ii rnternationat
TABTE 2-Cy ond C/Ul volues for vorious k ond a volues
.10
.15
.20
.lo
.30
.35
.40
.45
.50
.55
.60
.65
.70
.80
360 25'
45" 34'
530 08'
600
660 25'
780 25'
840 76'
90.
950 44'
7070 32'
7070
,
1130 35'
7200
.04
.11
.22
.38
.59
.85
1.18
1.56
2.00
2.50
3.06
3.68
4.36
5.10
5.87
.57
1.51
2.97
/.u5
9.67
12.58
15.77
18.85
22.03
25.77
28.03
30.65
32.93
34.79
95
Association
for Brii.re i"i
-si"""tir"i"ilni!t
n"r", SAME,
ASCE, and has BScb a;;-"ct";;;;;"
;;,il'ilrest virsinia
Uni,oet,sity.
The total moment of the internal stresses Pe is M" * M
"
orEquation2*4:
where
CM :12 (a
+
cos a sinc
-
2 cos3 a sin a)
-
32 cos asin8 a
R2
SM:24 Pn'Ir
-F
SV:3
pn'T cosrr
and CV : 2 sins a
f
3 sin acos
2
a- 3 a cos c
For values of k or a, CM and CV were computed (see
Table 2) and the CM and CZ curves are plotted on
Figure 3.
Piles can be analyzed by use of Equation B.
With the uplift, P, and the horizontal f.otce given, ef r
can be computed. Values of k are then assumed and
Equation B used until tJle e
f
r of the internal stresses is
close to the e
f
r of the external load and moment.
The unit stress in the concrete can be computed by
substitution in Equation 6:
t:G##*-Eq'e
(e)
The unit stress in the reinforcement becomes:
f,:
nf.lR+r(t-2k)l
2kr
-
Eq. 10
(10)
It is important to observe that by a few changes in the
formulas the graph car. be used to analyze columns or
piles which are subjected to compressive forces and hori-
zontal thrusts.
Equation B would be efr
:
##h
which is
96
Since
M a M"l M" Equation 6
F;
:7:
1v"-v"1,
-
TEA;tt""5ro
, .r
!:Il rr(af cosasina-2 cos3asina)
-
32 cosasinsa*
'r
O"'(y))
:
insacos2a-3acosc)]
blc
/
nz\
12 (a
1-cosasina
-
2 coss asina)
-
32 cosasin3
a
*24
pn'
(+
)
"
"*
\r'/
-: ; - @
$ 5i1c cos2 a
-
3 a cos a)]
e CM
{SM
r t6 (SV
-
CV)
M :#[tz
t"{cososina-2
cossasinc)
-
32 cosasin3a* 24
pnn(#)] (6)
(7)
(8)
obtained by I F"
:
0
:
P + Vu
-
V"
:
V"
-
V, as compared to P
:
V"
-
V" lor
uplift on the pile.
0orP:
tension or
NOMENCLATURE
Total vertical load on the pile group
Number of piles in the
Pile
grouP
Section moduhu of pile grouP
External moment at toP of
Piles
Number of bars
Area of one bar in square inches
Ratio of area of steel to area of concrete
Ratio of modulus of elasticity of steel to that of the
concrete
Radius of concrete column or pile in inches
Radius of dowel bar circle in inches
External moment at the sections of pile fixity
Total vertical load or axial tension on the pile or columas
Total vertical force in the concrete or total stress
Total vertical force or stress in the reinforcement
Resisting moment of the concrete
Resisting moment of the reinforcement
Maximum unit stress in the concrete in pounds per
square inch
Maximum unit stress in the reinforcing steel in pounds
per square inch
2 kr The distance to the neutral axis measured along a radius
from the point of maximum stress in the concrete (&d
)
2 a The angle subtended by radii drawn from each end of
the chord which forms the neutral axis
2
q
The angle subtended by radii drawn from each end of
any chord X distance from Y
-
Y axis
a Eccentricity ininclr.es M/P
CM, CV, SM and SV are numerical coefficients ##
*
t
W
N,
.s
M'
N
aa
p
'n
r
R
M
P
vc
v8
Mc
Ms
f"
t,
:
I
I
t
I
i
I
T
i
I
{
q
J
1
L
r'i

Potrebbero piacerti anche