Mathcad Prestressed Concrete Jefferson Example
Mathcad Prestressed Concrete Jefferson Example
Mathcad Prestressed Concrete Jefferson Example
LRFD
T-Pier Example
1203 Jefferson
223 x 40 PPCB Bridge
(Three Spans: 70.75 91.5 60.75)
32 deg LA Skew
T-Piers on Pile Footings
Integral Abutments
Office Example
10-10-2010
Table of Contents
Title Page 1
Table of Contents 2
RC-Pier Version 3
Notes & Issues 4
General RC-Pier Layout Geometry 5 to 6
1.) The primary intent of this example is to illustrate the use of RC-Pier, not to show every
aspect of a pier design.
2.) Pier No. 1 of the west bound bridge from 1203 Jefferson forms the basis of this example. In
general pier dimensions and reinforcement will not deviate from the existing plans (which
are not based on an LRFD design) unless necessary to better illustrate some aspect of RC-
Pier or LRFD.
3.) Bridge Office preference is to establish column fixity at the base of the column for the cap
and column design and then establish fixity at the base of the footing for the footing and pile
design. This policy has a few implications as stated below:
- Foundation springs due to pile flexibility may be incorporated into both models.
- For the footing/pile analysis designers may extend the column in RC-Pier to the bottom
of the footing, but designers will not be required to increase the column inertia over the
depth of the footing in order to model the footings properties.
- In general, the idea is that the applied loads will not have to be adjusted in RC-Pier due
to the column height change between the two models. The loads that would typically be
affected for a T-pier by the change in model geometry are column self-weight, column
buoyancy, stream flow loading, ice loading, and wind on substructure. Because a
number of loads are affected for T-piers it is usually a good idea to adjust the loads.
- The designer should determine superstructure temperature loads based on pier fixity at
the bottom of the column (with foundations springs if desired).
4.) The Bridge Office typically bases wind loading forces on the requirements for usual girder
and slab bridges from AASHTO LRFD Articles 3.8.1.2.2 and 3.8.1.3 when BDM
requirements are met. Iowa allows the use of these provisions for span lengths up to 155
(this is meant to include bridges using Iowas longest prestressed beam, BTE155) and for
top of railing elevations not exceeding 100. Substructure wind loading is then assumed to
be 40 psf in the longitudinal and transverse directions simultaneously. In RC-Pier it is
recommended the designer both apply and exclude the wind uplift force from all load
combinations since it is conservative and requires less bookkeeping.
5.) There are various issues with RC-Pier version V8i (09.00.03.01). These issues are addressed
as they come up in this example.
6.) The Iowa DOT Bridge Design Manual shall be consulted for the most up-to-date DOT
policies.
General RC-Pier Layout Geometry
(Figures on this page and the next are taken from the RC-Pier User Manual)
Left Side
Bearing 1
Global
Coords Right Side
Bearing 3
Face Pier in
this Direction
Notes
1.) Recommend Upstation View over Downstation View.
2.) Generally Iowa uses only one bearing line in RC-Pier for typical steel and prestressed beam bridges.
Z
Face Pier in
this Direction
Notes
1.) Redrew coordinate system to make it consistent with Upstation View.
2.) In RC-Pier the global coordinate system rotates with the skew.
3.) Right ahead skews are positive. Left ahead skews are negative.
4.) Face the pier looking in the negative Z-axis direction.
Dead Load: DC1, DC2, and DW
1.) RC-Pier can auto-generate these loads, but there are some drawbacks with doing it this way.
Typically the DC1 loads are underestimated because the haunch, intermediate diaphragm, pier
diaphragm, and the slab thickening on the overhang are not included. The distribution to the
various beams is also based on tributary deck width which doesnt always correlate with Bridge
Design Manual policy. So, in general, it is typically better to calculate these apart from RC-Pier and
input them manually.
2.) The spreadsheet on the following pages can be used to generate loads for typical prestressed
beam bridges. Hand calculations have also been provided as a check.
The bridge being checked has the
old LXD beams which are quite
similar to the current D beams.
See hand
calculations on
following sheets
for more
information.
70 6 6 6 90
Interior Beam
(7.401)*[(8)/(12 in2/ft2)]*[(0.5)*(70 + 90) + 1.5]*(0.150 kcf) = 60.318 k
Exterior Beam
{[(0.5)*(7.401) + 3.083]*[(8)/(12 in/ft)] +
[3.083 (0.5)*(20)/(12 in/ft)]*[0.75 + (0.5)*(1.5)]/(12 in/ft)}*
[(0.5)*(70) + (0.5)*(90) + 1.5]*(0.150 kcf) = 58.723 k
3.083
8.75 8
9 Min.
10.25 Max.
20
Interior Beam
{(0.285 k)*(7.401/7.5) = 0.281 k
Exterior Beam
(0.5)*(0.281 k) = 0.141 k
2.667
Interior Beam
{(7.401)*[(2.667)/(cos(32 deg))]*[4.5 + (2)/(12 in/ft)]
[(638.75 in2 + (2)*(20))/(144 in2/ft2)]*[(2.667)/(cos(32 deg)) 0.5]}*
(0.150 kcf) = 14.423 k
1.583
32 deg
6
2.667
For simplicity we generally assume the pier step load acts through the interior beams.
Interior Only
Average Step Height = 4.88 average of all six beam seat elevations
Pier Cap Width = 3.5
Average Total Step Length Along Pier Cap = 49 approximately
7.) FWS DW
DC Load
Interior Exterior
Beam 53.895 k 53.895 k
Slab 60.318 k 58.723 k
DC1 Haunch 1.688 k 1.688 k
Interm. Diaph. 0.281 k 0.141 k
Pier Diaph. 14.423 k 9.213 k
Pier Steps 2.615 k 0.000 k
DC2 SBC 13.045 k 13.045 k
Total DC 146.264 k 136.704 k
DW Load
Interior Exterior
FWS 12.249 k 12.249 k
Live Load: LL
1.) Use QConBridge to get the live load pier reaction. Move the live load(s) transversely back and
forth across the deck width and determine the beam reactions for those arrangements that
maximize force effects in the pier. Typically placement of live load for maximum force effects can
be done intuitively. The spreadsheet on the following pages facilitates this method and
consequently is used for this example.
2.) Another method is to use RC-Piers auto-generation feature for determination of live loads. The
program is capable of determining the pier live load reaction for a continuous bridge with a
constant moment of inertia. (For this example I checked the live load reaction QConBridge came
up with against RC-Piers value and the two compared quite well.) The user can use RC-Piers live
load reaction, import it from Conspan, or enter their own. Once RC-Pier has this determined there
are basically two ways to obtain the actual live load cases.
a.) Variable spacing
b.) Constant spacing
RC-Piers manual explains how the two methods work. Essentially each method follows an
algorithm for determining how many different live load positions are possible. The program then
seeks to maximize forces for each member and keeps only the live load arrangements that do this.
In general the variable spacing method is going to check more possibilities and thus produce more
live load cases (especially with 0 as the Minimum spacing between positions). This in turn will
increase the number of load combinations and computing time. However, for the settings shown
above the variable spacing method and constant spacing method both come up with 5 different
live load cases.
Note:
When live loads are auto-generated in RC-Pier the user can review some of the processes RC-Pier
went through in order to determine the live load cases. There is a LL details button on the Loads tab
screen that brings this information up. One shortcoming of RC-Pier is that the information for the
truck positions in these details is based on a downstation view of the pier even when the user is
working in the upstation view mode. Ive contacted the developers and they are already aware of the
inconsistency and it is on their list of things to fix.
Live Load QConBridge Runs are on the following pages.
Run 1:
This was done to determine what live load controls for the pier reaction. The dual truck train with
lane controlled.
Run 2:
This was done to determine the truck portion of the controlling live load since RC-Pier entry
requires the truck and lane to be separated in order to track impact application for the various pier
components.
Run 3:
This was done to determine the lane portion of the controlling live load since RC-Pier entry
requires the truck and lane to be separated in order to track application for the various pier
components.
Note: The dual truck train + lane often controls the pier reaction. It needs to be remembered that the
truck and lane weights are reduced to 90% and that this reduction is already included in the
reactions above.
The next page details how the reactions for the truck and lane can be obtained separately in
QConBridge.
QConBridge Version 1.3
Getting Truck Load and Lane Load Separately for HL-93 Loading.
Q2 How can I get the truck load and lane load results separately?
A2 The HL93 Live Load model consists of the truck and lane applied simultaneously, along with appropriate dynamic
load allowance (impact) factors. This is how QConBridge approaches the problem, so there is no direct way to
separate the truck and lane response.
However, there is a "trick" that you can use to "turn off" either the truck or lane load. The trick is to use a dynamic
load allowance of -100% for the load component you want to turn off. Truck and lane responses are scaled by (1.0 +
IM/100) where IM is the applicable dynamic load allowance factor. Using a factor of -100% the response is scaled by
(1.0 + -100/100) = 0.0, which, in effect, "turns off" the response.
To modify the dynamic load allowance, select Loads | Dynamic Load Allowance... Enter a value of -100% for either
Truck or Lane. Press the OK button and run the analysis.
Thanks to Dr. Harry Cole from the Mississippi State University for sharing this tip. (Go Bulldogs)
QConBridge Version 1.3
Use a minimum of 10 analysis points for any QConBridge run. QConBridge uses a finer
influence line as more analysis points are used. Every axle on every truck is placed at
every analysis point. If you decrease the number of points from 10 your results will likely
be off by a significant percentage. In order to get reasonable results the minimum default
value of 10 analysis points should be used. You can also use more than 10 analysis
points, but this isnt typically necessary and as you increase the number of analysis points
you increase the time of execution which can be substantial for bridges with a large
number of spans.
Load Factors
This is probably quite a few more increments than needed to get the 8k 32 k 32 k
maximum pier reaction and, consequently, may cause QConBridge to run 14 14 to 30
for quite awhile. To save time the user could decrease the number of
increments or use a larger number of increments for a shorter headway
spacing in Range 1 and then use less increments with larger headway Im assuming this entry is asking for a discrete number of axle positions which includes
the start and end positions. Thus 17 would give me 1 increments: *(30-14)/1 + 1 = 17+
spacing in Ranges 2 and 3.
Total Bridge Length (223-50)/1 = 173 Values shown are for Run 1. These
will be adjusted for Runs 2 and 3.
Washington State Department of Transporation
Bridge and Structures Office QConBridge
QConBridge Version 1.0 Run 1 Output
Max LL+I Rxn = 168.615 k Dual Truck Train +
Code: LRFD First Edition 1994 Lane Controls
Span Data
--------- Rxn Due to 1.00 k/ft Uniform Load = 91.868 k
Section Properties
Location Ax Iz Mod. E Unit Wgt
(ft) (in^2) (in^4) (psi) (pcf)
0.000 1.000e+00 999.999e-03 1.000e+03 999.997e-03
Strength Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Service Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Section Properties
Location Ax Iz Mod. E Unit Wgt
(ft) (in^2) (in^4) (psi) (pcf)
0.000 1.000e+00 999.999e-03 1.000e+03 999.997e-03
Strength Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Service Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Section Properties
Location Ax Iz Mod. E Unit Wgt
(ft) (in^2) (in^4) (psi) (pcf)
0.000 1.000e+00 999.999e-03 1.000e+03 999.997e-03
Strength Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Service Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Support Data
------------
Support 1 Roller
Support 2 Pinned
Support 3 Pinned
Support 4 Roller
Loading Data
------------
DC Loads
Self Weight Generation Disabled
Traffic Barrier Load 1.000e+03 plf
DW Loads
Utility Load Disabled
Wearing Surface Load Disabled
Load Factors
------------
Strength I DC min 0.900 DC max 1.250 DW min 0.650 DW max 1.500 LL 1.750
Service I DC 1.000 DW 1.000 LL 1.000
Service II DC 1.000 DW 1.000 LL 1.300
Service III DC 1.000 DW 1.000 LL 0.800
Fatigue DC 0.000 DW 0.000 LL 0.750
Analysis Results
----------------
DC Dead Load
Span Point Shear(lbs) Moment(ft-lbs)
1 0 25.587e+03 0.000e+00
1 1 18.512e+03 156.005e+03
1 2 11.437e+03 261.956e+03
1 3 4.362e+03 317.850e+03
1 4 -2.712e+03 323.689e+03
1 5 -9.787e+03 279.473e+03
1 6 -16.862e+03 185.200e+03
1 7 -23.937e+03 40.872e+03
1 8 -31.012e+03 -153.510e+03
1 9 -38.087e+03 -397.949e+03
1 10 -45.162e+03 -692.444e+03
2 0 46.706e+03 -692.444e+03
2 1 37.556e+03 -306.943e+03
2 2 28.406e+03 -5.165e+03
2 3 19.256e+03 212.890e+03
2 4 10.106e+03 347.223e+03
2 5 956.236e+00 397.834e+03
2 6 -8.193e+03 364.722e+03
2 7 -17.343e+03 247.888e+03
2 8 -26.493e+03 47.331e+03
2 9 -35.643e+03 -236.947e+03
2 10 -44.793e+03 -604.948e+03
3 0 40.333e+03 -604.948e+03
3 1 34.258e+03 -378.378e+03
3 2 28.183e+03 -188.714e+03
3 3 22.108e+03 -35.955e+03
3 4 16.033e+03 79.898e+03
3 5 9.958e+03 158.845e+03
3 6 3.883e+03 200.887e+03
3 7 -2.191e+03 206.024e+03
3 8 -8.266e+03 174.255e+03
3 9 -14.341e+03 105.580e+03
3 10 -20.416e+03 0.000e+00
DC Dead Load
Pier Fx(lbs) Fy(lbs) Mz(ft-lbs)
1 0.000e+00 25.587e+03 0.000e+00
2 0.000e+00 91.868e+03 0.000e+00
3 0.000e+00 85.126e+03 0.000e+00
4 0.000e+00 20.416e+03 0.000e+00
DW Dead Load
Span Point Shear(lbs) Moment(ft-lbs)
1 0 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 1 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 2 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 3 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 4 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 5 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 6 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 7 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 8 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 9 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 10 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 0 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 1 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 2 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 3 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 4 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 5 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 6 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 7 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 8 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 9 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 10 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 0 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 1 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 2 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 3 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 4 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 5 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 6 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 7 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 8 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 9 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 10 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
DW Dead Load
Pier Fx(lbs) Fy(lbs) Mz(ft-lbs)
1 0.000e+00 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 0.000e+00 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 0.000e+00 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
4 0.000e+00 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
Code: LRFD First Edition 1994 Dual Truck Axle Rxn = 85.662 No Impact
No Lane
Span Data
---------
Section Properties
Location Ax Iz Mod. E Unit Wgt
(ft) (in^2) (in^4) (psi) (pcf)
0.000 1.000e+00 999.999e-03 1.000e+03 999.997e-03
Strength Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Service Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Section Properties
Location Ax Iz Mod. E Unit Wgt
(ft) (in^2) (in^4) (psi) (pcf)
0.000 1.000e+00 999.999e-03 1.000e+03 999.997e-03
Strength Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Service Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Section Properties
Location Ax Iz Mod. E Unit Wgt
(ft) (in^2) (in^4) (psi) (pcf)
0.000 1.000e+00 999.999e-03 1.000e+03 999.997e-03
Strength Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Service Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Support Data
------------
Support 1 Roller
Support 2 Pinned
Support 3 Pinned
Support 4 Roller
Loading Data
------------
DC Loads
Self Weight Generation Disabled
Traffic Barrier Load 1.000e+03 plf
DW Loads
Utility Load Disabled
Wearing Surface Load Disabled
Load Factors
------------
Strength I DC min 0.900 DC max 1.250 DW min 0.650 DW max 1.500 LL 1.750
Service I DC 1.000 DW 1.000 LL 1.000
Service II DC 1.000 DW 1.000 LL 1.300
Service III DC 1.000 DW 1.000 LL 0.800
Fatigue DC 0.000 DW 0.000 LL 0.750
Analysis Results
----------------
DC Dead Load
Span Point Shear(lbs) Moment(ft-lbs)
1 0 25.587e+03 0.000e+00
1 1 18.512e+03 156.005e+03
1 2 11.437e+03 261.956e+03
1 3 4.362e+03 317.850e+03
1 4 -2.712e+03 323.689e+03
1 5 -9.787e+03 279.473e+03
1 6 -16.862e+03 185.200e+03
1 7 -23.937e+03 40.872e+03
1 8 -31.012e+03 -153.510e+03
1 9 -38.087e+03 -397.949e+03
1 10 -45.162e+03 -692.444e+03
2 0 46.706e+03 -692.444e+03
2 1 37.556e+03 -306.943e+03
2 2 28.406e+03 -5.165e+03
2 3 19.256e+03 212.890e+03
2 4 10.106e+03 347.223e+03
2 5 956.236e+00 397.834e+03
2 6 -8.193e+03 364.722e+03
2 7 -17.343e+03 247.888e+03
2 8 -26.493e+03 47.331e+03
2 9 -35.643e+03 -236.947e+03
2 10 -44.793e+03 -604.948e+03
3 0 40.333e+03 -604.948e+03
3 1 34.258e+03 -378.378e+03
3 2 28.183e+03 -188.714e+03
3 3 22.108e+03 -35.955e+03
3 4 16.033e+03 79.898e+03
3 5 9.958e+03 158.845e+03
3 6 3.883e+03 200.887e+03
3 7 -2.191e+03 206.024e+03
3 8 -8.266e+03 174.255e+03
3 9 -14.341e+03 105.580e+03
3 10 -20.416e+03 0.000e+00
DC Dead Load
Pier Fx(lbs) Fy(lbs) Mz(ft-lbs)
1 0.000e+00 25.587e+03 0.000e+00
2 0.000e+00 91.868e+03 0.000e+00
3 0.000e+00 85.126e+03 0.000e+00
4 0.000e+00 20.416e+03 0.000e+00
DW Dead Load
Span Point Shear(lbs) Moment(ft-lbs)
1 0 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 1 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 2 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 3 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 4 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 5 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 6 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 7 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 8 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 9 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 10 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 0 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 1 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 2 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 3 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 4 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 5 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 6 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 7 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 8 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 9 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 10 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 0 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 1 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 2 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 3 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 4 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 5 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 6 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 7 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 8 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 9 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 10 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
DW Dead Load
Pier Fx(lbs) Fy(lbs) Mz(ft-lbs)
1 0.000e+00 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 0.000e+00 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 0.000e+00 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
4 0.000e+00 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
Code: LRFD First Edition 1994 Dual Lane Axle Rxn = 54.683 k No Impact
No Truck
Span Data
---------
Section Properties
Location Ax Iz Mod. E Unit Wgt
(ft) (in^2) (in^4) (psi) (pcf)
0.000 1.000e+00 999.999e-03 1.000e+03 999.997e-03
Strength Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Service Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Section Properties
Location Ax Iz Mod. E Unit Wgt
(ft) (in^2) (in^4) (psi) (pcf)
0.000 1.000e+00 999.999e-03 1.000e+03 999.997e-03
Strength Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Service Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Section Properties
Location Ax Iz Mod. E Unit Wgt
(ft) (in^2) (in^4) (psi) (pcf)
0.000 1.000e+00 999.999e-03 1.000e+03 999.997e-03
Strength Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Service Limit State Factors: Ductility 1.00 Redundancy 1.00 Importance 1.00
Support Data
------------
Support 1 Roller
Support 2 Pinned
Support 3 Pinned
Support 4 Roller
Loading Data
------------
DC Loads
Self Weight Generation Disabled
Traffic Barrier Load 1.000e+03 plf
DW Loads
Utility Load Disabled
Wearing Surface Load Disabled
Load Factors
------------
Strength I DC min 0.900 DC max 1.250 DW min 0.650 DW max 1.500 LL 1.750
Service I DC 1.000 DW 1.000 LL 1.000
Service II DC 1.000 DW 1.000 LL 1.300
Service III DC 1.000 DW 1.000 LL 0.800
Fatigue DC 0.000 DW 0.000 LL 0.750
Analysis Results
----------------
DC Dead Load
Span Point Shear(lbs) Moment(ft-lbs)
1 0 25.587e+03 0.000e+00
1 1 18.512e+03 156.005e+03
1 2 11.437e+03 261.956e+03
1 3 4.362e+03 317.850e+03
1 4 -2.712e+03 323.689e+03
1 5 -9.787e+03 279.473e+03
1 6 -16.862e+03 185.200e+03
1 7 -23.937e+03 40.872e+03
1 8 -31.012e+03 -153.510e+03
1 9 -38.087e+03 -397.949e+03
1 10 -45.162e+03 -692.444e+03
2 0 46.706e+03 -692.444e+03
2 1 37.556e+03 -306.943e+03
2 2 28.406e+03 -5.165e+03
2 3 19.256e+03 212.890e+03
2 4 10.106e+03 347.223e+03
2 5 956.236e+00 397.834e+03
2 6 -8.193e+03 364.722e+03
2 7 -17.343e+03 247.888e+03
2 8 -26.493e+03 47.331e+03
2 9 -35.643e+03 -236.947e+03
2 10 -44.793e+03 -604.948e+03
3 0 40.333e+03 -604.948e+03
3 1 34.258e+03 -378.378e+03
3 2 28.183e+03 -188.714e+03
3 3 22.108e+03 -35.955e+03
3 4 16.033e+03 79.898e+03
3 5 9.958e+03 158.845e+03
3 6 3.883e+03 200.887e+03
3 7 -2.191e+03 206.024e+03
3 8 -8.266e+03 174.255e+03
3 9 -14.341e+03 105.580e+03
3 10 -20.416e+03 0.000e+00
DC Dead Load
Pier Fx(lbs) Fy(lbs) Mz(ft-lbs)
1 0.000e+00 25.587e+03 0.000e+00
2 0.000e+00 91.868e+03 0.000e+00
3 0.000e+00 85.126e+03 0.000e+00
4 0.000e+00 20.416e+03 0.000e+00
DW Dead Load
Span Point Shear(lbs) Moment(ft-lbs)
1 0 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 1 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 2 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 3 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 4 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 5 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 6 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 7 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 8 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 9 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
1 10 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 0 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 1 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 2 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 3 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 4 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 5 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 6 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 7 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 8 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 9 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 10 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 0 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 1 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 2 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 3 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 4 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 5 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 6 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 7 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 8 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 9 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 10 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
DW Dead Load
Pier Fx(lbs) Fy(lbs) Mz(ft-lbs)
1 0.000e+00 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
2 0.000e+00 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
3 0.000e+00 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
4 0.000e+00 0.000e+00 0.000e+00
* The truck and lane axle reactions will be treated as influence values first. Thus piers with similar
geometry, but different live load reactions may be scaled from the same set of influence values for
different live load positions.
# Graphing the pier allows the user to better visualize the column locations with respect to the beam
locations.
Live Load Placement Screen showing the 7th live load case. These are influence values.
These are the pier 1 LL reactions from QConBridge (no impact). This button allows the user to export
these loads to a text file that may be
imported into RC-Pier.
These loads may be entered or imported directly into RC-Pier. As required by RC-Pier: impact is
not included, but multiple presence factors (MPFs) are included.
Describes the location of each live load for each load case with respect to the left gutterline.
Graphs depict live load locations for each load case.
Geometrical Considerations for Various Loadings
Average span length is used for superstructure wind loading and braking forces.
Typically average step height, bearing pad height, and average haunch are used for determining
exposed wind areas and distances from lateral superstructure loads to the top of the pier cap. RC-Pier is
not really able to accommodate this in its load auto-generation procedure. Since these additional depths
are relatively small for this bridge they will be ignored.
Avg Step Hgt = [(693.71 + 693.94 + 694.18 + 694.35 + 694.29 + 694.23)/(6 Beams)] 693.71
= 0.407 -- Ignored
Bearing Pad Hgt + Pintle Plate Thk = 2.5 + 1.5 = 0.333 -- Ignored
1.5
2.5
Superstructure Wind Area = (2.833 SBC Hgt) + (8 Slab Thk)/(12 in/ft) + (4.5 Beam Hgt)
= 8.00
Center of Gravity of Superstructure Wind Area to Top of Pier Cap = (0.5)*(8.00) = 4.00
Dist from Slab Top to Top of Pier Cap = (8 Slab Thk)/(12 in/ft) + (4.5 Beam Hgt) = 5.17
Earth cover on top of footing is used not only for the fill weight on the footing. It can also figure into
the exposed wind area of the substructure, stream flow forces, and ice forces.
WR = [(0.5)*( *R2)]/(2*R)
WR = [(0.5)*( )*(1.5)2]/(2*1.5) = 1.178 3.0
Use 19.5 for equivalent column length and 3.0 for column width.
Temperature Considerations
Pier 1 has laminated neoprene expansion bearings. Pier 2 has fixed bearings. The abutments are
integral. The temperature change is 50 degrees each way from 50 degrees F. The coefficient of
thermal expansion is = 6x10-6 per degree F.
Z 32 deg LA
= 0.02745
z x
For substructure design Iowa typically uses gross inertia for the pier components. This means we will
use the smaller load factors in Aashto Lrfd Load Tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-3 for TU when calculating
force effects.
See previous page for calculation
of temperature movements.
Expansion Pier
Piling flexibility will be
ignored. Even though we
have T-Piers on a large skew
we have fairly flexible
expansion bearings so the
temperature forces wont
be that significant.
Additionally the piling
doesnt add much flexibility
to the pier since the piling is
short and the pile inertia of
the group is large.
Typically the designer does not take pile flexibility into account since the pile
arrangement is unknown and it is conservative to neglect it.
These forces are typically
divided among the beams
and applied to the top of the
pier cap in RC-Pier.
Fx = 26.668 k
Fz = 22.909 k
X
Auto-generated Temperature Loads in RC-Pier The area of the bearing pad must be
doubled since we only input one
bearing line in RC-Pier. There are a
total of 12 bearing pads.
RC-Pier does not auto-generate temperature loads for skewed piers according to Iowa DOT policy.
First, the program calculates a thermal movement based on user input in the figure above. This
thermal movement is assumed to act along the Z-axis of the pier. RC-Pier then calculates a thermal
force based on the piers stiffness about the weak axis (i.e. stiffness about the X-axis). The
calculated thermal force is then inconsistently assumed to act along the C.L. of the roadway. Based
on that inconsistent assumption, RC-Pier breaks the thermal force into component forces (and
subsequently component beam forces) along the X- and Z-axes.
The Iowa DOT assumes the original thermal movement acts along the C.L. of the roadway. This
movement is broken down into components along the X- and Z- axes. These component movements
are used with the piers stiffness about the strong and weak axes, respectively, in order to determine
the thermal forces in each direction. RC-Pier will only determine the correct thermal forces for piers
that are not skewed or for piers that have the same stiffness about both axes.
One additional note is that RC-Pier bases pier stiffness on column heights measured from the
bottom of the column to the top of the pier cap. This is a good practice for T-Piers, but not for frame
piers.
The temperature loads per beam that RC-Pier would auto-generate for this example based on the
input in the figure above are:
Fz = -3.8179 k Fx = -2.3857 k
These may be compared to the values calculated per beam on the previous page. The values are not
too far off since the bearing pad flexibility is the same along both axes and because it dominates the
flexibility.
++
Beam 1, Fy = 1.776 k
Beam 6, Fy = -1.776 k
Z 32 deg LA
Beam 1
Fx
Fz
Beam 6
X
General Notes for Water Elevations See BDM 6.6.2.7, 6.6.2.9, and 6.6.4.1.3.1
For typical T-piers over water there are 5 water elevations of interest:
Additional Notes:
- A sixth water elevation is included when a seal coat design is required for coffer dams. This water
elevation is based on 25 year flood. See BDM 6.6.4.1.4.
- The 100 year flood is used to determine the need for venting of the superstructure. If venting of
the superstructure is required then the designer shall also investigate a special extreme event
design condition for the 500 year check flood (BDM 6.6.2.7). The load case will include both
vertical and lateral loads on the pile.
- In some instances it may make sense to assume No Water rather than Average Low Water as a
load case. Typically this may make sense when a stream bed is dry for part of the year. Using a No
Water condition would remove buoyancy loading from the footing and the fill and thus produce a
maximum axial load condition for the footing design.
Water Elevations for 1203 Jefferson
180.119
Avg Stream Bed Elev = 664.11
Channel width = (226.542 bridge length)*(cos(32 deg)) (2)*(3 abut. Width) (2)*(3 berm width)
= 180.119
Q50 discharge = 4308.4 cfs
Stream area = (11.38)*(40.794) + (2.5 slope)*(11.38)*(11.38) = 788 ft2
Avg velocity = (4308.4 cfs)/(788 ft2) = 5.47 ft/s
Note: The pier cross-sectional area may be ignored when determining average stream velocity.
Since the average stream velocity is greater than 5.0 ft/s, the pier will be designed for stream flow
forces. The forces will be small since the average velocity is quite low and because the pier is aligned
with the channel.
Notes: There is no indication that coffer dams are needed for this structure. The 100 year design flood
elevation is well below the bottom of the prestressed beams. Stream and wind forces are assumed not to
act below the top of the (exposed) footing.
Water Elevation Load Combinations
The load cases below are assumed to cover the force envelope needed for this particular design with
respect to the loads considered below. Other pier designs may require additional load cases.
Case 3 -- Must assume the soil is scoured away if ice forces are to be present on the pier
Ice elevation
No soil cover / Full scour
Stream forces ignored since they will be minimal
Bouyancy based on ice elevation
Wind forces are not a part of Extreme Event 2
Summary of Elevations
Footing thickness = 4
Top of footing elevation = 661.71
Bottom of footing elevation = 657.71
As stated earlier,
stream flow forces
for Case 3 will be
ignored.
Skewed ice
flow is not
applicable.
Stream Force Calculations for Case 2 Sample Calculations
4.00
7.00
3.00
13.78
X
4.00
Note: The soil is assumed to have been scoured away for the Case 2 condition.
4.00
7.00
3.00
Water Level
30.00
25.00
13.78 19.5
4.00
28.00
Ice Load Calculations for Case 3 Sample Calculations
The flexing force, Fb, is not applicable since the nose of the T-Pier is not inclined.
F = Fc = 158.035 k
For Footing Design: The point of fixity will move to the bottom of the footing.
Point of Column Application = (12.59)/(34.00) = 0.3703
Wind Load Cases
Simplified wind loading will be used. This is also referred to as wind on usual slab and girder bridges in
Aashto Lrfd 3.8. Iowa has extended the applicability of this Lrfd code provision to cover more cases see
BDM 6.6.2.8.
There are essentially 3 different wind load cases on the substructure due to the various water and fill
elevations. The different cases only affect the application of the wind load to the T-pier, not its magnitude.
Fx per beam = (-23.392 k)/(6 Beams) = -3.899 k Assigning the sign to the results is
Fz per beam = (23.800 k)/(6 Beams) = 3.967 k done by observation.
32 deg LA Z
Z
Beam 1 X
Beam 6 X
12 psf
-50 psf
Wind on Substructure Sample Calculations
49 32 deg LA
Z
4
3
14.25 20.5 14.25 40 psf
3.5
30 40 psf
25 19.5
10
The signs for simplified substructure wind loads are made to correspond with the sign for the
superstructure wind loads.
Fcapx = (0.04 ksf)*(24.5 ft2) = -0.98 k Signs based on 1st case sign convention
Fcapz = (0.04 ksf)*(300.25 ft2) = 12.01 k for superstructure wind loads.
Column Load UDLx = (-1.80 k)/(15) = -0.120 klf from (10)/(30) = 0.333
UDLz = (11.70 k)/(15) = 0.780 klf to (25)/(30) = 0.833
Loads are applied to each column.
Note: The start and end fractions will change for the wind loadings on the column for the footing
design because the column is extended 4.00. The fractions are:
Start Fraction = (10 + 4)/(30 + 4) = 0.412
End Fraction = (25 + 4)/(30 + 4) = 0.853
Cap and Column Design
Substructure tab
RC-Pier button
Z-axis is out
of the page
towards you.
Gutter to Gutter
(0.5)*(17) + (2/3)*(WR) =
9.285 where WR = 1.178
Node 13 is an
F/S point that 24.500 to c.l. column
is automatically - 9.285 offset
entered as an 15.215
Additional
Check Point.
One short-coming of
this 3rd option is that
the c.l. of the column is
still used for a cap
design point when
designing cap R/I on
the Cap tab. The 2nd
option, Face of
Support, suppresses
the c.l. of the column
The user could do a separate RC-Pier run for the point when doing cap
design. It would be
cantilever with the special loading requirements
nice if the 3rd option
and with additional check points on the cantilever,
followed the pattern of
but that wont be done in this example. the 2nd option.
Nodes
2.0
Members
30.0
The c.l. of the cap for the structural model is placed at the midpoint of the minimum cap
height. The minimum cap height is the end cap taper height.
Normally this list starts
out empty, but I have
already entered all the
load data.
Click on Default
Comb to
generate all the
default load
combinations.
A different set of
combinations is
used for the
column and cap.
Note: There are a number of features on this screen that will not be demonstrated in this example.
For instance, you can
delete combinations
edit combinations
add your own combinations
These features are particularly useful for testing loading scenarios and trouble-shooting problems.
This is the Library Setup
screen from Leap Bridge.
By default this
load is not
reversible in the
load library so I
need to enter
two load cases:
TU1 and TU2.
There are 8 WS
cases (4 cases
with uplift and 4
cases without),
but I will only
show the first
one.
Remember that
the reversible
feature for wind
loads was turned
off in the library.
Use
Not of
interest
for cap
and
column
design.
Dont use
The Bridge Manual does not specify which shear method to use for cap design. A general
recommendation is to base shear design for the cap on the Simplified method or the Beta-Theta
method. The Beta-Theta method is actually the procedure listed in Aashto Lrfd 5.8.3.4.2 (General
Procedure with closed form solution) rather than that found in Aahto Lrfd Appendix B5 (General
Procedure with tables). The General method listed on the screen above is the one found in Aashto
Lrfd Appendix B5.
RC-Pier does not check column shear. Designers may want to verify that column shear is OK.
Design status report is Pier Cap Design: RC-Pier
printed out a few pages over.
Well include
this, but there
really isnt a
need to do so.
Beam cap R/I can be automatically
generated if desired. More than
The flexure reinforcement is as likely the generated reinforcement
shown in the plan set. will need to be modified. I manually
entered the flexure and shear
reinforcement.
Mr+ Mmax
Mr-
Mmin
Vs + Vc
Vc
Vmax
Vmin
Vc
Vs + Vc
Vmax
Ive included some
portions of RC-Piers
output for the cap design.
Iowa has special loading requirements
for the pier cap overhang design
which were not included in this RC-
Bottom R/I Top R/I Pier run. Further on in this example is
a spreadsheet design addresses these
requirements.
Additional longitudinal
reinforcement required
based on Aashto Lrfd
5.8.3.5. As of the printing of
this example the Iowa DOT
Bridge Design Manual
requires that this provision
be met all along the cap for
pier cap design.
Torsion is usually not a factor for a typical T-pier design. There are essentially two reasons for this. The
first reason is that we often use a single line of bearings centered on the pier cap. Modeling the pier this
way reduces Mx cap moments. The second reason is that we generally assume lateral superstructure
loading does not generate Mx cap moments between the superstructure and the top of the cap. The
user needs to determine if these modeling assumptions are appropriate for their design.
Hand Calculations for Top Reinforcement in Span 1 at Location 15.2
So 1.2Mcr = 1036.65 k*ft controls the design Find required As based on 1.2*Mcr
6.70
Derivation of max = 0.634* b [Ensuring tension controlled sections for
singly-reinforced concrete beams.]
Compression Tension 84
Controlled Transition Controlled 77.30
0.75 <= = 0.65 + 0.15*(dt/c 1) <= 0.90
t <= 0.002 t >= 0.005
dt/c <= 1.667 dt/c >= 2.667
c/dt >= 0.600 c/dt <= 0.375 20 - #11s
As = 31.2 in2
To get = 0.90 the t >= 0.005 and c/dt <= 0.375 Note: c/dt = u/( u + s)
So in order to ensure = 0.90 the value of must be less than the new max = 0.634*pb
Pier Cantilever Design
There are two beams on the cantilever. Loads were calculated earlier in example.
Live Load
Since there are two beams on the pier cap overhang we are not required to use live load shear
distribution factors to determine the beam live load reactions. The live loading for the beams may be
based on the pier live loading which assumes simple supports between the beams. From the pier live
load spreadsheet results it appears that one loaded lane will produce the maximum live load reactions
(and maximum moment and shear in the pier cap overhang) for the beams on the overhang. The pier
live load spreadsheet already includes multiple presence factors, but does not include impact for the
truck portion.
The equivalent rectangular column used in RC-Pier has a slightly larger area since I rounded the column
length:
Aashto Lrfd 5.7.4.2 specifies that the minimum area of R/I shall be:
[(0.40569 ft2)*(60 ksi)]/[(58.5 ft2)*(3.5 ksi)] = 0.1189 < 0.135 -- The current column needs more R/I.
Typically fc = 3.5 ksi and fy =60 ksi so that the minimum area of reinforcement equation may be
rewritten as:
Aashto Lrfd 5.7.4.2 does allow the area of column R/I to drop below 0.7875% for bridges in seismic zone
1, but a reduced effective column area must be used. The code says that the minimum percentage of R/I
area of the reduced effective column area is to be the greater of 1% or the value from the equation
above. Additionally the reduced effective area and the gross area must be capable of resisting all loads.
So, in order for us to achieve 1.00% our effective column area must be:
Ae = (As)/(0.01) = (0.40569 ft2)/(0.01) = 40.57 ft2
BDM 6.6.4.1.2.1 says, For frame pier columns the designer shall provide the minimum reinforcing
required by the AASHTO LRFD Specifications [AASHTO-LRFD Equation 5.7.4.2-3], without reduction in
column cross section. For T-pier columns in Seismic Zone 1 the designer may reduce reinforcing based
on a reduced cross section [AASHTO-LRFD 5.7.4.2].
In order to mimic a reduced column area without actually reducing the cross-sectional column area is to
reduce the concrete strength proportionally. RC-Pier does this automatically. spColumn does this when
you specify the column as architectural rather than structural. The proportionality ratio in this case
would be (0.693%)/(1%) = 0.693. [See the July 2009 Bridge Newsletter for more information.] Another
way to reduce column area would be to remove some of the concrete from the center of the column;
however, there doesnt appear to be a simple way to do this in a software package. One additional
method that has been used by the DOT is to reduce the column dimensions. This method is typically
more conservative than the other methods since changing the column dimensions changes the effective
depth of the column. This method is illustrated on the following page.
Ag = (19.5)*(3) = 58.5 ft2 19.5
As = (46 bars)*(1.27 in2) = 58.42 in2 = 0.40569 ft2
The next step with this method would involve putting the effective dimensions in spColumn along with
the reinforcement. Next the user would input the column loads and check if the column performance
ratios were okay.
For this example Ill just run the equivalent column diameter with the column reinforcement shown in
the plan.
Moment magnification is
considered. The pier is assumed to
be unbraced in both directions.
Pu = 1049.28 k
Architectural was
selected.
a = 0.80
Moment Magnification Calculations for Load Combination 173 for Bottom of Column
Aashto Lrfd 5.7.4.3 and 4.5.3.2.2b
Calculate d = | Maximum Factored Dead Load Moment / Maximum Factored Total Load Moment |
Loads from RC-Pier
Unfactored Self-weight
Fy = 377.01 k
Mx = 0.00 k*ft
Mz = 0.00 k*ft
Unfactored DC loads
Fy = 858.46 k
Mx = 0.00 k*ft
Mz = 0.00 k*ft
d Calculations
dx = | (155.669 k*ft) / (-2223.75 k*ft) | = 0.070003
dz = | (706.071 k*ft) / (-1895.61 k*ft) | = 0.372477
Calculate EI = (Ec*Ig/2.5)/(1 + d)
Ec = (33)*(150 pcf)1.5*(3500 psi)0.5*[(144 in2/ft2) / (1000 lb/k)] = 516,472.7 ksf
Igx = (1/12)*b*h3 = (1/12)*(19.5)*(3.0)3 = 43.875 ft4
Igz = (1/12)*h*b3 = (1/12)*(3.0)*(19.5)3 = 1853.71875 ft4
RC-Pier screen captures for Case 2 loading for the cap and column will be provided below. Im only
going to show the differences from the Case 1 loading. The only differences include the WA and WS
loadings. For this example Case 2 loading does not affect the design of the cap since the cap loading
between Case 1 and 2 is the same. The column loading will be different, but the difference for this
example is minimal. In fact, the bottom of column design performance ratios for Case 1 and 2 are
2.10928 and 2.14158, respectively. For Case 1 load combination 173 controls whereas for Case 2
load combination 167 controls. The Case 1 and 2 loadings will display more difference with respect
to the footing which is covered later in this example.
There are 8 WS
cases (4 cases
with uplift and 4
cases without),
but I will only
show the first
one.
Remember that
the reversible
feature for wind
loads was turned
off in the library.
RC-Pier screen captures for Case 3 loading for the cap and column will be provided below. Im only
going to show the differences from the Case 1 loading. The only differences include:
1.) The Load Group is Extreme Event 2.
2.) Changes to the WA loadings.
3.) All wind loading can be eliminated since it is not part of Extreme Event 2.
4.) Ice loading is added.
For this example Case 3 loading does not control the design of the cap. The main reason for this is
that the live load factor for Extreme Event 2 is substantially smaller and the ice loading doesnt
affect the cap. For this example Case 3 does not control the column design. In fact, the bottom of
column design performance ratios for Case 1 and 3 are 2.10928 and 6.06294, respectively.
It should be noted that the Aashto Lrfd Specifications in Article 1.3.2 seem to allow the resistance
factors for many components to be taken as 1.00 for Extreme Events. However, Article 5.7.2 which
addresses Strength and Extreme Event Limit States seems to restrict that provision for concrete
components in the 1st paragraph of Article 5.7.2.1.
IC4
Footing Design
This is the RC-Pier run for footing
design using Case 1 loading. Im only
going to show screens that have been
modified from the cap/column run for
Case1 loading.
I am primarily
interested in
using RC-Pier to
get the maximum
Pile batter can be specified,
and minimum
but was not since it does not
pile design loads.
affect the structural model
and doesnt appear to be
suitable for design according
to the Bridge Design Manual.
I am going to look at maximum and minimum pile loads only. The footing and fill weight will be placed on
the bottom of the column from the Loads tab rather than through the entries on the Footing tab.
Handling loads this way allows me to include these loads in an analysis results file if desired.
Notice that the
column length has
been increased by
4.0 from 25 to 29.
Set the footing
concrete density to a
small value so that the
self-weight calculated
by RC-Pier is negligible.
The footing
weight is placed
just above the
bottom of the
column so that
the load will be
reflected in the
analysis results.
The buoyancy includes the entire submerged footing, the submerged portion of the
column (excluding the 4.0 column extension), and the submerged portion of the soil.
Case 1 water depth is 3.4 above top of footing excluding the 4.0 column extension.
WA1 The fill depth is 10, but only 3.4 is submerged. The soil is assumed to be 1/3 void.
*(28)*(15)*(4)]*(0.0624 kcf) + [(19.5)*(3.0)*(3.4)+*(0.0624 kcf) + *(28)*(15)
(19.5)*(3.0)+*(3.4)*(2/3)*(0.0624 kcf) = 168.374 k
The buoyancy
force is placed just
above the bottom
of the column so
that the load will
be reflected in the
analysis results.
Since the
column was
extended 4.0
to the bottom
of the footing,
the Start and
End locations
of the wind
loads on the
columns were
modified.
No need to enter
surcharge here
since I included fill
weight in the EV1
load group.
This is used for
This information is from a
graphics display.
library see following pages.
See below.
Aashto Lrfd 5.13.3.2 talks about piles being out of planned position by 6 or
times the pile diameter and that the center of a group of piles may be 3 from its
planned position. This provision does not need to be considered for typical pier
designs. [Field construction errors are a separate issue from tolerances.]
According to the Bridge Design Manual a pile battered no more than 1:4 may be
assumed to carry the same vertical load as a pile driven vertically; there need be
no reduction for angle of the pile.
Pile Type Library
This button lets
you review the
pile reactions.
RC-Pier screen captures for Case 2 loading for the footing will be provided below. Im only going to
show the differences from the Case 1 loading. The only differences include the WA and WS loadings
and the removal of the EV1 load. For this example the maximum pile load for Case 2 will be
different from Case 1. The maximum pile load for Case 1 and 2 are 178.48 k and 154.79 k,
respectively.
There are 8 WS
cases (4 cases
with uplift and 4
cases without),
but I will only
show the first
one.
Remember that
the reversible
feature for wind
loads was turned
off in the library.
RC-Pier screen captures for Case 3 loading for the footing will be provided below. Im only going to
show the differences from the Case 1 loading. The only differences include:
1.) The Load Group is Extreme Event 2.
2.) Changes to the WA loadings.
3.) All wind loading can be eliminated since it is not part of Extreme Event 2.
4.) Ice loading is added.
5.) EV1 is eliminated because soil is assumed to be scoured away.
For this example the maximum pile load for Case 1 and 3 are 178.48 k and 114.46 k, respectively.
IC4