14 FDN Struct Design

INTRO TO FDN STRUCTURAL DESIGN (1)
Introduction
In slide 1 of Intro to Foundation Design, reference
was made to 2 key design components or tasks, ie,
Ensuring stability of the foundation wrt its interaction
with the underlying soil / rock
Undertaking foundation structural design (check on
forces acting, materials / sizing, bending & shear, reo)
Up until now, the focus of this subject has been
largely on the former; here however, elements of the
latter will be briefly introduced, with a focus on
Pad footings
Combined footings
Reinforced concrete retaining walls
P. Lechte Intro to Foundation Structural Design (2007) 1
Most books dealing with reinforced concrete have
chapters on foundation structural design these
cover the general principles, but may not line up
with relevant Australian Standards
For this reason, 4 key references for this topic (&
from which handout examples have been taken) are
Standards Assoc of Aust. (2001), AS 3600 2001
Standards Assoc of Aust. (2002), AS 1170 part 1 2002
Cement & Concrete Assoc of Australia (CCAA, 2002),
Reinforced Concrete Design Handbook (in accordance
with AS 3600 2001)
Warner et al (1998) Concrete Structures, Longman

Pad Footings
Footing plan areas have been previously calculated
based on geotech criteria, ie, bearing capacity and
settlement; footing depths must however be based on
resistance to moments, beam shear & punching shear
As prev. discussed, upward pressure distributions on
the underside of footings are assumed to be uniform
(for concentrically-loaded footings) or trapezoidal (for
footings eccentrically loaded or subject to moments)
Footings are usually not reinforced for shear depth
is often a function of shear stress in the section in
some cases however it may be based on reqd
minimum development length of column starter bars
Warner et al (ch. 28) have a worked example (see
handout) where depth is initially calculated based
on beam shear, whereas CCAA give a flow chart &
example (pges 8.4, 9.36, see handout) starting with
depth being based on starter bar development length
In both cases, reference is made to key clauses in
AS 3600 (& indirectly to loadings in AS 1170.1)
unfortunately, the two refs use different symbols for
some key quantities, eg, dead and live loads some
symbols used also differ from those in AS3600
Warner suggests the following general design
procedure
1. Find force P & moment M transmitted from the
structure to the footing under normal service load
conditions (see BC slides 13-16)
2. Choose overall footing dimensions & area so that
allowable bearing pressure qa & settlement are not
exceeded when footing is subjected to loads as in 1
(- note that if eccentric loads fall outside middle third,
may have to use combined or trapezoidal footing to
ensure dont have zero uplift over part of footing base)
3. Find axial force P* & moment M* transmitted to
footing under ultimate conditions, & find linear
pressure distribution on underside of footing which
balances these loads (see following (a) & (b))
(a) for simple cases covered by AS1170.1 where
alternative load combinations do not apply, can say
P* = 1.25PG + 1.5PQ & M* = 1.25MG + 1.5MQ, where
G and Q represent dead and live loads respectively
(b) qu (uniform or max/min) obtained when these
factored loads are divided by previously calculated
footing area is hypothetical for finding design
ultimate moments & shears is not related to ult BC
4. Find footing thickness so that it can resist beam &
punching shear without shear reinforcement
(V* Vuc (beam), V* Vuo (punching) [V* = max
relevant shear stress, = strength reduction factor,
and Vuc & Vuo are defined on next slide]
5. Determine amount of tensile reinforcement needed
in both directions to resist BMs in the footing
6. Check reo anchorage reqts, & other design details
For steps (4) & (5), Warner indicates that
For beam shear, should check critical cross section of
width B (assuming square footing) & distance d from
the column face (see diagram & example for symbols) -
shear strength of this section Vuc = 1Bd (Astfc / Bd)0.33
(note reinforcement ratio p may be used for Ast / Bd)
For punching shear, should check critical perimeter at
distance dom/ 2 from column face
shear strength of this perimeter Vuo = udomfcv, where
u = perimeter & fcv = 0.17 (1 + 2/ h) fc0.5 < 0.34 fc0.5,
and h = ratio of larger to smaller column face widths
Tensile reinforcement must be provided in both
directions to allow for 2-way bending M* must be
calculated for each direction, then estimated reqd steel
area Ast = M* / ( 0.9dfsy)
Strip footings (under walls)
Consider unit length along wall, and design for one-
way bending (as double cantilever) perp. to length
Find width B from applied load (incl self weight) &
allowable bearing pressure qa & settlement
If footing monolithic with RC wall, crit. section for
bending is face of wall; if not monolithic (eg,
masonry wall), crit section is beneath centre of wall,
& max BM 0.125 P*(B c), where c = wall width
Calcs are similar to those for pad footing, but are
simplified because there is only one-way bending &
no punching shear (see handout diagram, cross-
section above fig 28.7 from Warner et al, 1998)
Combined footings
Might typically be used (see handout, fig 28.7) when
Pad footings for columns close together would overlap
No space is available for pad footings for edge columns
due to proximity of building line
In former case, should align footing centroid beneath
resultant of column (service, ie, non-factored) loads
often this can be done with rectangular footing
In latter case, to achieve ~ uniform pressure distribn
If load on adjacent interior column is greater than for
edge column, rectangular combined footing is often OK
If edge column is more heavily loaded, will probably
need a trapezoidal (in plan) footing see fig 28.7d
Footing plan area & dimensions are found from the
total service load and its line of action, plus the
allowable soil bearing pressure
Depth is then found by considering beam shear at
critical sections, and then checking for punching shear
around the columns
Moments are then calculated for each direction in the
footing to determine tensile steel requirements
Structural action of a 2-column combined footing is
like that of an inverted floor slab (see fig. 28.8 from
Warner et al), but can find shears & moments more
easily as system is statically determinate design
issues & procedure follow (see Warner example 28.2)
Along footing length (x direction), beam shear should
be checked at sections d away from column faces, ie,
at sections S1, S2, S3 & S4 in fig 28.8c; in the transverse
(y) direction, it should be checked at S5 & S6 for col A
and at similar sections for col B [eg, at section S4, use
V4* Vuc, where Vuc = 1Bd (Astfc / Bd)0.33 as before]
Punching shear should then be checked on a
perimeter located dom / 2 out from each column face
[eg, for col B, VB* Vuo where Vuo = udomfcv as
before]
In the x direction, moments under cols & in
cantilevers are +ve, & require bottom reo
B/n cols, moments will often be ve unless cols are
close together, & require top reo
In the y direction, moments are +ve, and again
require bottom reo
Crit sections for + ve bending in x direction are at col
faces design reo under col A for larger of moments
M1 & M2, & under col B for larger of moments M3 &
M4 (see fig 28.8c) [eg, estimated reqd steel area at
section 4 = Ast(4) = M4* / ( 0.9dfsy), but remember p =
Ast / Bd, and pmin = 1.4 / fsy (=0.0035 if fsy = 400 MPa)]
max moment b/n cols occurs at M5, where shear force
is zero area of reo reqd is found in same way as
above
(Check through attached design example 28.2 from
Warner et al)
Reinforced concrete retaining walls
Design typ. involves choosing trial dimensions,
finding the various forces (incl those due to lateral
earth pressures) acting on the wall, and then
checking that the wall is safe against failure due to
Overturning about the toe
Forward sliding
Bearing failure
Structural inadequacy*, and
Other mechanisms, eg, deep slip, excessive deformation
(see slides 1-5 in topic on Design of Rigid Gravity Walls)
The main focus here is on finding critical moments
& shears in the walls cantilever elements, & thus
checking its structural adequacy
However, because Warner et al discuss the AS1170.1
approach to FOS (ie, use of factored loads/resistance
instead of standard safety factors of 1.5+), the first
three failure mechanisms will also be reconsidered
In AS1170.1, forces acting on the wall (see fig 28.11
from Warner) are divided into two groups
Disturbing forces (tending to cause instability) (ie, PA)
Resisting forces (ie, W1, W2, W3, Pp & F)
Cl.3.2 & 3.3 of the code specify that, when considering
equilibrium, the former should be multiplied by the
load factors for ultimate strength design, while the
latter should be multiplied by 0.8
The code approach usually a more conservative
design
This approach requires the following checks:
Overturning: 0.8 (W1y1 + W2y2 + W3y3) > 1.5PAz
Sliding: 0.8 (Pp + F) > 1.5 PA
Bearing: pmax (under toe) < qa, where, if resultant
subsoil vert. force V acts within middle
third of base at eccentricity e (=B/2 y0),
pmax = (V/B) x (1 + 6e / B)
To determine structural adequacy, the stem, toe &
heel of the wall are treated as cantilevers with the
Critical section for bending for each part being where
that part joins the rest of the wall
Critical section for shear for each part being a distance
d into that part from the rest of the wall (where d =
effective depth to the tensile reinforcement)
For bending and shear design calculations
In the stem, force PA must be multiplied by 1.5
ultimate design actions
In the heel and toe, qmax & qmin must also be multiplied
by 1.5 the heel (& possibly the toe) are also acted
upon by pressure from the backfill above the concrete
Strength calcs for the various critical sections should
then be done in the same way as for beams
Shear capacity at each of these sections should be OK
to resist shear without introduction of shear reo
Longitudinal reo should be extended well beyond these
sections to provide good anchorage
Secondary reo should be provided along the base &
stem to control cracking
Warner et al suggest that for walls higher than ~ 4m,
curtailment of alternate bars before they reach full
wall height can be an economical approach
In providing calcs for the attached design example
28.3, they also use a simplified method for estimating
PA for cases where there is a flat fill surface behind
the wall & no surcharge (see their text)
This is based on PA = 0.5B wH2 (per unit length of
wall), where B is a factor (ie, not width) ranging from
0.5 (clean sand & gravel) to 1.9 (medium / stiff clay)
(In their design example, would get ~ 12% higher
value for PA if used Rankine method
PA = 0.5Ka H2, assuming = 30o & = 17 kN/m3
( reasonable for given backfill conditions))
Note the following points in this design example
The weight of the wall (W1) is calculated from the sum
of 2 rectangles & a narrow vertical triangle
There is no surcharge load on top of the wall, so W3 = 0
In the check for sliding, passive pressure at the toe is
not considered until the key is introduced the coeff of
friction used to calculate friction force F is taken
from guidelines given by Warner before the example
The resultant upward force V acts within the middle
third of the base
Primary reinforcement is placed in back of stem (vert.
bars), bottom of toe and top of heel (check where
tension occurs)
Secondary reo is placed in front of stem (vert. bars),
top of toe & bottom of heel longitudinal reo is also
placed in stem & base for crack control

14 FDN Struct Design

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

14 FDN Struct Design

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

INTRO TO FDN STRUCTURAL DESIGN (1)

P. Lechte Intro to Foundation Structural Design (2007) 2

Potrebbero piacerti anche