Tie Rods, Hairpins, and Stab Ties ‘The lack of design provisions relating to tension in deformed bars used as hairpins, and our desire to reduce the effects of elastic elongation in the bars, both argue for assigning a conservative tension capacity to hairpins. The traditional way of doing so is to use the allowable-stress design method for their design. In this venerable approach, still widely used in masonry design, the allowable tension in deformed reinforcement is taken as 24 ksi. (The allowable tension in welded-wire fabric is 20 ksi.) Multiplying this stress by the effective area of the bars or wires gives the allowable capacity of the hairpin system, This provides the solution for the first step of the design. For the second step, we need to find the required hairpin’s bar size—a separate effort from finding the hairpin’s length. For a 90° included angle between hairpin legs, the force F in each leg can be found from the following equation, as illustrated in Fig. 6.10: Ty2 2 Here, T is the horizontal force on the hairpin (in kips). Using the allowable tension. stress of 24 ksi gives the following equation for the required hairpin area: Ty2 224) ‘We recommend using hairpin bars of at least for No. 5, to provide some additional cor- rosion resistance for these critical elements. Arai 6.2.4 Development of Straight Bars in Slabs As just stated, hairpins and slab bars can developed past the assumed failure plane by one of two methods. In the first, standard hooks are used; in the second, straight bars Ficure 6.10 Determination of forces in hairpins with an inoluded angle of 90°. 107108 Chapter Six are developed. Development of standard ACI hooks is addressed in Sec. 6.1.4, and the equations for straight-bar development length in footings are given in Example 4.1. Here, were focus on the development length of deformed reinforcement /, in slabs. The applicable formula of ACL 318-08, Section 12.2 is: =| Sf Ve Ig 4007. (CotKy\f.* a, ‘The variables for this equation, assuming common slab conditions, are listed as follows. The assumptions are: Bar sizes d, are No. 6 and smaller; uncoated bars; bar cover of at Jeast 1.5 in.; and f” = 3000 psi. y,= 1.0 (< 12 in. of concrete below bars) .0 (uncoated bars) 18 (bars less than No. 7) ‘= 1 (normal weight conerete) 5 + 6/16 = 1.875 in. (distance from top of concrete to center of No. 6 bar, this rules over the criterion of ¥4 bar spacing) oe K,=0 (no transverse reinforcement) 197529 20.5(sameas2.5in.max.value) -.use2.5in, 3 60,000 1x1x0.8 3 60,000 1x1%0.8)\5 _ 96, (& 1300025 a 63a, When f” = 4000 psi concrete is used, the formula becomes: 3 60,000 11x98 _ = (GGL PPS) =a0.04 The straight-bar development lengths in slabs for common bar sizes are given in Table 6.3. Design Example 6.2: Hairpin Bars Problem Design hairpins for a small single-story single-span rigid frame spanning 60 ft. The spacing between the frames is 20 ft; the eave height is 18 ft; the roof pitch is 1:12. The roof live load (RLL), reduced for primary frames, is 12 pounds per square foot (psf). The building manufacturer supplied the column reactions. The following load combination produces the maximum outward horizontal load: Dead (1 kip) + RLL (4 kips). Use f = 3000 psi and f, = 60,000 psi. (1 kip = 1000 Ib). The slab on grade is 5 in, thick and reinforced with deformed bars for temperature and shrinkage.Tie Rods, Hairpins, and Slab Ties ‘The table is based on the assumptions listed in the text. For bars, not listed, the following equations may be used: |, = 26.24, for F,=3000 psi; I, = 22.8d, for f= 4000 psi. Taste 6.3 StraightBar Development Length L, in Slabs for Some Common Bars, in. Solution The total outward-acting horizontal force on the hairpin Tis 1 +4= Using the allowable bar tension stress of 24 ksi, find the hairpin si Ty2 _ 5y2 aay ~ 224) Ana = 0.147 in? One No. 4 or No. 5 bar is sufficient. As noted previously, we recommend a minimum bar size of No. 5 for increased corrosion resistance. To determine the length of the hair- pins, use No. 4 slab bars at 15 in. o.c. (see Table 6.2), with A, =0.2/1.25 = 0.16 in2/ft. For concrete with f” = 3000 psi and No. 4 bars I,= 13.2 in. (Table 6.3). Using F, = 24 ksi, the reinforced slab can resist the following service load: 0.16 in?/ft x 24 kei = 3.84 kips/ft of slab width ‘The total required width of slab to be engaged is: 5 kips/3.84 kips/ft= 13 ft With this trivial length only two slab bars need to be engaged, so even adding the devel- opment length of a hook (9.6 in. from Table 6.1), a nominal hairpin length of 3 ftis more than sufficient, Conclusion No. 5 hairpins with 90° included angle can be used, with each leg 3 ft Jong, standard hooks at ends. ‘Asa side note, simple slab ties could have been sufficient in this situation. These are described in the next section. 6.2.5 Slab Ties (Dowels) For small horizontal loads, such as those in Design Example 6.2, slab ties might provide sufficient resistance to the horizontal column reactions. Slab ties are bent bars or dowels that extend from the foundation piers and walls into the slab. In plan, they are perpen- dicular to the outside edge of the wall. Figure 5.3 is one example of such dowels extend- ing into the slab; Fig. 6.11 nearby is another. One difference between the two illustrations is that the slab in Fig. 6.11 is thickened at its bearing area on the foundation. The added thickness allows the slab to better 109no Chapter Six #4012" dowels Field a 4, 5 Fee \ ome i L- colurmn Slab bars comp | fille i ~ Pee RRR SF 246" cover to hook |_—Aoughen surface with amplitude Column pier aaa : and footing oe ao al 4 3 Lie 2" dear A [ CRBS Fiune 6.41 Slab ties (dowels). withstand any concentrated loads, such as wheels of a forklift, in the vicinity of the foundation wall, where soil compaction is likely to be less than ideal. Various practices exist on the recommended amount of the added thickness and taper; the author has successfully used the design shown. Because of the difficulty with soil compaction near exterior foundation walls and piers, as well as around any horizontal dowels extending into the slab, the dowels in Fig. 6.11 are field bent into the slab after the soil is compacted. The length of the dowels should be sufficient to overlap the point where the slab taper starts by at least 6 to 12 in. Why? If both the thickened part of the slab and the dowels stop at the same location, a plane of relative weakness in the slab would be created, inviting shrinkage cracking there. By continuing the reinforcement past the point where the taper begins, the effects of change in slab strength and stiffness are reduced. Slab ties essentially act as distributed hairpins. The dowels are intended to overlap the slab reinforcement, and their horizontal length should be sufficient to provide for the required lap-splice length of the slab bars. In Design Example 6.2, only two of those ties would have been needed to develop the required horizontal resistance. Slab ties are typically placed throughout the entire building perimeter at close inter- vals, such as 12 in. 0.¢. Because of their large numbers slab ties are much more redun- dant than a few hairpin bars, making each tie much less critical. Accordingly, the additional bar thickness that is prudent to specify for heavily loaded hairpins subject to corrosion, might not be needed for the ties, and their size may be kept is common No. 4 bars. As with hairpins, the effectiveness of this system depends on the continuity of the slab reinforcement, and we still recommend using deformed bars in the slab whenever. slab ties ate specified for transfer of horizontal loads.Tie Rods, Wairpins, and Slab Ties = IM Hairpin or slab dowel Detlectod stab on grade ~ Ficuse 613 Potential failure at slab on grade separated from the foundation caused by settlement or deflection. 6.2.6 Using Foundation Seats ‘The last point regards the need for a slab seat at the interface of the slab on grade and the foundation wall or column pedestal. Whenever slab ties or hairpins are used, the slab should bear on a continuous seat, typically 1.5 or 2 in. wide, such as that illustrated in Figs. 6.11 and 5.3. The purpose of the seat is to prevent the slab from deflecting rela- tive to the foundation wall or pier. ‘The slab on grade might deflect in this fashion because of concentrated loading on the slab, caused by wheeled equipment, for example, or because of long-term soil settle- ment. When the slab starts to deflect, the hairpins or dowels extending from the foun- dation will try to restrain the movement and will likely fail or cause the slab to crack (Fig. 6.12). The larger the separation between the edge of the slab and the foundation, the bigger the problem. Recall that in some designs the floor on ground is separated from the perimeter walls by compressible filler (see Figs. 6.3 and 5.2) or even by rigid insulation. Whenever those boundary conditions occur, the slab should not be tied to the foundation walls or pedestals, and other foundation systems should be used instead. References 2009 International Building Code® (IBC-09), International Code Council, Country Club Hills, IL, 2009. ACI318-08, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.I2 Chapter Six ACI 360R-06, Design of Slabs-on-Ground, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI. Newman, Alexander, Metal Building Systems: Design and Specifications, 2d ed., ‘McGraw-Hill, New York, 2004. Newman, Alexander, Structural Renovation of Building: Methods, Details, and Design Examples, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2001. URC 3-220-07 (US Army TM 5-818-7), Foundations on Expansive Soils, 2004.CHAPTER 1 Moment-Resisting Foundations 7.1 The Basic Concept Is there a foundation system designed to resist both vertical and horizontal column reactions that does not rely on the contribution of the slab on grade? For reasons explained in Chaps. 3 and 6, the slabs are not the best building elements to rely on for transfer of lateral loads. The slabs typically contain joints, are liable to be cut or partly removed during the service life of the building, and are often lightly—if at all— reinforced. The reliability of any foundation system that does not have to rely on floors on ground would be rather high. Fortunately, at least one such system exists. Moment- resisting foundations are intended to resist both the vertical and horizontal column reactions exerted by metal biiilding frames. 7.4.1 A Close Relative: Cantilevered Retaining Wall ‘The basic idea behind this system is far from new: It follows the decades-old approach for designing cantilevered retaining walls made of cast-in-place concrete. These walls ate designed to resist the overturning and sliding effects of the soil behind them by using the weight of that same soil. ‘The weight of the soil carried on top of the wall hee! (the back part of the wall base) acts as ballast, which helps resist both the sliding and the overturning on the wall. Accordingly, the heel of the cantilevered concrete retaining wall is rather long, while the toe—the front part of the base—is relatively short (Fig. 7.1). The proportions of the base are established by trial and error, depending on whether the soil surface behind the wall is horizontal or sloped. With horizontal backfill, the width of the base might be approximately one-half of the wall height, measured from the top of the soil fo the bottom of the base. With slop- ing backfill, the width of the base might be two-thirds of the wall height. These rules of thumb provide only a rough idea about the proportions of the walls, since the propor tions are heavily influenced by the depth of the wall, the type of the backfill, and the required factors of safety. The longer the heel, the larger the weight of the soil on top of it and the larger the resisting moment against the overturning. In some circumstances the base of the wall might equal or even exceed the height: To increase the sliding resistance of the cantilevered retaining wall, its depth can be increased, or a shear key can be provided at the base. A detailed procedure for the design of cantilevered concrete retaining walls is provided in CRSI Design Handbook. 13a Chapter Seven Weep hole: Toe Heel Fraure 7.1 Cantilevered conorete retai One key difference exists between the cantilevered retaining wall and the moment- resisting foundation supporting the metal building: The latter benefits from the vertical reaction of the building frame, while the former rarely support columns. In an effort to utilize the effects of the frame vertical reaction P to our advantage, the proportions of the heel and toe are reversed in moment-resisting foundations vis-a-vis those in cantilevered selaining walls. The base of a moment-resisting foundation typically has a long toe and a short heel (Fig, 7.2)—the exact opposite of the situation in a cantilevered retaining wall. P (vertical frame reaction) Continuous isolation joint ‘Slab on grade F;, (lateral frame reaction) Toe Heal Fieune 7.2 Moment-resisting foundation.7.2 Moment-Resisting Foundations 7.1.2 Advantages and Disadvantages ‘The main advantage of the moment-resisting foundation system has already been stated: a complete independence of the slab on grade. It means that the integrity of the foundation system will not suffer when the slab is cut, repaired, or partly removed. As discussed in Chap. 6, these operations often accompany building renovations or instal- lation of the under-slab pipes, conduits, and so on. The freedom from the floor also means that any number of floor pits, depressions, and trenches can be easily accommo- dated. Another advantage of this system is that horizontal frame reactions that act both inward and outward can be resisted by the same foundation. ‘The moment-resisting foundation has its disadvantages. The design process is lengthy and cumbersome; the resulting foundation is often large and therefore more expensive than a conventional foundation designed only for vertical loading. Also, as discussed next, these types of foundations, as their cantilevered concrete retaining wall cousins, must rotate slightly under load to develop the passive pressure of the soil. This xotation might become problematic when the foundation supports brittle wall materials and finishes. Active, Passive, and At-Rest Soil Pressures ‘To understand how the moment-resisting foundation resists horizontal and vertical frame reactions, the concept of active and passive soil pressures must be discussed first. ‘The easiest way to illustrate the topic is to examine the behavior of the cantilevered retaining walls. 7.2.1 The Nature of Active, Passive, and At-Rest Pressures When a cantilevered retaining wall retains the unbalanced soil (thatis, the soil elevation is higher on one side of the wall than on the other), the soil on the high side produces lateral pressure on the wall called the active pressure. The retaining wall rotates slightly under load until it compresses the soil on the opposite side, which pushes back on the wall and develops the passive pressure. The total force P, exerted by active pressure can cause the walll to fail in two ways: overturning and sliding. In addition to the passive pressure force P,, sliding is resisted by the force of soil friction (Fig. 7.3). If the combined resistance of the passive pressure and soil friction is sufficient to counteract the overturning and sliding effects of the active pressure, a stable equilibrium is achieved. Otherwise, the wall could topple over and fail or move horizontally. Moment-resisting foundations are subjected to the same active and passive soil pressures, but there are two key differences. First, the soil elevations on both sides of the foundation are generally similar, although the top of the soil at the exterior is generally somewhat lower than the soil at the interior of the building. Second, unlike in a cantile- vered retaining wall, there is also a horizontal column reaction to resist. The active and passive soil pressures, as well as other forces acting on a moment-resisting foundation, are shown in Fig. 7.4. When the retaining walll or the moment-resisting foundation is restrained at the top by the floor or other structure, the active pressure coefficients do not apply. in this case, a so-called at-rest coefficient of soil pressure should be used. The at-rest coefficient has a higher value than the active-pressure coefficient, as discussed in the next section.TMG = Chapter Seven hm Passive pressure Pe (Soi friction) Active pressure Soil pressure under base {ey Fioune 7.3 Active and passive soll pressures in a cantilevered retaining wall. Continuous isolation joint Slab on grade Pp fe — ee Soil fiction P ose fae pit Soi pressure under base Point of rotation Ficus 7.4 Active and passive soll pressures in a momentresisting foundation.Moment-Resisting Foundations 7.2.2 How to Compute Active, Passive, and At-Rest Pressure ‘The magnitude of active and passive soil pressures depends on the type and character- istics of the soil. There are various methods of establishing these pressures. Perhaps the most widely used is the Rankine theory, where the active and passive soil pressures are approximated by comparing the soil pressures to those of a liquid, with triangular stress distribution that linearly increases with increasing depth. According to the Rankine theory, both active and passive pressures depend on the angle of internal friction (9), which can be found from the Mohr’s failure envelope for shear strength. In practice, the angle of internal friction is generally determined by the geotechnical consultants, although there are some sources, including CRSI Design Handbook, that provide their values directly for some typical soils. The Rankine liquid- analogy formulas for active pressure (p,) and passive pressure (p,) are as follows 1D, and K, = tan? (45° ~ 9/2) 1 (FL), and K, = tan? 9 (A5°-+ 6/2) Py where oil density in Ib/f€ (pounds per cubic foot [pcf]) tive pressure coefficient K, = passive pressure coefficient Hand H, = heights of active and passive pressure areas (see Fig. 7.4) Once the active and passive pressure values are determined, the active (P,) and passive (P,) pressure forces can be found from the following equations: These forces are located at the centroids of the respective triangles, that is, the force P, is located a distance 1/3H and the force P, a distance 1/3H, from the bottom of the foundation's base. We should note that with level backfill the direction of the force P_is, horizontal, while with sloped backfill the force vector is parallel to the slope. The di tion of the force P, is normally assumed to be horizontal. Unlike in cantilevered retain- ing walls, the backfill in moment-resisting foundations is generally horizontal. As mentioned in the previous section, the at-rest soil pressure coefficient K, (sometimes pronounced “Kay-not”) applies when the retaining wall or the moment-resisting foundation isrestrained at the top. (A. good example is a basement wall laterally braced at the top by the first-floor framing.) The value of K, is usually determined by geotechnical analysis or taken directly from the building codes and authoritative publications, as further discussed later. The active, passive, and at-rest pressures represent the loading experienced by the soil in the moist condition, while compacted to the optimum density level. Ifthe soil is saturated or submerged, and additional loading component is added—the hydrostatic pressure of groundwater. In this case the lateral soil loads are reduced by the force of buoyancy, but another force of the lateral groundwater pressure is added. As active pres- sure, the lateral pressure of water increases linearly downward in a triangular fashion. 7.2.3 Typical Values of Active, Passive, and At-Rest Coefficients Asjust stated, the values of K, (active pressure coefficient), K, (passive pressure coefficient) and K, (at-rest pressure coefficient) are generally determined by the geotechnical analysis. iwU8 Chapter Seven However, some reference sources list these coefficients for some idealized typical soils, For example, CRSI Design Handbook provides the following coefficients: * For clean drainable fill, such as sand and gravel free of fines: §=30°, K,=0.33, K,=3.00 + For mixed grain sizes with fines, dense enough for relatively low permeability: $=35°, K,=0.271, K,=3.69 In addition, some building codes and authoritative publications directly provide the design lateral soil loads rather than the coefficients. ASCE/SEI 7-10 Table 3.2-1 (and ASCH/SEI 7-05 Table 3-1) Design Lateral Soil Load lists the lateral pressures for various backfill materials. For example, for well-graded and poorly graded clean gravel and gravel/sand mixes (soil types GW and GP) and for silty gravels the design lateral soil Joad is 35 pounds per square foot (psf) /ft of depth. As for at-rest soil pressures, a footnote to the tables calls for increasing the lateral soil loads “for relatively rigid walls, as when braced by floors” as follows: + For sand and gravel-type soils, use 60 paf/ft of depth. + For silt and day-type soils, use 100 psf/ft of depth. ‘An exception from these requiements is given to the basement walls extending not more than 8 ft below grade and supporting light floors. Another source is the 2009 International Building Code? (IBC) Table 1610.1, which provides the values of the design active pressure and design at-rest pressure for various soils, as summarized in Table 7.1. As in ASCE 7, the IBC provisions allow the retaining walls that can move and rotate under lateral soil loading to be designed for active pres- sures, The walls restricted against movement at the top must be designed for at-rest pressures, except the basement walls extending not more than 8 ft below grade and ‘Well and poorly graded clean ‘GW, GP SW, SP. gravels or sands; gravelsand mixes Silty sands, poorly graded sand-silt SM mixes Clayey sands, poorly graded sand. SC, ML-CL, CL 60 400 clay mixes; mixture of inorganic silt | and clay; inorganic clays of iow to medium plasticity Notes 1, Pattial table derived from TBC-06 and JBC-09 Table 1610.1. 2, Design loads are for optimum densities; add hydrostatic loading for saturated soil. ‘Tair 7.1 Representative Soil Lateral Loads per International Building Code®Moment-Resisting Foundations Lateral Stiding Coefficient of: Friction: 0.35 — Sand, sity sand, clayey sand, | 450 0.25 = sil yey Clay, sandy olay, sity clay, 100 = 130 x contact area clayey sit, sit, sandy silt ‘Note: Partial table derived from IBC-09 Table 1806.2 (IBC-06 Table 1804.2), ‘Taste 7.2 Representative Soil Passive Resistance per International Building Code™ laterally supported by flexible diaphragms may be designed for active pressures. A separate IBC table (IBC-09 Table 1806.2 and IBC-06 Table 1804.2) provides the values for soil passive pressures and lateral-sliding, coefficients of friction for a variety of soils, as summarized in Table 7.2. The tabulated values for lateral sliding resistance can be increased linearly up to a maximum value of 15 times the tabular value. The tabulated lateral bearing pressures can be increased by one-third when used with the IBC alterna- tive basic load combinations that include wind or seismic loads. 7.3 Lateral Sliding Resistance 7.3.1 The Nature of Lateral Sliding Resistance As the name suggests, lateral sliding resistance refers to the frictional forces that develop between the soil and the bottom of the retaining wall or the moment-tesisting foundation under lateral loading. Lateral sliding resistance is expressed in terms of the force P, devel- ‘oped at the bottom of the foundation and acting in the horizontal direction (see Figs. 7.3 and 7.4). The magnitude of the force P, depends on two main factors, the vertical loading W, and the lateral sliding coefficient of friction 1. between the soil and concrete: P= KW) The vertical loading W, is a sum of the weights of all the foundation elements, the soil on top of the base, and the vertical frame reaction. A number of approaches can be taken to establish the lateral sliding coefficient of friction 1. First, the coefficient can be deter- mined from the project-specific geotechnical analysis. Second, for typical soils, some of the authoritative technical publications listed previously can help. For example, CRSI Design Handbook uses two values of jin its tables for cantilevered retaining walls: 0.45 and 0.55. These values are used for backfill having the densities of either 115 or 130 Ib/ ff (pef) and the angles of internal friction 6 of 30°, 35°, and 40°. Finally, the default IBC values may also be used. As can be seen from Table 7.2, the values of the lateral sliding coefficient of friction listed there are very low: 0.35 for sandy gravel and/or gravel, and 0,25 for sand, silty sand, clayey sand, silty gravel, and clayey gravel. Essentially, the listed IBC default values are approximately one-half of what RSI Design Handbook uses. Why such a disparity? n9120 Chapter Seven The reason IBC default values are so low is that the code is intended to be used ina wide variety of locations, including those outside the United States. Some allowance is evidently made for a possible misidentification of the soil and for field errors. Inciden- tally, the presumptive load-bearing values listed in IBC-09 Table 1806.2 are also very conservative. Among other authoritative sources, NAVEAC DM-7.2, Foundations and Earth Structures, lists rmuch higher allowable load-bearing values for soils. For example, for medium-to-compact coarse-to-medium sand NAVFAC DM-7.2 lists the “recom- mended value for use” a83 tons per sq. ft, or 6000 psf. By contrast, the IBC presumptive load-bearing value for sand is only 2000 psf-—three times less! It should be clear from the foregoing discussion that using the default IBC values is rarely the first option to consider. Chances are, the values obtained from a geotechnical investigation would be higher. There are certainly circumstances when using the IBC values is justified, such as when a small project is involved, or when the geotechnical expertise is not available for some reason, ‘The design approach using the lateral sliding coefficient of friction works well with cohesionless soils, such as sands and gravels. For cohesive soils, such as clay, sandy clay, silty clay, clayey silt, silt, and sandy silt, IBC-09 Table 1806.2 (IBC-06 Table 1804.2) stipu- Jates another approach. For these soils, lateral sliding resistance is determined as the listed value of cohesion (130 psf) times the contact area, but not more than one-half dead load. 7.3.2 Combining Lateral Sliding Resistance and Passive Pressure Resistance Can the passive pressure resistance force P, discussed in Sec. 7.2 be combined with the lateral sliding resistance force P,? Some have questioned the common practice of com- bining the two, pointing out that these two forces are dissimilar in nature. To develop the passive-pressure resistance, some rotation and movement of the foundation is nec- essary under load. To develop the soil frictional force, a constant concrete-to-soil contact is necessary. Thus the conceptual objection has some theoretical merit, but the successful long-term practice of combining the two argues otherwise. Tn any event, the code provisions specifically allow combining the two lateral- resistance mechanisms. According to IBC-09 Paragraph 1806.3.1, Combined Resistance: ‘The total resistance to lateral loads shall be permitted to be determined by combining the values derived from the lateral bearing pressure and the lat- eral sliding resistance specified in Table 1806.2. Curiously, the previous edition of IBC (2006) includes an even more definitive statement ‘on the subject. IBC-06 Paragraph 1804.5, Lateral Sliding Resistance states: The resistance of structural walls to lateral sliding shall be calculated by combining the values derived from the lateral bearing and the lateral slid- ing resistance shown in Table 1804.2 unless data to substantiate the use of higher values are submitted for approval. Accordingly, the forces P, and P, are typically combined, so that the total exceeds the applied lateral reaction P* times the factor of safety: P,+P,2S.E.(P,) ‘The factors of safety against overturning and sliding are discussed next.Moment-Resisting Foundations 7.4 Factors of Safety against Overturning and Sliding 7.4.1 No Explicit Factors of Safety in IBC Load Combinations Factors of safety can be either explicitly stated or implicitly accounted for in the load combinations. The IBC does not include explicit factors of safety for the foundations subjected to overturning, sliding, and uplift. Instead, the code provides implicit factors of safety built into the load combinations where the dead load counteracts the effects of wind or live load. (We should also note that IBC-09 Paragraph 1806.1 also permits a one-third stress increase in vertical foundation pressure and lateral bearing pressure in these the load combinations when wind load is present.) For example, the basic IBC load combination of 0.6D + W + H for allowable stress design (ASD) has an implied safety factor for the dead-load effects counteracting wind (W) and lateral earth pressure (H) of 1/0.6 = 1.67. For alternative basic load combinations, such as D + L + @W, where the weight of the foundation counteracts the effects of wind load, the load D should include “only two-thirds of the minimum dead load likely to be in place”, which corresponds to the implied safety factor of 1/(2/3)= 1.5. (See Sec. 4.2 for additional discussion on IBC load. combinations.) Accordingly, the minimum safety factors against uplift caused by wind should be taken as either 1.67 or 1.5, depending on whether basic or alternative basic IBC load combinations are used. 7.4.2 Explicit Factors of Safety for Retaining Walls Section 1807.2.3, Safety Factor, of the 2009 International Building Code does include the explicit factors of safety of 1.5 against overturning and sliding of retaining walls. Since moment-resisting foundations closely resemble retaining, walls, it follows that this IBC section should apply to their design as well. When the explicit factors of safety of 1.5 are employed, the load combinations listed in IBC-09 Section 1606 are not used. Instead, nominal loads should be considered without any multipliers. ‘An exception applies to earthquake loading, which is taken as 0.7 times the design earthquake load. Also, the minimum safety factor against overturning and sliding of retaining walls designed for earthquake loading is 1.1. IBC-09 Section 1807.2.3 states that the safety factor against lateral sliding of retain- ing walls is determined by “the available soil resistance at the base of the retaining wall foundation divided by the net lateral force applied to the retaining wall.” The terms “zesistance at the base” and “net lateral force” suggest a possible design procedure to determine the safety factor against lateral sliding of the moment-resisting foundation: One first reduces the combination of the applied lateral forces and active pressure by the counteracting effects of the passive pressure resistance and then checks if the avail- able lateral sliding resistance divided by the remainder equals or exceeds 1.5. Of course, a simpler approach would be to consider the total available resistance to lateral sliding (the sum of passive pressure and lateral-sliding resistance forces) vis-&-vis the applied horizontal forces (the sum of F,, and P, in Fig. 7.4), We should note that different factors of safety against overturning and sliding of the retaining walls ate included in other authoritative publications. For example, CRSI Design Handbook recommends a factor of safety of 15 against sliding, but 2.0 against overturning 2.0 at service loads.12 Chapter Seven 7.4.3 How to Increase Lateral Sliding Resistance If the safety factors against overturning and sliding of a moment-resisting foundation are insufficient, which steps can be taken to increase its lateral sliding resistance? The following options are available: 1. Make the foundation longer and heavier. For a substantial lateral force, this often means that the footing becomes rectangular in plan, with the longer side parallel to the direction of the force F,,. A longer footing will weigh more and carry more soil on top of its ledges thus increasing the dead load, The larger the dead load, the larger the lateral sliding resistance. 2. Make the foundation deeper. The deeper the foundation, the larger the passive- pressure resistance that can be engaged (up to a depth of 15 ft, as discussed earlier). 3, Provide keys at the bottom of the footing. The last point requires some elaboration. Keys are sometimes employed in retaining walls, but their use comes with a few caveats. First, construction of keys involves some precision in excavation and in reinforcement placement, which may be difficult to achieve reliably. Obviously, added costs for the excavation, formwork, and concrete are involved. According to CRS! Design Handbook, its tables for retaining wall designs attempt to avoid the keys whenever possible. Second, the keys are typically placed in the undisturbed soil rather than in the fill (NAVEAC DM-7.2). Since some contractors prefer to overexcavate the site and bring the compacted fill up to the required elevation, the keys might end up in the filled area, even when the foundation designer had assumed otherwise. For those interested in the design procedures for the keys, CRSI Design Handbook provides a design example. Essentially, the key extends the depth of the passive- pressure resistance triangle, The key is designed as a reinforced-concrete cantilever sub- jected to the applicable passive-pressure loading. The keys used in moment-resisting foundations are illustrated in Fig. 7.5. 7.5 The Design Procedures 7.5.4 Design input The design procedure for moment-resisting foundations depends on the eccentricity of the applied load relative to the center of the footing. The eccentricity e is deter- mined by dividing the applied bending moment (M) by the vertical load applied to the footing (P): ‘The force P is generally the same as the sum of weights (W,) discussed earlier. For pin-base columns, the applied bending moment is found by multiplying the horizontal column reaction (F,) by the distance to the bottom of the footing (H): M=E,Moment-Resisting Foundations Vertical frame reaction Lateral frame reaction — Fioune 7.5 Using a key in momentresisting foundation, For fixed-base columns, the moment of fixity (M,,) is added: M=F, ()+M,, Depending on the magnitude of the load eccentricity ¢, one of the design methods dis- cussed next can be used. Consistent with our discussion in the previous chapters, we use the service (unfac- tored) loads in proportioning the foundations for stability against the overturning and sliding, as well as for determination of the soil pressures. Once the size of the founda- tion is established, the design of concrete and reinforcement is performed using the factored (ultimate) loading. If one nevertheless attempts to use the factored forces to determine the eccentricity ofoad, the ultimate load factors would result in the value of the eccentricity that differs from that found by using the service-load method. This would affect all other calcula- tions that follow. 7.5.2 Design Using Combined Stresses Acting on Soil Since the footing of the moment-resisting foundation resists the combined effect of the vertical load (P) and the applied bending moment (’), the soil is subjected to the fol- lowing maximum and minimum pressures: PLM Soman eee 1314 Chapter Seven In this equation A is the area and S the section modulus of the footing, The section modulus, computed for the direction of the applied moment, is computed as oe Sane where b is the width and L the length of the footing (measured in the direction of the applied moment). There are three possible relationships between the terms P/A and M/S: 1. P/A> MA. The downward force P predominates, and a trapezoidal distribution of the soil pressure under the footing exists. 2. P/A= M/S, The effects of the downward force P and the applied moment M are equal. A triangular distribution of the soil pressure under the footing exists. 3. P/A.< M/S. The applied moment M predominates. However, since soil cannot resist tension, a double triangle of the soil pressure under the footing cannot be developed. As a result, this design procedure cannot be used. ‘These three possible relationships between the terms P/A and M/S can be expressed in terms of the position of the resulting eccentricity ¢ relative to the kernt limit of the footing, ‘The kem limit is a diamond-shaped area in the center of the footing, with the length of the diamond oriented parallel to the direction of the applied moment. The length of the dia- mond is equal to one-third the length of the footing; the width is equal to one-third the width of the footing (Fig. 7.6). The onter edlges of the kern limit are thus located one-sixth of the footing length and width from its center. There relationships are expressed in Fig. 7.7 1. P/A > M/S. The eccentricity ¢ falls within the kern limit. 2. P/A = M/S. The eccentricity ¢ falls exactly at the outer edge of the kern limit. 3. P/A15 OK sor, 20" 4.0" Point of rotation Ficure 7.40 Forces acting on foundation for Design Example 7.1, Case 1.Moment-Resisting Foundations The location of the resultant force, measured from point A’ = 206:61_ Kip-ft _ 4 5 =~Siekip 7" The resultant of vertical loads acts with an eccentricity with respect to the footing centerline of e=4.88~4.5 = 0.38 (ft) left of the footing centerline ‘Then the overail eccentricity of load is M, 98.8 kip-ft = Mor _,.. 28:8 kip-ft _ = eget nes ares O88 LAS At ‘The kem limit of the 9-ft footing is oft False 14st The resultant is barely but still within the kern limit of the footing, so the proportion of the foundation is so far satisfactory. The soil pressure can then be determined from the equation: M rmanin = He P at where P= W,=54.6 kips A=9ftx4 ft=36 fe M=54.6 kips x 1.43 ft = 78.05 kip-ft Axe? 3 S=—G— = 546 ft’ Frmocnin = git BS 21 5220.14 oman = 1.66 ksf < 2.0 ksf OK Fosvin = 138 ksf Check resistance to sliding, as a combination of passive pressure and soil frictional resistance. From the input data, K, = 0.33, K, = 3.00, = 0.55. One of two approaches can be taken to determine the passive pressure resistance: 1. Count only the passive pressure acting on an inverted “T” section, representing the projected vertical area of the pier and the footing, 2, Since a continuous foundation wall of the same depth as the column footing exists between piers, we can count the passive pressure acting on a 4-ft-wide strip of soil behind the combined area of the footing, pier and the wall on top of the column footing. 131132 Chapter Seven For this design example, select the second approach. ‘The combined soil friction and the passive minus active pressure on a 4-ft-wide strip of soil: 4.6 Kips x 0.55 + 4(3.00 0.33) x 0.12 x 3.5% x 4 (f0) = 30.03 + 7.85 = 37.88 kips > 24.7 kips Factor of safety against lateral sliding = 37.88/24.7 = 1.53>1.5 OK ‘The factors of safety against overturning and sliding are adequate, even without reli- ance on the passive pressure of soil. Case 2: Dead + Wind from Right P=~7.4kips (uplift), Fy 10.7 kips (toward the building) ‘This case combines the inwerd-acting horizontal force with uplift. The applied horizontal force (F,) attempts to overtum the foundation by causing it to rotate about Point B ig. 7.11). Check resistance to overturning first and then check the resulting soil pressures, W, = (0.50.15 +1.5x0.12)8x4 .06 Kips x 1.5 ft = 4.59 kipft W,=2x2%21015)+(0.12)) | = 8.64 Kip Wy2045x2x4x9 _ | 248.60 kip O42x15x4x4 p= 2046 kip 40.7x4t ==42.8 Kipft _ 4 2 kips TM, = 39.49 kiptt Point of rotation Fiune 7-44 Foroes acting on foundation for Design Example 7.4, Case 2.Moment-Resisting Foundations The location of the resultant force, measured from point B, using the table of weights shown earlier: _ 39.19 kip-ft Is“S2 kip S478 ft The resultant of vertical loads acts with an eccentricity with respect to the footing cen- terline of 2=4.78 ~4.5 = 0.28 (ft) to the right of the footing centerline Applied overturning moment My, = 10.7 kips x4 ft = 42.8 kip-ft (counterclockwise): Mg, =42.8 kip-ft > 3M, =39.19 kip-ft_ NG ‘The weight of the foundation alone is insufficient to resist the overturning, Check if the passive pressure can help overcome the overturning, (Note: A reliance on passive pressure is rarely done in the analysis of retaining walls, simply because the difference in the heights of the active and passive pressure triangles is quite significant and the passive pressure does not add much resistance. In the case of moment-resisting foundations, passive pressure is more useful.) As is the calculations for Case 1, using for simplicity h=h, = 3.5 ft: P,, = 14(3.00 ~ 0.38) x 0.12 3.5 4 = 7.85 (Kips) Mg p= 7.85% 1/385) = 9.16 kip-ft Combined 2M, +M,,=48,35 kip-ft> M,,= 42.8 kip-ft, but the safety factor is obviously insufficient. Additional resistance to overturning can be provided by the weight of the continu- ous foundation wall running between the column foundations, Assume the founda- tion wall is 12 in. thick and 3 ft deep, bearing on the wall footing that is 1 ft thick and 2 ft wide (Fig. 7.12). Our intent is not to engage the passive pressure on the wall e Centerline column foundation beyond Fiaure 7.42 Continuous foundation wall running between the primaryframe momentresisting foundations (the reinforcement shown in Fig. 7.16)..B4 Chapter Sever (although this avenue could also be pursued), but simply to use the wall as an addi- tional dead load. The weight of the wall with its foundation plus the soil on its ledges is, conservatively counting only the wall outside the edges of the 4-ft column footings: Wey = 1X1 +21) 0.18 + (0.5 x25 + 0.5% 3)0.12] = 1.08 (Kip-f) Wai 1.08 x (25 ft~4 ft) = 22.68 (kips) Note that the centerline of the wail aligns with the center of the column footing. Then W, = 8.2 +22.68 = 30.88 (kips) Mg= 39.194+22.68% 4.5 = 141.25 (Kip-ft) > Moy = 42.8 kip-ft SF on = Me =3.3>1 5 OK Sliding is OK by observation, since it was OK for Case 1, with a much higher lateral force. The foundation pressure is also OK by observation, considering the net weigitt of the moment-resisting foundation itself being only 8.2 kips, Design the Concrete Elements of the Foundation Once the overall foundation sizes are established, the concrete design can start. As already mentioned, the service loads used so far need to be converted into the factored (ultimate) loads. 4. Design the Column Pier ‘The maximum lateral force on the pier acts in Case 1. F,=12D +1.6$ = 1.2.x 2.9 + 1.6 x 21.8 = 38,36 (kips) (M,=38.36 kips x2 ft = 76.72 kip-ft Check flexure: For a 2- x 2-ft concrete pier (Fig. 7.13) with a orinimal vertical reinforce- ment consisting of three No. 7 hooked bars along two faces placed in the direction parallel to the wall, No. 4 ties and 3-in. clear cover: d=24-3-%—7/16 = 20.06 (in.) 4.35* Check shear: V, =38.36 kips ¥, = Ve = 0.752 (IW 4000(0)(2) = 0.0949(b)(d) (kips) OV, = 0.0949 x 20.06 x24 = 45.69 (kips)>V, OK "Using the tables in the older versions of ACI Desigi Handbook, as discussed in Chap. 4. See Table 41.