Sei sulla pagina 1di 62

RISAFoundation

Rapid Interactive Structural Analysis Foundations

Verification Problems

26632 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 210 Foothill Ranch, California 92610 (949) 951-5815 (949) 951-5848 (FAX) www.risa.com

Copyright 2012 by RISA Technologies, LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of the contents of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any means without the express written permission of RISA Technologies, LLC. We have done our best to insure that the material found in this publication is both useful and accurate. However, please be aware that errors may exist in this publication, and that RISA Technologies, LLC makes no guarantees concerning accuracy of the information found here or in the use to which it may be put.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents
Verification Problem 1: Strip Footing Design .............................................................................................................. 3 Verification Problem 2: Square Spread Footing #1................................................................................................... 5 Verification Problem 3: Rectangular Spread Foot #1.............................................................................................. 7 Verification Problem 4: Pile Cap Shear.......................................................................................................................... 9 Verification Problem 5: Eccentrically Loaded Footing ......................................................................................... 13 Verification Problem 6: Cantilever Retaining Wall #1 .......................................................................................... 15 Verification Problem 7: Cantilever Retaining Wall #2 ........................................................................................... 17 Verification Problem 8: Rectangular Footing #2...................................................................................................... 19 Verification Problem 9: Square Footing #2 ................................................................................................................ 21 Verification Problem 10: Cantilever Retaining Wall #3 ........................................................................................ 23 Verification Problem 11: Pile Cap Design Example ................................................................................................. 25

Appendices
Appendix A10: Cantilever Retaining Wall #3 Calculations .......................................................................A10.1 Appendix A11: Pile Cap Design Example Calculations................................................................................A11.1

Verification Overview

Verification Overview
Verification Methods
We at RISA Technologies maintain a library of hundreds of test problems used to validate the computational aspects of RISA programs. In this verification package we will present a representative sample of these test problems for your review and compare RISAFoundation to textbook examples listed within each problem. The input for these test problems was formulated to test RISAFoundations performance, not necessarily to show how certain structures should be modeled and in some cases the input and assumptions we use in the test problems may not match what a design engineer would do in a real world application. The data for each of these verification problems is provided. The files where these RISAFoundation problems are located is in the C:\RISA\Examples directory and they are called Verification Problem 1.fnd (2, 3, etc).

Verification Version
This document contains problems that have been verified in RISAFoundation version 5.0.

Verification Problem 1: Strip Footing Design

Verification Problem 1: Strip Footing Design


Design of a Wall Footing
This problem represents a typical design of a wall footing. The hand verification of this problem can be taken directly from the 4th edition of Macgregor and Wights, Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design (Example 16-1, p.802-805).

Description/Problem Statement
A 12 in. thick concrete wall carries service dead and live loads of 10 kips per foot and 12.5 kips per foot, respectively. The allowable soil pressure, qa, is 5 ksf at the level of the base of the footing, which is 5 ft below the final ground surface. The wall footing has a strength of 3 ksi and fy = 60 ksi. The density of the soil is 120 lb/ft3. Note that the text does not account for the self-weight of the footing. Therefore, the RISA model has the density of the concrete material set to zero.

Figure 1.1 RISAFoundation Model View

Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Factored Net Pressure, qnu (ksf) Vu (k/ft) *Vc (k/ft) Mu (k*ft/ft) *Mn (k*ft/ft) As min (in^2) RISAFoundation 6.19* 7.87** 9.613 13.455 14.268 1.451 Table 1.1 Results Comparison Text Value 6.19 8.51*** 9.37**** 13.4 14.0 1.45 % Difference 0 7.52 2.59 0.41 1.91 0.07

Verification Problem 1: Strip Footing Design *The detail report for LC2 shows a Loading Diagram with 6.2 ksf on the toe end and 6.18 ksf on the heel. The average of these values is used in the above table. ** The detail report shows a Vu Toe = 7.88 k/ft and a Vu Heel = 7.86 k/ft. The average of these values is used in the above table. ***The value from the text is using a d = 8.5. RISAFoundation is being more exact and using d = 13 3 0.5/2 = 9.75. This produces a Vu = (1/12)*(25-9.75)*6.19 = 7.87 k/ft ****The value from the text is using d = 9.5 where RISAFoundation is being more exact and is using d = 9.75. (9.75/9.5)*9.37 = 9.617 k/ft.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the textbook design examples except in instances which are explained above.

Verification Problem 2: Square Spread Footing #1

Verification Problem 2: Square Spread Footing #1


Design of a Square Spread Footing
This problem represents a typical design of a square spread footing. The hand verification of this problem can be taken directly from the 4th edition of Macgregor and Wights Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design (Example 16-2, p.805-810).

Description/Problem Statement
A square spread footing supports an 18 in. square column supporting service dead and live loads of 400 kips and 270 kips, respectively. The column is built of 5 ksi concrete and has eight No. 9 longitudinal bars with fy = 60 ksi. The footing has concrete of strength 3 ksi and Grade-60 bars. The top of the footing is covered with 6 in. of fill with a density of 120 lb/ft3 and a 6 in. basement floor. The basement floor loading is 0.1 ksf. The allowable bearing pressure on the soil is 6 ksf. Load and resistance factors are taken from ACI sections 9.2 and 9.3.

Figure 2.1 RISAFoundation Model View Solve the model and look at the detail report for the footing. Note that the text uses the net soil bearing to calculate the size of footing. This size is used directly in RISAFoundation and thus the soil overburden and self-weight are set to zero.

Verification Problem 2: Square Spread Footing #1

Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Soil Pressure, qu (ksf) Vu Punching (k) *Vc Punching (k) Vu One-Way (k) *Vc One-Way (k) Mu (k*ft) As Required (in^2) RISAFoundation 7.31* 804.591 0.75*1128.747= 846.56** 204.254 0.75*411.134 = 308.35** 954.34 Text Value 7.31 804 846 204 308 954 % Difference 11.6 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.11 0.04 7.7***

7.763 8.41 Table 2.1 Results Comparison

*To actually see this value, check the "Service" checkbox for LC 2 and solve the model. Then look at the detail report in the Soil Bearing section. When viewing the rest of the results, uncheck this checkbox and re-solve. **In RISAFoundation the Vc value is reported without the value. If the Vc value is multiplied by the text then there is agreement. ***If you use RISAs value of As Required and calculate a new a, you will get a *Mn = 954.3 k*ft. This value exceeds Mu. The As required by the text is using a back of the envelope calculation to come up with As that is conservative in this case. When it comes to the calculation of *Mn RISA is following ACI 318-11 Section 10.5.3 in providing (4/3)*As required, whereas the text is not.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the textbook design examples except in instances which are explained above.

Verification Problem 3: Rectangular Spread Foot #1

Verification Problem 3: Rectangular Spread Foot #1


Design of a Rectangular Spread Footing
This problem represents a typical design of a rectangular spread footing. The hand verification of this problem can be taken directly from the 4th edition of Macgregor and Wights Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design (Example 16-3, p.810-812).

Description/Problem Statement
Note that the text uses the net soil bearing to calculate the size of footing. This size is used directly in RISAFoundation and thus the soil overburden and self-weight are set to zero. This footing has been designed assuming that the maximum width is 9 ft. Following the hand calculation from the textbook the footing is found to be 9 wide by 13 8 long by 32 thick. The example assumes the same net soil pressure of 7.31 ksf for both 16-2 and 16-3. However, (11.17 ft)2 = 124.77 ft2 and 13.666 ft * 9 ft = 123 ft2. Thus, the smaller footing in this example produces a slightly higher soil pressure than the text.

Figure 3.1 RISAFoundation Detail Report View The text example uses #8 bars in one direction and #5 bars in the other for the bottom steel. In RISAFoundation this is not possible, so two footings have been created to verify the calculations. Node N1 is using the #8 bars and node N2 is using #5 bars. When viewing the results in RISAFoundation use the footing node numbers given in Table 3.1 below.

Verification Problem 3: Rectangular Spread Foot #1

Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Vu One-Way (k) - N1 *Vc One-Way (k) - N1 Mu Long (k*ft) - N1 As Min Long (in2) - N1 As Provided Long (in2) - N1 Mu Short (k*ft) - N1 As Min Short (in2) - N2 As Provided Short (in2) - N2 RISAFoundation 250.23 0.75*331.263 = 248.45 1234.69 6.221 10.21 in2 (13- #8 bars) 712.5 9.446 Text Value 247 248 1217 6.22 11.1 in2 (14-#8 bars)* 702 9.45 % Difference 1.31 0.18 1.45 0.02 8.02 1.5 0.4 5.3

10.12 in2 (33 - #5 bars; 25 9.61 in2 (31-#5 bars; 25 are banded)** are banded) Table 3.1 Results Comparison

*In the text approximate methods are used to determine As Reqd. We can see that the *Mn = 1330 k*ft. RISAFoundation is able to remove a bar and still produce a *Mn greater than Mu. **In RISAFoundation the program is adding one extra bar to each side of the unbanded region.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the textbook design examples, except in the instances explained above.

Verification Problem 4: Pile Cap Shear

Verification Problem 4: Pile Cap Shear


Design for Depth of Footing on Piles
This problem represents the design for a footing supported on piles. The hand verification of this problem can be taken directly from PCAs Notes on ACI 318-05 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (Example 22.7, p.22-20).

Description/Problem Statement
Footing Size Column Size Pile Diameter fc Load per Pile: PD PL = = = = = = 8.5 x 8.5 16 x 16 12 in. 4000 psi 20 kips 10 kips

Figure 4.1 RISAFoundation Detail Report View Note that RISAFoundation will not place top steel reinforcement in a pile cap unless there is tension in the top face of the pile cap. For this reason a 1 kip*ft moment was added to the OL1 load category. This is to force top steel, as this affects the pile punching shear checks. If there is no reinforcement in the top then the program considers the cap unreinforced for punching shear calculations.

Verification Problem 4: Pile Cap Shear

Comparison
Value One-way Beam Shear Capacity, Vn (kips) Pedestal Punching Shear Capacity, Vn (kips) Corner Pile Punching Shear Capacity, Vn (kips) Comparison of Results (Units in kips) RISAFoundation Text Value 180.629*0.75 = 135.47* 320/1.004 = 318.73** 135.4 319 % Difference 0.05 0.08 NA***

141.913 217 Table 4.1 Results Comparison

*The program gives Vn explicitly, so the Phi was multiplied in here to get Phi*Vn. **The Phi*Vn is not given explicitly. The program gives the demand and the code check, so the calculation above shows what Phi*Vn is in RISAFoundation. ***A couple of things are occurring here. For one, we are transforming the round punching shear perimeter into an equivalent square perimeter. Thus, this would create a difference. Second, and more importantly, the punching shear capacity is based on the smallest possible shear perimeter, bo. The PCA notes example assumes that the punching shear perimeter would occur all the way around the pile, as shown in Figure 4.2 below.

Figure 4.2 In reality, however, the crack will perpetuate through a distance d from the edge of the pile. D/2 occurs at midway along the crack and is used for calculation purposes. However, the crack would look like this in an elevation view, as shown in Figure 4.3.

10

Verification Problem 4: Pile Cap Shear

Figure 4.3 Because of this the punching shear perimeter can not be taken as shown in the PCA notes. Instead you really only have a partial perimeter because you will break out the corner before you get all the way around. In RISA, including the square perimeter adjustment, it would look as shown in Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4

11

Verification Problem 4: Pile Cap Shear

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the textbook design examples.

12

Verification Problem 5: Eccentrically Loaded Footing

Verification Problem 5: Eccentrically Loaded Footing


Footing Under Biaxial Moment
This problem represents the case where a footing may be subjected to an axial force and biaxial moments about its x- and y-axes. This example comes from the Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures, copyright 1985 Hassoun (Example 13.7, p.409-413).

Description/Problem Statement
A 12 by 24 column of an unsymmetrical shed is subjected to an axial load PD = 220 kips and a moment MD = 180 k-ft due to dead load, and an axial load PL = 165 kips and a moment ML = 140 k-ft due to live load. The base of the footing is 5 ft. below final grade and the allowable soil bearing pressure is 5 ksf. The footing has strength of 4 ksi and a steel yield of 40 ksi. Note that the text does not account for the self-weight of the footing. Therefore, the RISA model has the density of the concrete material set to zero.

Figure 5.1 RISAFoundation Detail Report View

13

Verification Problem 5: Eccentrically Loaded Footing

Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Method 1 Soil Pressure, qn (ksf) Method 1 Mu-xx (k*ft) Method 1 Mu-zz (k*ft) Method 2 Soil Pressure Max, qn (ksf) Method 2 Soil Pressure Min, qn (ksf) Method 2 Mu-xx (k*ft) RISAFoundation 4.283 687.2 523.11 4.43 1.973 Text Value (87.1/90)*4.42 = 4.277* 687.4 523.2 4.42** 1.98 % Difference 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.23 0.35 0.07

873.6 873 Table 5.1 Results Comparison

*The text book calculates a required area of 87.1 in^2. They then choose an area of 90 in^2. Thus, their value has been adjusted. **The text book example has an error. They state that 3.20 + 1.22 = 4.22 ksf when calculating qmax for method 2. This should be 4.42 ksf.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the textbook design examples.

14

Verification Problem 6: Cantilever Retaining Wall #1

Verification Problem 6: Cantilever Retaining Wall #1


Design of a Cantilever Retaining Wall
This example comes from the Principles of Foundation Engineering, 3rd Edition by Das, copyright 1995. This is example A.8 on P798. In this problem we will compare the serviceability checks for a retaining wall example to the output from RISAFoundation.

Description/Problem Statement
The cross section of a cantilever retaining wall is shown below. For this case, fy = 413.7 MN/m2 and fc = 20.68 MN/m2. Notes: RISAFoundation uses Rankines method to calculate lateral soil pressure coefficients. This example uses Coulombs method. Because of this the KLat Toe was set to 2.04. The coefficient of friction in this example is calculated as: Tan (2/3*) = 0.237. This is the value entered in the program. The ultimate bearing pressure is in this example is calculated as 574.07, so this is entered as the allowable bearing in the program.

Figure 6.1 RISAFoundation Detail Report View

15

Verification Problem 6: Cantilever Retaining Wall #1

Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Mresist Against Overturning (kN-m/m) Moverturning (kN-m/m) Vresist Against Sliding (kN/m) Vsliding (kN/m) Max Bearing Pressure (kPa) Bearing UC RISAFoundation 1030.034 379.047 147.278 158.853 199.349 Text Value 1044.3 (1128.98)* 379.25 433.17 171.39 106.67 = 155.1** 158.95 % Difference 1.37 0.05 5.04 0.06 5.36 5.47

189.2*** 189.2/574.07 = .347 .329*** Table 6.1 Results Comparison

*The text book accounts for the sloping outer face of the wall, which RISAFoundation does not. Also, the vertical portion of the soil force in the text is assumed to act at the edge of the heel. In RISAFoundation we assume this force to act at the inside face of the wall. These differences would equal 1128.98 11.79 2.6*28.03 = 1044.312 kN-m/m. **The text book assumes cohesion. RISAFoundation assumes cohesion-less soil. They give a Vresist = 111.5 + 106.7 + 215 = 433.17 kN/m. The 106.7 is a cohesion term that RISA doesnt account for. The 215 comes passive pressure including cohesion. The cohesion term = 171.39 kN/m which RISA doesnt account for. Accounting for these cohesion differences between RISAFoundation and the text gives a value = 433.17 171.39 - 106.67 = 155.1 kN/m. ***The text uses the Mresist to calculate the bearing pressure. Because this is different, the pressure calculation is different.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the textbook design examples after accounting for differences in calculation procedures.

16

Verification Problem 7: Cantilever Retaining Wall #2

Verification Problem 7: Cantilever Retaining Wall #2


Design of Reinforced Concrete Cantilever Retaining Walls
In this problem we will compare the serviceability checks for a retaining wall example to the output from RISAFoundation. This example comes from Reinforced Concrete Design, Third Edition, copyright 1992 by Spiegel and Limbrunner. This is design example 8-1 on P214.

Description/Problem Statement
Design Data: unit weight of earth we = 100 lb/ft3, allowable soil pressure = 4,000 psf, equivalent fluid weight Kawe = 30 100 lb/ft3, and surcharge load ws = 400 psf. The desired factor of safety against overturning is 2.0 and against sliding is 1.5.

Figure 7.1 RISAFoundation Detail Report View

17

Verification Problem 7: Cantilever Retaining Wall #2 Note: The shear key has been omitted from the RISAFoundation model, as this will affect the calculations for sliding and overturning. The text example did not assume a key when performing those calculations.

Comparison
Value M Resist (k*ft) M Overturn (k*ft) V Resist (kips) V Slide (kips) Max Soil Pressure (ksf) Mu of Heel (k*ft) Vu Heel (k*ft) Vn of Heel (kips) As Top (in2) Mu of Toe (k*ft) Vu of Toe (kips) Vn of Toe (kips) As Bot (in2) Mu Stem Base (k*ft) Vu Stem Base (kips) Vn of Stem (kips) As Stem (in2) RISAFoundation 131.169 48.6 10.008 7.02 3.101 46.69 11.22 18.301* (0.85/0.75) = 20.74** #7 Bars @ 8" oc 18.473 6.47 17.315* (0.85/0.75) = 19.62** #7 Bars @ 16" oc 63.4 10.023 (LC2) 15.281*(0.85/0.75) = 17.318 Text Value 131.7 48.6 9.855 7.02 3.043 67.65 20.82 20.76 #7 Bars @ 8" oc 20.476 13.07 19.64 #7 Bars @ 16" oc 63.431 10.049 17.391 % Difference 0 0 1.55 0 1.9 NA* NA* 0.1 0 NA*** NA**** 0.1 0 0.05 0.26 0.42 0

#8 Bars @ 9" oc #8 Bars @ 9" oc Table 7.1 Results Comparison

*In the text example the "relieving" moment due to the upward soil pressure on the heel is not accounted for. This is accounted for in RISA. **This value is being adjusted for the change in shear from 0.85 to 0.75. ***In the text example the "relieving" moment due to the downward soil pressure on the toe is not accounted for. This is accounted for in RISA. ****In the text example the shear location is taken as the face of wall. In RISA we are coming out a distance "d" from the wall and check the shear at that location.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the textbook design example.

18

Verification Problem 8: Rectangular Footing #2

Verification Problem 8: Rectangular Footing #2


Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Footings
This problem represents a typical design of a rectangular spread footing. This example comes from Reinforced Concrete Design, Third Edition, copyright 1992 by Spiegel and Limbrunner. This is design example 10-4 on P310.

Description/Problem Statement
A concrete footing 4 ft. below the finished ground line supports an 18-in. square tied interior concrete column. The total footing thickness is 24 in. One dimension of the footing is limited to a maximum of 7 ft. Service DL Service LL fc (footing and column) Steel Yield fy Longitudinal column steel Soil Density Allowable Soil Pressure Effective Allowable Soil Pressure = 175 kips = 175 kips = 3000 psi = 60 ksi = No. 8 bars = 100 lb/ft3 = 5 ksf = 4.50 ksf

Figure 8.1 RISAFoundation Detail Report View Note that the self-weight and overburden were input as zero and the allowable soil pressure was added directly as 4.50 ksf.

19

Verification Problem 8: Rectangular Footing #2

Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Factored Soil Pressure, qu (ksf) Shear Demand, Vu two-way (k) Shear Capacity, Vn two-way (k) Shear Demand, Vu one-way (k) Shear Strength, Vn one-way (k) Bending Moment, Mu long direction (k*ft) Bending Moment, Mu short direction (k*ft) As required long direction (in2) As required short direction (in2) As required T & S (in2) Footing Bearing Strength (in2) RISAFoundation 6.739* 474.921 *666.031 = 566.13 (=0.85)** 157.246 *184.035 = 156.43 (=0.85)** 589.67 293.05 6.884 3.303 5.962 *1652.4 = 1156.68 (=0.70)**** Text Value 6.74 475 566 157.1 156.4 590 293 6.9 4.4/(4/3) = 3.3*** 5.96 1157 542.5 % Difference 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.17 0.06 0.02 0.23 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.00

Factored Bearing Load, Pu (k) 542.5 Table 8.1 Results Comparison

*To actually see this value, check the "Service" checkbox for LC 2 and solve the model. Then look at the detail report in the Soil Bearing section. When viewing the rest of the results, uncheck this checkbox and re-solve. **In RISAFoundation the Vc value is reported without the value. If the Vc value is multiplied by the text then there is good agreement. ***In the text they are multiplying by 4/3*As required as their value. RISAFoundation will do this as well when actually reinforcing the footing, however, we also report the As required itself. ****In RISAFoundation the Bc value is reported without the value. If the Bc value is multiplied by the text then there is good agreement.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the textbook design example.

20

Verification Problem 9: Square Footing #2

Verification Problem 9: Square Footing #2


Design for Base Area, Depth, and Reinforcement of Footing
This problem represents a typical design of a square spread footing The hand calculation comparison of this example comes from the PCA Notes for the ACI 318-05 Example 22.1, 22.2 and 22.3 (all in one problem) on page 22-7.

Description/Problem Statement
Service Dead Load Service Live Load Service Surcharge Weight of Soil and Concrete above Footing Base Net Allowable Soil Pressure = 350 kips = 275 kips = 100 psf = 130 lb/ft3 = 3.75 ksf

Figure 9.1 RISAFoundation Detail Report View Notes: Because the example does not use the self-weight of the footing in the calculation and instead just gives an average weight between the soil and concrete, the density of

21

Verification Problem 9: Square Footing #2 concrete has been set to 0. The Overburden has also been set to zero. Thus, the allowable soil pressure is simply added directly as 3.75 ksf. The dfoot value for footings in RISAFoundation = footing thickness bottom cover 1*db. The examples use a d = 28, thus the bottom cover is set to 4.

Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Ex 22.1: qs (ksf) Ex 22.2 Shear Demand, Vu one way (k) Ex 22.2 Shear Capacity, Vn one way (k) Ex 22.2 Shear Demand, Vu two way (k) Shear Capacity, Vn two way (k) Ex 22.2 Bending Moment, Mu (k*ft) Ex 22.3 As required (in2) RISAFoundation 5.089* 242.564 *478.5 = 358.868 ( = 0.75)** 778.014 *1082 = 811.593 ( = 0.75)** 1190.77 9.704 Table 9.1 Results Comparison Text Value 5.1 243 359 780 812 1193 9.6 % Difference 0.22 0.18 0.04 0.25 0.05 0.12 1.08

*To actually see this value, check the "Service" checkbox for LC 2 and solve the model. Then look at the detail report in the Soil Bearing section. When viewing the rest of the results, uncheck this checkbox and re-solve. **RISAFoundation presents the Vc value without . When you multiply Vc by you get agreement.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the PCA Notes design examples.

22

Verification Problem10: Cantilever Retaining Wall #3

Verification Problem 10: Cantilever Retaining Wall #3


Design of a Cantilever Retaining Wall
In this example we have a non-sloping back-filled retaining wall with a load surcharge and a water table present. The wall and footing are not poured monolithically. Footing dowels occur at both faces of the wall and are of the same size and spacing as the wall reinforcement. A load combination of 1.0*DL+ 1.0*LL + 1.0*HL is used for the service LC and a load combination of 1.2*DL + 1.6*LL + 1.6*HL is used for the strength LC. In this example RISAFoundations values are compared to the values obtained from a hand calculation done for soil pressures, stability and all design aspects of the wall. This hand calculation is located in Appendix A10

Description/Problem Statement
This problem comes from a hand calculation verification. It is testing all results for retaining wall stability, soil pressure calculations and reinforcement design.

Figure 10.1 RISAFoundation Detail Report View Note: The retaining wall is cantilevered and the base is not restrained against sliding.

23

Verification Problem10: Cantilever Retaining Wall #3

Comparison
This section is the tabular comparison of the RISAFoundation answers and the summary from the detailed validation results. Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Lateral Earth Pressures KLat Heel KLat Heel Sat KLat Toe Stability Checks Overturning SF Min/SF Sliding SF Min/SF Wall Design UC Max Int Shear UC Max Dowel Shear UC Max Footing Soil Pressures qmax (ft)* Lsoil Length (ft)* Footing Design Shear UC Heel Moment UC Heel Shear UC Toe Moment UC Toe 0.746 0.967 0.597 0.63 0.746 0.967 0.597 0.630 0 0 0 0 5.6 9.09 5.603 9.090 0.054 0 1.664 0.624 0.455 1.678 0.627 0.455 0.834 0.478 0 0.659 1.176 0.659 1.176 0 0 0.307 0.333 3.255 0.307 0.333 3.255 RISAFoundation Hand Calculation % Difference NA 0 0 0

Table 10.1 Results Comparison *Note that the values shown here can be seen graphically by looking at the detail report for load combination 2. **See Appendix A10 for an in depth hand calculation.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the hand calculated design example.

24

Verification Problem11: Pile Cap Design Example

Verification Problem 11: Pile Cap Design Example


Design of a Pile Cap
In this example we have a pile cap with 12 HP14x102 piles providing support. The piles have an 85 kip compression capacity, a 12 kip tension capacity and a 14 kip shear capacity. The pile cap is 42" thick with a 6" pile embedment and made from 4 ksi lightweight concrete. A load combination of 1.0*DL+ 1.0*LL is used for the service LC and a load combination of 1.2*DL + 1.6*LL is used for the strength LC.

Description/Problem Statement
In this example RISAFoundations values are compared to the values obtained from a hand calculation done for all aspects of the pile cap. This hand calculation is located in Appendix A11.

Figure 11.1 RISAFoundation Model View

25

Verification Problem11: Pile Cap Design Example

Comparison
This section is the tabular comparison of the RISAFoundation answers and the summary from the detailed validation results. Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Flexural Checks Muxx (k-ft) Muzz (k-ft) Asminx (in^2) Asminz (in^2) Asflexx bot (in^2) Asflexz bot (in^2) UC Mx UC Mz Punching Shear Checks Pedestal Punching UC Pile 4 Punching Capacity (kips) Pile 4 Punching UC One Way Shear Checks Shear Capacity Vcx (kips) Shear Capacity Vcz (kips) Pedestal Shear Capacities Vc (kips) Vs (kips) 48.952 50.658 48.952 50.658 0 0 1186.972 585.931 1187 591.221 0 0.89 0.719 220.284 0.399 0.719 220.284 0.399 0 0 0 1432.03 937.13 13.835 10.13 20.588 15.075 0.755 0.445 1438 932.8 13.835 10.13 20.588 15.075 0.753 0.488 0.42 0.46 0 0 0 0 0.27 8.81 RISAFoundation Hand Calculation % Difference

Table 11.1 Results Comparison *Note that the values shown here can be seen graphically by looking at the detail report for the pile cap. **See Appendix A11 for an in depth hand calculation.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the hand calculated design example.

26

_________________________________________________________________________
In this example we have a non-sloping back- illed retaining wall with a load surcharge and a water table present. Here we will calculate all soil pressures, design all aspects of the retaining wall and check for overturning and sliding.

Appendix A10 Cantilever Retaining Wall #3 Calculations

Input Parameters
The retaining wall is cantilevered and the base is not restrained against sliding. The wall and footing are not poured monolithically. Footing dowels occur at both faces of the wall and are of the same size and spacing as the wall reinforcement.

In this example we will use a load combination of 1.0*DL+ 1.0*LL + 1.0*HL for the service LC and a load combination of 1.2*DL + 1.6*LL + 1.6*HL for the strength LC.

DLFactor 1.2

LLFactor 1.6

HLFactor 1.6

Geometry
Hwall 16 ft Hwater 6 ft twall 18 in Lwall 10 ft
Total length of wall Overall length of the footing Hwall = Hsoil

Ltoe 3.5 ft Lheel 5.5 ft tfoot 18 in

Wkey 18 in Dkey 18 in Lkey 4.5 ft

Lfoot Ltoe + Lheel + tfoot = 10.5 ft

Offsetkey Lkey + Wkey Ltoe twall = 1 ft

The key offset from the interior face of wall and the interior face of key.

Materials kip conc .15 ft 3 fc 4 ksi fy 60 ksi

A10.1

Soil 0.5
Coef of friction w/soil

back ill angle surcharge

Htoesoil 2 ft

Soilallow 5 ksf w 62.4 pcf m 115 pcf m 32 deg s 125 pcf s 30 deg

q 500 psf

SF 1.5

This is the safety factor required for both sliding and overturning.

Note: The moist soil properties are also used for the toe soil.

A10.2

Wall Reinforcing Properties dbinside 0.75 in dbhoriz 0.5 in dboutside 0.5 in Numfaces 2 dbinside 2 Asinside = 0.442 in 2 4 dboutside 2 Asoutside = 0.196 in 2 4 2 dbhoriz 2 Ashoriz = 0.393 in 2 4
Two faces of reinforcement

s 8 in swallhoriz 10 in

spacing of vertical bars spacing of horizontal bars

#6 bars interior.

#4 bars exterior

#4 bars horizontal each face

coverinside 2 in

coveroutside 1 in

The outer bars are in the horizontal direction.

A10.3

Footing Reinforcing Properties dbtop 0.75 in dbbot 0.75 in dblong 0.5 in dbtop 2 Astop = 0.442 in 2 4 stop 8 in sbot 8 in slong 16 in

#6 bars at 8" spacing top

dbbot 2 Asbot = 0.442 in 2 4 2 dblong 2 Aslong = 0.393 in 2 4

#6 bars at 8" spacing bot

#4 bars at 16" spacing longitudinal each face

covertop 2 in

coverbot 3 in

A10.4

Calculations
This section breaks down all of the calculations that occur within RISAFoundation for retaining wall design.

Force Calculations For Overturning, Sliding and Wall Design


Lateral Earth Pressure Coef icients =0 m = 32 deg s = 30 deg

2 2 cos () ) ( (cos ( () )) ) cos ( m Kam cos ( () ) = 0.307 2 2 () )+ ( (cos ( () )) ) cos ( cos m

2 2 cos () )+ ( (cos ( () )) ) cos ( m Kpm cos ( () ) = 3.255 2 2 () ) ( (cos ( () )) ) cos ( cos m

2 2 cos () ) ( (cos ( () )) ) cos ( s Kas cos ( () ) = 0.333 2 2 () )+ ( (cos ( () )) ) cos ( cos s

Lateral Pressure Calculations (Service)

P1 Kam q = 153.629 psf P2 Kam q + Hwall Hwater m = 506.977 psf P3 Kas q + Hwall Hwater m = 550 psf
3 P4 P3 + Kas Hwater s w + Hwater w = 1.05 10 psf

3 P5 P4 + Kas tfoot s w + tfoot w = 1.175 10 psf

3 P6 P5 + Kas Dkey s w + Dkey w = 1.299 10 psf

A10.5

P7 Htoesoil m Kpm = 748.555 psf

3 P8 Htoesoil + tfoot m Kpm = 1.31 10 psf

3 P9 Htoesoil + tfoot + Dkey m Kpm = 1.871 10 psf

A10.6

Lateral Resultant Force Locations for Overturning

H1 Hwall + tfoot 0.5 = 8.75 ft 1 H2 + Hwater + tfoot = 10.833 ft Hwall Hwater 3 H3 Hwater + tfoot 0.5 = 3.75 ft 1 H4 = 2.5 ft Hwater + tfoot 3 1 H5 Htoesoil + tfoot = 1.167 ft 3

A10.7

Lateral Force Summations for Overturning, Sliding and Wall Design kip LF1 P1 Hwall + tfoot = 2.689 ft

This value changes for all 3 calculations.

kip LF1slide LF1 + P1 Dkey = 2.919 ft kip LF1wall P1 Hwall = 2.458 ft 1 kip LF2 P2 P1 Hwall Hwater = 1.767 2 ft
This is the same value for all 3 calculations.

kip LF3 P3 P1 Hwater + tfoot = 2.973 This value changes for all 3 calculations. ft kip LF3Slide LF3 + P3 P1 Dkey = 3.567 ft kip LF3wall P3 P1 Hwater = 2.378 ft 1 kip LF4 P5 P3 Hwater + tfoot = 2.342 This value changes for all 3 ft 2 calculations. 1 kip LF4slide P6 P3 Hwater + tfoot + Dkey = 3.372 ft 2 1 kip LF4wall Hwater = 1.499 P4 P3 ft 2 1 kip LF5 P8 Htoesoil + tfoot = 2.292 2 ft
This value changes for all 3 calculations.

1 kip LF5slide P9 Htoesoil + tfoot + Dkey = 4.678 2 ft 1 kip P7 Htoesoil = 0.749 LF5wall 2 ft

A10.8

Vertical Force Calculations (Service and Strength) kip w1 Hwall twall conc = 3.6 ft kip w2 tfoot twall + Ltoe + Lheel conc = 2.363 ft kip w3 Wkey Dkey conc = 0.338 ft kip w4 Ltoe Htoesoil m = 0.805 ft kip qtotal q Lheel = 2.75 ft kip w5 Lheel Hwall Hwater m = 6.325 ft kip w6 Lheel Hwater s = 4.125 ft

kip w1f DLFactor w1 = 4.32 ft kip w2f DLFactor w2 = 2.835 ft kip w3f DLFactor w3 = 0.405 ft kip w4f DLFactor w4 = 0.966 ft kip qtotalf LLFactor qtotal = 4.4 ft kip w5f DLFactor w5 = 7.59 ft kip w6f DLFactor w6 = 4.95 ft

A10.9

Vertical Force Centroids twall D1 Ltoe + = 4.25 ft 2 Lfoot = 5.25 ft D2 2 Wkey D3 Lkey + = 5.25 ft 2 Ltoe D4 = 1.75 ft 2 Lheel = 7.75 ft D5 Ltoe + twall + 2 D6 D5 = 7.75 ft

Stability Checks
Overturning This check is taken from the base of the toe of the footing.

ft MR1 w1 D1 + w2 D2 + w3 D3 + w4 D4 = 30.884 kip ft ft MR2 w5 D5 + w6 + qtotal D6 + LF5 H5 = 104.975 kip ft ft MR MR1 + MR2 = 135.858 kip ft ft MOT H1 LF1 + H2 LF2 + H3 LF3 + H4 LF4 = 59.667 kip ft MR OSF = 2.277 MOT SF = 0.659 UCOT OSF
This retaining wall passes the overturning check because it has greater than a 1.5 safety factor.

A10.10

Sliding This check is taken from the bottom of key elevation.

kip FSlide LF1slide + LF2 + LF3Slide + LF4slide = 11.625 ft kip R w1 + w2 + w3 + w4 + w5 + w6 + qtotal = 20.305 ft kip FFriction R = 10.153 ft 1 kip LF8 P9 Htoesoil + tfoot + Dkey = 4.678 2 ft kip The forces resisting sliding are due to both FResist FFriction + LF5slide = 14.831 friction and passive pressure on the toe ft
side of the footing. Total vertical force

FResist SafetyFactorSliding = 1.276 FSlide SF UCSliding = 1.176 SafetyFactorSliding


This retaining wall fails the sliding check because it has less than a 1.5 safety factor.

A10.11

Designing the Wall Stem


The wall stem was poured separately from the footing. Where the wall is poured the footing has not been intentionally roughened. Footing dowels occur at both faces of the wall and are of the same size and spacing as the wall reinforcement.

Lwall = 10 ft Asinside = 0.442 in 2 Asoutside = 0.196 in 2 Ashoriz = 0.393 in Numfaces = 2


2

Hwall = 16 ft
#6 bars interior. #4 bars exterior #4 bars horizontal each face

twall = 1.5 ft coverinside = 2 in coveroutside = 1 in s = 8 in swallhoriz = 10 in

The outer bars are in the horizontal direction.

Axial and Bending Design (per foot)


These are the centroid heights of each portion of load.

Hwall H1wall = 8 ft 2 Hwall Hwater H2wall Hwater + = 9.333 ft 3 Hwater H3wall = 3 ft 2 Hwater H4wall = 2 ft 3 Htoesoil H5wall = 0.667 ft 3

A10.12

Pu 0 kip Mwalls LF1wall H1wall + LF2 H2wall + LF3wall H3wall + LF4wall H4wall LF5wall H5wall ft Mwalls = 45.787 kip ft HLFactor = 1.6 ft Mwallf HLFactor Mwalls = 73.26 kip ft dbinside dcant twall coverinside dbhoriz = 15.125 in 2 dboutside dprime coveroutside + dbhoriz + = 1.75 in 2 Asinside fy Asoutside fy awall aprime = 0.975 in = 0.433 in 0.85 fc s 0.85 fc s awall Asinside fy dcant 2 12 Mnwall s 12 ft Mnwall = 48.501 kip ft
This is the moment capacity in the wall not considering compression reinforcement

A10.13

wall 0.9 ft PhiMnwall wall Mnwall = 43.651 kip ft Mwallf BendingInteraction = 1.678 PhiMnwall
Note: The program takes into account compression reinforcement as well, so the program reported value is a little larger (44.029).

Reinforcement Provided Checks (for entire wall)


Horizontal Reinforcement

Hwall BarsHoriz1 Numfaces = 38.4 swallhoriz BarsHoriz round BarsHoriz1 = 38 Ashoriz Asprovh BarsHoriz = 7.461 in 2 2 Asprovh rhoprovh = 1.799 10 4 12 Hwall twall rhominh .002 Asminh rhominh Hwall twall = 6.912 in 2
Inside Face Vertical Reinforcement The total number of horizontal bars in the wall. As provided (H)

Rho Provided (H) Rho min (H) As min (H)

Lwall BarsVertInt1 = 15 s BarsVertInt round BarsVertInt1 = 15 Asprovint BarsVertInt Asinside = 6.627 in 2 Asprovint rhoprovint = 2.557 10 4 Lwall twall 12
The total number of interior vertical bars in the wall. Int As Provided (V)

Int rho Provided (V)

A10.14

Outside Face Vertical Reinforcement

Lwall 12 BarsVertExt1 = 180 s BarsVertExt round BarsVertExt1 = 180 Asprovext BarsVertExt Asoutside = 35.343 in 2 Asprovext rhoprovext = 0.001 Lwall twall 12
Total Vertical Reinforcement The total number of exterior vertical bars in the wall. Ext As Provided (V)

Ext rho Provided (V)

rhominv .0015 Asminv rhominv Lwall 12 twall = 38.88 in 2

rho min (V) As min (V)

Shear Design
Concrete check:

Hwater dcant Hwall dcant kip Vwallds1 LF1wall + LF3wall + LF2 = 5.91 ft Hwall Hwater
2 2 P4 P3 kip Hwater dcant P7 Htoesoil dcant = 0.833 Vwallds2 ft 2 Hwater Htoesoil 2

For the concrete check we are using the shear force at a distance d from the base.

kip Vwallds Vwallds1 + Vwallds2 = 6.743 ft kip Vwalldf HLFactor Vwallds = 10.788 ft

lbf 2 fc 4000 in 4 v 0.75

lbf 4 fc dcant = Vc 2 2.2958 10 ft

A10.15

lbf 4 PhiVcwall v Vc = 1.7219 10 ft Vwalldf = 0.627 ShearConcInteraction PhiVcwall

Steel Check (shear friction) In this example the wall is not poured monolithically with the footing. All code references are per the ACI 318-11.

kip Vwallbases LF1wall + LF2 + LF3wall + LF4wall LF5wall = 7.353 ft kip Vwallbasef HLFactor Vwallbases = 11.765 ft in Here we are using the As of the wall Asinside + Asoutside 12 ft in 2 Avf = 0.957 reinforcing, as the dowels from the s ft foundation match the wall r/f.

fy = 60 ksi conc 0.6


This assumes that the surface of the footing where the wall is poured is not intentionally roughened.

1 Vn Avf fy conc = 113.056 kip m


Per Section 11.6.6 fy must be taken <= 60 ksi.

Equation 11-25

in lwall 12 ft per foot distance 2 in fc 4 ksi Ac twall lwall = 216 ft twall = 18 in


The equations below are based on section 11.6.5. Note that the provisions are different in the ACI 318-02 and ACI 318-05 and come from section 11.7.5.

A10.16

kip Vn1 0.2 fc Ac = 172.8 ft kip Vn2 480 psi + 0.08 fc Ac = 172.8 ft kip Vn3 1600 psi Ac = 345.6 ft kip Vn4 0.2 fc Ac = 172.8 ft kip Vn5 800 psi Ac = 172.8 ft

Vnrough min Vn , Vn1 , Vn2 , Vn3

kip Vnsmooth min Vn , Vn4 , Vn5 = 34.459 ft

Vwallbasef SteelConcInteraction = 0.455 v Vnsmooth

Designing the Footing


Soil Pressure Calculation (for Footing Design) kip ft MOTS HLFactor H1 LF1 + H2 LF2 + H3 LF3 + H4 LF4 = 95.467 ft MRS1 DLFactor w1 D1 + w2 D2 + w3 D3 + w4 D4 + w5 D5 + w6 D6 MRS2 LLFactor qtotal D6 + HLFactor LF5 H5 kip ft MRS MRS1 + MRS2 = 172.625 ft kip RS DLFactor w1 + w2 + w3 + w4 + w5 + w6 + LLFactor qtotal = 25.466 ft MRS MOTS xRS = 3.03 ft RS Lfoot e1S xRS = 2.22 ft 2 LbasesoilS 3 xRS = 9.09 ft Lfoot = 1.75 ft 6

A10.17

| Lfoot qmaxS if e1S < | = 5.603 ksf 6 | R 6 RS e1S | S | + 2 Lfoot | L foot | else | | 4 RS | 3 Lfoot 2 e1S |

| Lfoot qminS if e1S < | = 0 ksf 6 | R 6 RS e1S | S | 2 Lfoot | L foot | else | 0 ksf |

A10.18

Design of the Heel (Shear) covertop = 2 in dbtop = 0.75 in dblong = 0.5 in stop = 8 in slong = 16 in Astop = 0.442 in 2 Aslong = 0.393 in 2

dbtop dheel tfoot covertop = 15.625 in 2

Because the footing will tend to shear off as shown here, the shear check should occur at the face of wall.

A10.19

kip qtotalf = 4.4 ft kip w5f = 7.59 ft kip w6f = 4.95 ft

kip Vuheel1 w5f + w6f + qtotalf + DLFactor conc tfoot Lheel = 18.425 ft LsoilheelS LbasesoilS Ltoe twall = 4.09 ft LbasesoilS Ltoe twall qmaxheelS qmaxS = 2.521 ksf LbasesoilS 1 kip LsoilheelS qmaxheelS = 5.155 Vuheel2 2 ft kip Vuheel Vuheel1 Vuheel2 = 13.27 ft
Vuheel1 is the total downward shear force on the heel. Vuheel2 is the total upward shear force on the heel. Because the net force is downward, the location of the shearing is con irmed.

A10.20

lbf 2 fc 4000 in 4 Vcheel 2 kip fc dheel = 23.717 ft

kip PhiVcheel v Vcheel = 17.788 ft Vuheel ShearheelInteraction = 0.746 PhiVcheel Design of the Heel (Moment)

Lheel 1 kip ft LsoilheelS = 43.642 Muheel Vuheel1 Vuheel2 3 ft 2

fc 4 ksi

12 in Astop fy stop = 0.975 in aheel 0.85 12 in fc

Astop in 2 Astop1 = 0.442 1 ft ft

aheel 12 in kip ft The reinforcement Mnheel Astop1 fy dheel = 50.157 spacing is at 8" oc, so the stop ft 2 wall = 0.9 kip ft PhiMnheel wall Mnheel = 45.142 ft

moment capacity is normalized to be per foot.

Muheel BendheelInteraction = 0.967 PhiMnheel

A10.21

Design of the Toe (Shear) coverbot = 3 in dbbot = 0.75 in dblong = 0.5 in sbot = 8 in slong = 16 in Asbot = 0.442 in 2

Aslong = 0.393 in 2 dbbot dtoe tfoot coverbot = 14.625 in 2

Because the footing will tend to shear off as shown above, the shear check should occur at a distance d from the face of wall.

A10.22

LbasesoilS Ltoe + dtoe qmaxS qtoedS = 4.197 ksf LbasesoilS 1 kip VutoeOT Ltoe dtoe qtoedS + qmaxS qtoedS = 11.179 2 ft Ltoe dtoe kip VutoeR = 1.246 w4f + DLFactor conc tfoot Ltoe ft Ltoe lbf 2 fc 4000 in 4 kip Vutoe VutoeOT VutoeR = 9.933 ft kip PhiVctoe v Vctoe = 16.649 ft Vutoe SheartoeInteraction = 0.597 PhiVctoe kip Vctoe 2 fc dtoe = 22.199 ft

A10.23

Design of the Toe (Moment) LbasesoilS Ltoe qmaxS qtoefaceS = 3.446 ksf LbasesoilS

Ltoe 1 2 MutoeOS Ltoe qtoefaceS Ltoe Ltoe + qmaxS qtoefaceS 2 2 3 kip ft MutoeOS = 29.916 ft Ltoe kip VutoeRbend VutoeR = 1.911 ft Ltoe dtoe Ltoe kip ft MutoeR VutoeRbend = 3.344 ft 2 kip ft Mutoe MutoeOS MutoeR = 26.571 ft 12 in Asbot fy sbot atoe = 0.975 in 0.85 12 in fc fc 4 ksi Asbot in 2 = 0.442 Asbot1 1 ft ft

atoe 12 in kip ft Mntoe Asbot1 fy dtoe = 46.844 sbot ft 2 kip ft PhiMntoe wall Mntoe = 42.16 ft Mutoe = 0.63 BendtoeInteraction PhiMntoe

wall = 0.9

A10.24

Appendix A11 Pile Cap Design Calculations _______________________________________________________________________________


In this example we have a pile cap with 12 HP14x102 piles providing support. The piles have an 85 kip compression capacity, a 12 kip tension capacity and a 14 kip shear capacity. The pile cap is 42" thick with a 6" pile embedment and made from 4 ksi lightweight concrete. A load combination of 1.0*DL+ 1.0*LL is used for the service LC and a load combination of 1.2*DL + 1.6*LL is used for the strength LC. In this example RISAFoundations values are compared to the values obtained from a hand calculation done for all aspects of the pile cap. This hand calculation is located in Appendix A11.

Geometry, Materials and Criteria


Lcap 183 in fy 60 ksi Hped 24 in Lped 24 in Wped 24 in Wcap 134 in fc 4 ksi N 12 dpile 14 in dbar 0.75 in tcap 42 in 0.75
Number of Piles Side Dimension of Pile Diameter of reinforcement

embed 6 in kip conc .11 ft 3

lx 49 in l1z 24.5 in l2z 73.5 in

Distance from c/l of pedestal to c/l of piles in the x direction. Distance from c/l of pedestal to c/l of 1st piles in the z direction. Distance from c/l of pedestal to c/l of 2nd piles in the z direction. Distance from piles centroid to face of pedestal in x direction. Distance from 1st piles centroid to face of pedestal in z direction.

Wped wx lx = 37 in 2 Wped w1z l1z = 12.5 in 2

A11.1

Wped w2z l2z = 61.5 in 2

Distance from 2nd piles centroid to face of pedestal in z direction.

Effective Depth Calculations (for bending) c 1.5 in


Cover (top and bottom) Distance from the top of cap to centroid of bottom reinforcement Distance from the top of cap to the top of the piles

d tcap embed c dbar = 33.75 in dtop tcap embed = 36 in Applied Loads Pd 250 kip Pl 350 kip Vx 20 kip Vz 40 kip

tcap Mx Vz Hped + = 150 kip ft 2 wped Hped Lped Wped conc = 0.88 kip Ptot Pd + Pl + wped + wcap = 666.442 kip Pile Forces (Service)

tcap Mz Vx Hped + = 75 kip ft 2 wcap Lcap Wcap tcap conc = 65.562 kip

We will assume the individual pile forces are correct and use the RISAFoundation output.

Ppile1 54.1593 kip Ppile2 56.6083 kip Ppile3 59.0573 kip Ppile4 61.5062 kip Ppile5 51.8634 kip Ppile6 54.3124 kip Ppile7 56.7613 kip

Pu1 76.1068 kip Pu2 80.0252 kip Pu3 83.9435 kip Pu4 87.8619 kip Pu5 72.4333 kip Pu6 76.3517 kip Pu7 80.2701 kip

Ppile8 59.2103 kip Ppile9 49.5675 kip Ppile10 52.0164 kip Ppile11 54.4654 kip Ppile12 56.9144 kip

Pu8 84.1884 kip Pu9 68.7599 kip Pu10 72.6782 kip Pu11 76.5966 kip Pu12 80.515 kip

A11.2

Pile Cap Flexural Design


For the lexural design we are simply taking the worst case moment at either face of the pedestal and checking against that. To do this I simply compare the pile forces for each side of the pedesal and take the worst case forces.

Wcap Wped wucapresistx 1.2 Lcap tcap conc = 32.292 kip 2 Lcap Lped wucapresistz 1.2 Wcap tcap conc = 34.178 kip 2 Lcap Lped Mux Pu3 + Pu7 + Pu11 w1z + Pu4 + Pu8 + Pu12 w2z wucapresistx 4
3 Mux = 1.438 10 kip ft

Wcap Wped Muz Pu1 + Pu2 + Pu3 + Pu4 wx wucapresistz = 932.815 kip ft 4
Here are the calculations for minimum steel for both temperature and shrinkage and lexure.

Asminx .0018 Lcap tcap = 13.835 in 2 lbf 200 Lcap d in 2 Asflexxbot = 20.588 in 2 fy Asreqdxbot 6.226 in 2

Asminz .0018 Wcap tcap = 10.13 in 2 lbf 200 Wcap d in 2 Asflexzbot = 15.075 in 2 fy

Values given in the program

Asprovxbot 12.812 in

Asprovxbot fy ax = 1.235 in 0.85 Lcap fc ax 3 PhiMnx 0.9 Asprovxbot fy d = 1.91 10 kip ft 2 Mux UCMx = 0.753 PhiMnx Asreqdzbot 9.609 in 2
Values given in the program

Asprovzbot 14.137 in

A11.3

Asprovzbot fy az = 1.862 in 0.85 Wcap fc az 3 PhiMnz 0.9 Asprovzbot fy d = 2.088 10 kip ft 2 Muz UCMz = 0.488 PhiMnx
In the x direction the Asreqd (and even 4/3 Asreqd) is less than the minimum temperature and shrinkage steel, the program uses that minimum. In the z direction the 4/3*Asreq'd is greater than the As S&T, thus we use 9.609*4/3 = 12.812 in ^2.

Pedestal Punching Shear Check


db d = 33.75 in L1 Wped + db = 57.75 in
Side dimensions for the shear perimeter. Effective depth of slab for pedestal punching.

L2 Lped + db = 57.75 in Pupileped Pu1 + Pu2 + Pu3 + Pu4 + Pu5 + Pu8 + Pu9 + Pu10 + Pu11 + Pu12 = 783.109 kip
This value represents the sum of the factored axial forces in piles outside of the pedestal punching shear perimeter.

wucapped 1.2 Wcap Lcap L1 L2 tcap conc = 67.975 kip


This is the self-weight of the pile cap that is outside of the pedestal punching shear perimeter.

Pupunch Pupileped wucapped = 715.134 kip Muxped 1.6 Mx = 240 kip ft Muzped 1.6 Mz = 120 kip ft
Force in the pedestal.

bo 2 L1 + L2 = 231 in L1 c1 = 28.875 in 2

Punching shear perimeter. This is the distance from centroid to extreme iber.

A11.4

3 2 A c bo d b = 7.796 10 in

Ac is the perimeter area of the shear cone.


2

3 db db Wped + db Wped + db db Lped + db Lped + db 6 4 Jc + + = 4.704 10 in 6 6 2

Jc is the polar moment of inertia and this equation can be found in the commentary to section 11.11.7.2 of the ACI 318-11.

0.4 Pupunch Muxped c1 Muzped c1 + + = 0.102 ksi umax Ac Jc Jc


This is the critical punching shear stress, combining the axial and moment forces transmitted through the pedestal. Punching equations can be found in the commentary to section 11.11.7.2 of the ACI 318-11. Note that here we are combining the stresses due to the moments to get the worst case stress at a corner of the pedestal punching shear perimeter.

lbf 2 fc 4000 in 4 PhiVcpunch 0.75 4


3 fc bo db = 1.479 10 kip

PhiVcpunch PhiVny = 0.142 ksi bo d b umax = 0.719 Punchcodecheck PhiVny

Pile Punching Shear Check


Here we will do a punching shear check for pile 4, the worst case one. The program looks at each pile and calculates a punching shear perimeter for Interior, Edge and Corner scenarios and chooses the smallest value for the check. For round piles, we calculate an equivalent square dimension such that the perimeter of both are equal.

dpile = 14 in

dtoppunch tcap embed = 36 in

dtoppunch = 43 in Lpile 11 in + dpile + 2


Because there is no top reinforcement in the pile cap, the slab is considered unreinforced for pile punching. Because of this our Phi factor is now 0.55 and we essentially take 2/3 of the original strength (thus 4 goes to 8/3). The ratio of 2/3*(0.55/0.75) is 0.4888. In the program we use a blanket 50% reduction.

A11.5

0.55

bo1 2 Lpile = 86 in
If we were to calculate it exactly.

8 fc bo1 dtop = 215.389 kip PhiVcpunch 3 0.75 4 fc bo1 dtop PhiVcpunch2 = 220.284 kip 2 Pu4 = 87.862 kip Pu4 = 0.399 Puratio PhiVcpunch2

This is the value the program reports.

One Way Shear Check


w1z = 12.5 in d = 33.75 in wx = 37 in d = 33.75 in

Because in the x direction w > d, the critical location is at a distance d from the pedestal. This means that we need to calculate the weight of the pile cap resisting the shear at this location.

Wcap Wped wucapresistxshear d Lcap tcap conc = 10.397 kip 2 Vux Pu1 + Pu2 + Pu3 + Pu4 wucapresistxshear = 317.54 kip
Because in the z direction w < d, the critical location is at the face of the pedestal. Because of this we can use the wucapresistz that we used for the moment calculation.

Vuz Pu3 + Pu4 + Pu7 + Pu8 + Pu11 + Pu12 wucapresistz = 459.197 kip
3 Mux = 1.438 10 kip ft

Muz = 932.815 kip ft

dz > wz, therefore the critical location for shear at the face of the pedestal.

Asprovidedz 12.8122 in 2 Asprovidedz provz = 0.002833 Wcap d

Asprovidedx Asminx = 13.835 in 2 Asprovidedx = 0.00224 provx Lcap d

A11.6

Shear strength in the x direction


dz > wz, therefore the critical location for shear at the face of the pedestal and CRSI Design Handbook equation 13-2 on P.13-26 is used .

Mux = 1.114 Vuz d MVratio 1

Mu/Vu*d must be less than or equal to 1.0, so use 1.0.

d cx (3.5 2.5 MVratio) ) 1.9 ( w1z cmax 10 fc = 632.456 psi

lbf fc + 2500 MVratio = 262.46 psi provz in 2

3 Vc_x cx Wcap d = 1.187 10 kip

Shear strength in the z direction


dz < wz, therefore the critical location for shear is at a distance d from the face of the pedestal and ACI 318-11 Equation 11-5 is used.

Muz = 1.044 Vux d MVratio 1

Mu/Vu*d must be less than or equal to 1.0, so use 1.0.

lbf cz1 1.9 fc + 2500 provx MVratio = 95.725 psi in 2 Vc_z1 cz1 Lcap d = 591.221 kip

A11.7

Pedestal Design
Inputs dpedlongbar 1 in dpedshearbar 0.5 in coverped 1.5 in Wped = 24 in

dpedlongbar = 21.5 in dped Wped coverped dpedshearbar 2 Concrete Shear Capacity Vcped 2 fc Wped dped = 48.952 kip

= 0.75

Steel Shear Capacity


2 d pedshearbar = 0.393 in 2 Asv 2 4

spedshear 10 in

Asv fy dped Vs1 = 50.658 kip spedshear

Vsmax 8

fc dped Wped = 261.078 kip

Vs min Vs1 , Vsmax = 50.658 kip Combined Bending and Axial Forces Puped 1.2 Pd + 1.6 Pl + 1.2 Hped Wped Lped conc = 861.056 kip

Muxp 1.6 Vz Hped = 128 kip ft

Muvp 1.6 Vx Hped = 64 kip ft

For this pedestal the interaction diagram actually produces a worst case code check at the top of the pedestal. Thus, the axial force in the pedestal is not including the pedestal self-weight and the moment at the top is zero in both directions.

A11.8

Potrebbero piacerti anche