Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Verification Problems
26632 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 210 Foothill Ranch, California 92610 (949) 951-5815 (949) 951-5848 (FAX) www.risa.com
Copyright 2012 by RISA Technologies, LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of the contents of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any means without the express written permission of RISA Technologies, LLC. We have done our best to insure that the material found in this publication is both useful and accurate. However, please be aware that errors may exist in this publication, and that RISA Technologies, LLC makes no guarantees concerning accuracy of the information found here or in the use to which it may be put.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Verification Problem 1: Strip Footing Design .............................................................................................................. 3 Verification Problem 2: Square Spread Footing #1................................................................................................... 5 Verification Problem 3: Rectangular Spread Foot #1.............................................................................................. 7 Verification Problem 4: Pile Cap Shear.......................................................................................................................... 9 Verification Problem 5: Eccentrically Loaded Footing ......................................................................................... 13 Verification Problem 6: Cantilever Retaining Wall #1 .......................................................................................... 15 Verification Problem 7: Cantilever Retaining Wall #2 ........................................................................................... 17 Verification Problem 8: Rectangular Footing #2...................................................................................................... 19 Verification Problem 9: Square Footing #2 ................................................................................................................ 21 Verification Problem 10: Cantilever Retaining Wall #3 ........................................................................................ 23 Verification Problem 11: Pile Cap Design Example ................................................................................................. 25
Appendices
Appendix A10: Cantilever Retaining Wall #3 Calculations .......................................................................A10.1 Appendix A11: Pile Cap Design Example Calculations................................................................................A11.1
Verification Overview
Verification Overview
Verification Methods
We at RISA Technologies maintain a library of hundreds of test problems used to validate the computational aspects of RISA programs. In this verification package we will present a representative sample of these test problems for your review and compare RISAFoundation to textbook examples listed within each problem. The input for these test problems was formulated to test RISAFoundations performance, not necessarily to show how certain structures should be modeled and in some cases the input and assumptions we use in the test problems may not match what a design engineer would do in a real world application. The data for each of these verification problems is provided. The files where these RISAFoundation problems are located is in the C:\RISA\Examples directory and they are called Verification Problem 1.fnd (2, 3, etc).
Verification Version
This document contains problems that have been verified in RISAFoundation version 5.0.
Description/Problem Statement
A 12 in. thick concrete wall carries service dead and live loads of 10 kips per foot and 12.5 kips per foot, respectively. The allowable soil pressure, qa, is 5 ksf at the level of the base of the footing, which is 5 ft below the final ground surface. The wall footing has a strength of 3 ksi and fy = 60 ksi. The density of the soil is 120 lb/ft3. Note that the text does not account for the self-weight of the footing. Therefore, the RISA model has the density of the concrete material set to zero.
Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Factored Net Pressure, qnu (ksf) Vu (k/ft) *Vc (k/ft) Mu (k*ft/ft) *Mn (k*ft/ft) As min (in^2) RISAFoundation 6.19* 7.87** 9.613 13.455 14.268 1.451 Table 1.1 Results Comparison Text Value 6.19 8.51*** 9.37**** 13.4 14.0 1.45 % Difference 0 7.52 2.59 0.41 1.91 0.07
Verification Problem 1: Strip Footing Design *The detail report for LC2 shows a Loading Diagram with 6.2 ksf on the toe end and 6.18 ksf on the heel. The average of these values is used in the above table. ** The detail report shows a Vu Toe = 7.88 k/ft and a Vu Heel = 7.86 k/ft. The average of these values is used in the above table. ***The value from the text is using a d = 8.5. RISAFoundation is being more exact and using d = 13 3 0.5/2 = 9.75. This produces a Vu = (1/12)*(25-9.75)*6.19 = 7.87 k/ft ****The value from the text is using d = 9.5 where RISAFoundation is being more exact and is using d = 9.75. (9.75/9.5)*9.37 = 9.617 k/ft.
Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the textbook design examples except in instances which are explained above.
Description/Problem Statement
A square spread footing supports an 18 in. square column supporting service dead and live loads of 400 kips and 270 kips, respectively. The column is built of 5 ksi concrete and has eight No. 9 longitudinal bars with fy = 60 ksi. The footing has concrete of strength 3 ksi and Grade-60 bars. The top of the footing is covered with 6 in. of fill with a density of 120 lb/ft3 and a 6 in. basement floor. The basement floor loading is 0.1 ksf. The allowable bearing pressure on the soil is 6 ksf. Load and resistance factors are taken from ACI sections 9.2 and 9.3.
Figure 2.1 RISAFoundation Model View Solve the model and look at the detail report for the footing. Note that the text uses the net soil bearing to calculate the size of footing. This size is used directly in RISAFoundation and thus the soil overburden and self-weight are set to zero.
Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Soil Pressure, qu (ksf) Vu Punching (k) *Vc Punching (k) Vu One-Way (k) *Vc One-Way (k) Mu (k*ft) As Required (in^2) RISAFoundation 7.31* 804.591 0.75*1128.747= 846.56** 204.254 0.75*411.134 = 308.35** 954.34 Text Value 7.31 804 846 204 308 954 % Difference 11.6 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.11 0.04 7.7***
*To actually see this value, check the "Service" checkbox for LC 2 and solve the model. Then look at the detail report in the Soil Bearing section. When viewing the rest of the results, uncheck this checkbox and re-solve. **In RISAFoundation the Vc value is reported without the value. If the Vc value is multiplied by the text then there is agreement. ***If you use RISAs value of As Required and calculate a new a, you will get a *Mn = 954.3 k*ft. This value exceeds Mu. The As required by the text is using a back of the envelope calculation to come up with As that is conservative in this case. When it comes to the calculation of *Mn RISA is following ACI 318-11 Section 10.5.3 in providing (4/3)*As required, whereas the text is not.
Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the textbook design examples except in instances which are explained above.
Description/Problem Statement
Note that the text uses the net soil bearing to calculate the size of footing. This size is used directly in RISAFoundation and thus the soil overburden and self-weight are set to zero. This footing has been designed assuming that the maximum width is 9 ft. Following the hand calculation from the textbook the footing is found to be 9 wide by 13 8 long by 32 thick. The example assumes the same net soil pressure of 7.31 ksf for both 16-2 and 16-3. However, (11.17 ft)2 = 124.77 ft2 and 13.666 ft * 9 ft = 123 ft2. Thus, the smaller footing in this example produces a slightly higher soil pressure than the text.
Figure 3.1 RISAFoundation Detail Report View The text example uses #8 bars in one direction and #5 bars in the other for the bottom steel. In RISAFoundation this is not possible, so two footings have been created to verify the calculations. Node N1 is using the #8 bars and node N2 is using #5 bars. When viewing the results in RISAFoundation use the footing node numbers given in Table 3.1 below.
Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Vu One-Way (k) - N1 *Vc One-Way (k) - N1 Mu Long (k*ft) - N1 As Min Long (in2) - N1 As Provided Long (in2) - N1 Mu Short (k*ft) - N1 As Min Short (in2) - N2 As Provided Short (in2) - N2 RISAFoundation 250.23 0.75*331.263 = 248.45 1234.69 6.221 10.21 in2 (13- #8 bars) 712.5 9.446 Text Value 247 248 1217 6.22 11.1 in2 (14-#8 bars)* 702 9.45 % Difference 1.31 0.18 1.45 0.02 8.02 1.5 0.4 5.3
10.12 in2 (33 - #5 bars; 25 9.61 in2 (31-#5 bars; 25 are banded)** are banded) Table 3.1 Results Comparison
*In the text approximate methods are used to determine As Reqd. We can see that the *Mn = 1330 k*ft. RISAFoundation is able to remove a bar and still produce a *Mn greater than Mu. **In RISAFoundation the program is adding one extra bar to each side of the unbanded region.
Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the textbook design examples, except in the instances explained above.
Description/Problem Statement
Footing Size Column Size Pile Diameter fc Load per Pile: PD PL = = = = = = 8.5 x 8.5 16 x 16 12 in. 4000 psi 20 kips 10 kips
Figure 4.1 RISAFoundation Detail Report View Note that RISAFoundation will not place top steel reinforcement in a pile cap unless there is tension in the top face of the pile cap. For this reason a 1 kip*ft moment was added to the OL1 load category. This is to force top steel, as this affects the pile punching shear checks. If there is no reinforcement in the top then the program considers the cap unreinforced for punching shear calculations.
Comparison
Value One-way Beam Shear Capacity, Vn (kips) Pedestal Punching Shear Capacity, Vn (kips) Corner Pile Punching Shear Capacity, Vn (kips) Comparison of Results (Units in kips) RISAFoundation Text Value 180.629*0.75 = 135.47* 320/1.004 = 318.73** 135.4 319 % Difference 0.05 0.08 NA***
*The program gives Vn explicitly, so the Phi was multiplied in here to get Phi*Vn. **The Phi*Vn is not given explicitly. The program gives the demand and the code check, so the calculation above shows what Phi*Vn is in RISAFoundation. ***A couple of things are occurring here. For one, we are transforming the round punching shear perimeter into an equivalent square perimeter. Thus, this would create a difference. Second, and more importantly, the punching shear capacity is based on the smallest possible shear perimeter, bo. The PCA notes example assumes that the punching shear perimeter would occur all the way around the pile, as shown in Figure 4.2 below.
Figure 4.2 In reality, however, the crack will perpetuate through a distance d from the edge of the pile. D/2 occurs at midway along the crack and is used for calculation purposes. However, the crack would look like this in an elevation view, as shown in Figure 4.3.
10
Figure 4.3 Because of this the punching shear perimeter can not be taken as shown in the PCA notes. Instead you really only have a partial perimeter because you will break out the corner before you get all the way around. In RISA, including the square perimeter adjustment, it would look as shown in Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.4
11
Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the textbook design examples.
12
Description/Problem Statement
A 12 by 24 column of an unsymmetrical shed is subjected to an axial load PD = 220 kips and a moment MD = 180 k-ft due to dead load, and an axial load PL = 165 kips and a moment ML = 140 k-ft due to live load. The base of the footing is 5 ft. below final grade and the allowable soil bearing pressure is 5 ksf. The footing has strength of 4 ksi and a steel yield of 40 ksi. Note that the text does not account for the self-weight of the footing. Therefore, the RISA model has the density of the concrete material set to zero.
13
Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Method 1 Soil Pressure, qn (ksf) Method 1 Mu-xx (k*ft) Method 1 Mu-zz (k*ft) Method 2 Soil Pressure Max, qn (ksf) Method 2 Soil Pressure Min, qn (ksf) Method 2 Mu-xx (k*ft) RISAFoundation 4.283 687.2 523.11 4.43 1.973 Text Value (87.1/90)*4.42 = 4.277* 687.4 523.2 4.42** 1.98 % Difference 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.23 0.35 0.07
*The text book calculates a required area of 87.1 in^2. They then choose an area of 90 in^2. Thus, their value has been adjusted. **The text book example has an error. They state that 3.20 + 1.22 = 4.22 ksf when calculating qmax for method 2. This should be 4.42 ksf.
Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the textbook design examples.
14
Description/Problem Statement
The cross section of a cantilever retaining wall is shown below. For this case, fy = 413.7 MN/m2 and fc = 20.68 MN/m2. Notes: RISAFoundation uses Rankines method to calculate lateral soil pressure coefficients. This example uses Coulombs method. Because of this the KLat Toe was set to 2.04. The coefficient of friction in this example is calculated as: Tan (2/3*) = 0.237. This is the value entered in the program. The ultimate bearing pressure is in this example is calculated as 574.07, so this is entered as the allowable bearing in the program.
15
Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Mresist Against Overturning (kN-m/m) Moverturning (kN-m/m) Vresist Against Sliding (kN/m) Vsliding (kN/m) Max Bearing Pressure (kPa) Bearing UC RISAFoundation 1030.034 379.047 147.278 158.853 199.349 Text Value 1044.3 (1128.98)* 379.25 433.17 171.39 106.67 = 155.1** 158.95 % Difference 1.37 0.05 5.04 0.06 5.36 5.47
*The text book accounts for the sloping outer face of the wall, which RISAFoundation does not. Also, the vertical portion of the soil force in the text is assumed to act at the edge of the heel. In RISAFoundation we assume this force to act at the inside face of the wall. These differences would equal 1128.98 11.79 2.6*28.03 = 1044.312 kN-m/m. **The text book assumes cohesion. RISAFoundation assumes cohesion-less soil. They give a Vresist = 111.5 + 106.7 + 215 = 433.17 kN/m. The 106.7 is a cohesion term that RISA doesnt account for. The 215 comes passive pressure including cohesion. The cohesion term = 171.39 kN/m which RISA doesnt account for. Accounting for these cohesion differences between RISAFoundation and the text gives a value = 433.17 171.39 - 106.67 = 155.1 kN/m. ***The text uses the Mresist to calculate the bearing pressure. Because this is different, the pressure calculation is different.
Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the textbook design examples after accounting for differences in calculation procedures.
16
Description/Problem Statement
Design Data: unit weight of earth we = 100 lb/ft3, allowable soil pressure = 4,000 psf, equivalent fluid weight Kawe = 30 100 lb/ft3, and surcharge load ws = 400 psf. The desired factor of safety against overturning is 2.0 and against sliding is 1.5.
17
Verification Problem 7: Cantilever Retaining Wall #2 Note: The shear key has been omitted from the RISAFoundation model, as this will affect the calculations for sliding and overturning. The text example did not assume a key when performing those calculations.
Comparison
Value M Resist (k*ft) M Overturn (k*ft) V Resist (kips) V Slide (kips) Max Soil Pressure (ksf) Mu of Heel (k*ft) Vu Heel (k*ft) Vn of Heel (kips) As Top (in2) Mu of Toe (k*ft) Vu of Toe (kips) Vn of Toe (kips) As Bot (in2) Mu Stem Base (k*ft) Vu Stem Base (kips) Vn of Stem (kips) As Stem (in2) RISAFoundation 131.169 48.6 10.008 7.02 3.101 46.69 11.22 18.301* (0.85/0.75) = 20.74** #7 Bars @ 8" oc 18.473 6.47 17.315* (0.85/0.75) = 19.62** #7 Bars @ 16" oc 63.4 10.023 (LC2) 15.281*(0.85/0.75) = 17.318 Text Value 131.7 48.6 9.855 7.02 3.043 67.65 20.82 20.76 #7 Bars @ 8" oc 20.476 13.07 19.64 #7 Bars @ 16" oc 63.431 10.049 17.391 % Difference 0 0 1.55 0 1.9 NA* NA* 0.1 0 NA*** NA**** 0.1 0 0.05 0.26 0.42 0
*In the text example the "relieving" moment due to the upward soil pressure on the heel is not accounted for. This is accounted for in RISA. **This value is being adjusted for the change in shear from 0.85 to 0.75. ***In the text example the "relieving" moment due to the downward soil pressure on the toe is not accounted for. This is accounted for in RISA. ****In the text example the shear location is taken as the face of wall. In RISA we are coming out a distance "d" from the wall and check the shear at that location.
Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the textbook design example.
18
Description/Problem Statement
A concrete footing 4 ft. below the finished ground line supports an 18-in. square tied interior concrete column. The total footing thickness is 24 in. One dimension of the footing is limited to a maximum of 7 ft. Service DL Service LL fc (footing and column) Steel Yield fy Longitudinal column steel Soil Density Allowable Soil Pressure Effective Allowable Soil Pressure = 175 kips = 175 kips = 3000 psi = 60 ksi = No. 8 bars = 100 lb/ft3 = 5 ksf = 4.50 ksf
Figure 8.1 RISAFoundation Detail Report View Note that the self-weight and overburden were input as zero and the allowable soil pressure was added directly as 4.50 ksf.
19
Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Factored Soil Pressure, qu (ksf) Shear Demand, Vu two-way (k) Shear Capacity, Vn two-way (k) Shear Demand, Vu one-way (k) Shear Strength, Vn one-way (k) Bending Moment, Mu long direction (k*ft) Bending Moment, Mu short direction (k*ft) As required long direction (in2) As required short direction (in2) As required T & S (in2) Footing Bearing Strength (in2) RISAFoundation 6.739* 474.921 *666.031 = 566.13 (=0.85)** 157.246 *184.035 = 156.43 (=0.85)** 589.67 293.05 6.884 3.303 5.962 *1652.4 = 1156.68 (=0.70)**** Text Value 6.74 475 566 157.1 156.4 590 293 6.9 4.4/(4/3) = 3.3*** 5.96 1157 542.5 % Difference 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.17 0.06 0.02 0.23 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.00
*To actually see this value, check the "Service" checkbox for LC 2 and solve the model. Then look at the detail report in the Soil Bearing section. When viewing the rest of the results, uncheck this checkbox and re-solve. **In RISAFoundation the Vc value is reported without the value. If the Vc value is multiplied by the text then there is good agreement. ***In the text they are multiplying by 4/3*As required as their value. RISAFoundation will do this as well when actually reinforcing the footing, however, we also report the As required itself. ****In RISAFoundation the Bc value is reported without the value. If the Bc value is multiplied by the text then there is good agreement.
Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the textbook design example.
20
Description/Problem Statement
Service Dead Load Service Live Load Service Surcharge Weight of Soil and Concrete above Footing Base Net Allowable Soil Pressure = 350 kips = 275 kips = 100 psf = 130 lb/ft3 = 3.75 ksf
Figure 9.1 RISAFoundation Detail Report View Notes: Because the example does not use the self-weight of the footing in the calculation and instead just gives an average weight between the soil and concrete, the density of
21
Verification Problem 9: Square Footing #2 concrete has been set to 0. The Overburden has also been set to zero. Thus, the allowable soil pressure is simply added directly as 3.75 ksf. The dfoot value for footings in RISAFoundation = footing thickness bottom cover 1*db. The examples use a d = 28, thus the bottom cover is set to 4.
Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Ex 22.1: qs (ksf) Ex 22.2 Shear Demand, Vu one way (k) Ex 22.2 Shear Capacity, Vn one way (k) Ex 22.2 Shear Demand, Vu two way (k) Shear Capacity, Vn two way (k) Ex 22.2 Bending Moment, Mu (k*ft) Ex 22.3 As required (in2) RISAFoundation 5.089* 242.564 *478.5 = 358.868 ( = 0.75)** 778.014 *1082 = 811.593 ( = 0.75)** 1190.77 9.704 Table 9.1 Results Comparison Text Value 5.1 243 359 780 812 1193 9.6 % Difference 0.22 0.18 0.04 0.25 0.05 0.12 1.08
*To actually see this value, check the "Service" checkbox for LC 2 and solve the model. Then look at the detail report in the Soil Bearing section. When viewing the rest of the results, uncheck this checkbox and re-solve. **RISAFoundation presents the Vc value without . When you multiply Vc by you get agreement.
Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the PCA Notes design examples.
22
Description/Problem Statement
This problem comes from a hand calculation verification. It is testing all results for retaining wall stability, soil pressure calculations and reinforcement design.
Figure 10.1 RISAFoundation Detail Report View Note: The retaining wall is cantilevered and the base is not restrained against sliding.
23
Comparison
This section is the tabular comparison of the RISAFoundation answers and the summary from the detailed validation results. Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Lateral Earth Pressures KLat Heel KLat Heel Sat KLat Toe Stability Checks Overturning SF Min/SF Sliding SF Min/SF Wall Design UC Max Int Shear UC Max Dowel Shear UC Max Footing Soil Pressures qmax (ft)* Lsoil Length (ft)* Footing Design Shear UC Heel Moment UC Heel Shear UC Toe Moment UC Toe 0.746 0.967 0.597 0.63 0.746 0.967 0.597 0.630 0 0 0 0 5.6 9.09 5.603 9.090 0.054 0 1.664 0.624 0.455 1.678 0.627 0.455 0.834 0.478 0 0.659 1.176 0.659 1.176 0 0 0.307 0.333 3.255 0.307 0.333 3.255 RISAFoundation Hand Calculation % Difference NA 0 0 0
Table 10.1 Results Comparison *Note that the values shown here can be seen graphically by looking at the detail report for load combination 2. **See Appendix A10 for an in depth hand calculation.
Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the hand calculated design example.
24
Description/Problem Statement
In this example RISAFoundations values are compared to the values obtained from a hand calculation done for all aspects of the pile cap. This hand calculation is located in Appendix A11.
25
Comparison
This section is the tabular comparison of the RISAFoundation answers and the summary from the detailed validation results. Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually) Value Flexural Checks Muxx (k-ft) Muzz (k-ft) Asminx (in^2) Asminz (in^2) Asflexx bot (in^2) Asflexz bot (in^2) UC Mx UC Mz Punching Shear Checks Pedestal Punching UC Pile 4 Punching Capacity (kips) Pile 4 Punching UC One Way Shear Checks Shear Capacity Vcx (kips) Shear Capacity Vcz (kips) Pedestal Shear Capacities Vc (kips) Vs (kips) 48.952 50.658 48.952 50.658 0 0 1186.972 585.931 1187 591.221 0 0.89 0.719 220.284 0.399 0.719 220.284 0.399 0 0 0 1432.03 937.13 13.835 10.13 20.588 15.075 0.755 0.445 1438 932.8 13.835 10.13 20.588 15.075 0.753 0.488 0.42 0.46 0 0 0 0 0.27 8.81 RISAFoundation Hand Calculation % Difference
Table 11.1 Results Comparison *Note that the values shown here can be seen graphically by looking at the detail report for the pile cap. **See Appendix A11 for an in depth hand calculation.
Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the hand calculated design example.
26
_________________________________________________________________________
In this example we have a non-sloping back- illed retaining wall with a load surcharge and a water table present. Here we will calculate all soil pressures, design all aspects of the retaining wall and check for overturning and sliding.
Input Parameters
The retaining wall is cantilevered and the base is not restrained against sliding. The wall and footing are not poured monolithically. Footing dowels occur at both faces of the wall and are of the same size and spacing as the wall reinforcement.
In this example we will use a load combination of 1.0*DL+ 1.0*LL + 1.0*HL for the service LC and a load combination of 1.2*DL + 1.6*LL + 1.6*HL for the strength LC.
DLFactor 1.2
LLFactor 1.6
HLFactor 1.6
Geometry
Hwall 16 ft Hwater 6 ft twall 18 in Lwall 10 ft
Total length of wall Overall length of the footing Hwall = Hsoil
The key offset from the interior face of wall and the interior face of key.
A10.1
Soil 0.5
Coef of friction w/soil
Htoesoil 2 ft
Soilallow 5 ksf w 62.4 pcf m 115 pcf m 32 deg s 125 pcf s 30 deg
q 500 psf
SF 1.5
This is the safety factor required for both sliding and overturning.
Note: The moist soil properties are also used for the toe soil.
A10.2
Wall Reinforcing Properties dbinside 0.75 in dbhoriz 0.5 in dboutside 0.5 in Numfaces 2 dbinside 2 Asinside = 0.442 in 2 4 dboutside 2 Asoutside = 0.196 in 2 4 2 dbhoriz 2 Ashoriz = 0.393 in 2 4
Two faces of reinforcement
s 8 in swallhoriz 10 in
#6 bars interior.
#4 bars exterior
coverinside 2 in
coveroutside 1 in
A10.3
Footing Reinforcing Properties dbtop 0.75 in dbbot 0.75 in dblong 0.5 in dbtop 2 Astop = 0.442 in 2 4 stop 8 in sbot 8 in slong 16 in
covertop 2 in
coverbot 3 in
A10.4
Calculations
This section breaks down all of the calculations that occur within RISAFoundation for retaining wall design.
P1 Kam q = 153.629 psf P2 Kam q + Hwall Hwater m = 506.977 psf P3 Kas q + Hwall Hwater m = 550 psf
3 P4 P3 + Kas Hwater s w + Hwater w = 1.05 10 psf
A10.5
A10.6
H1 Hwall + tfoot 0.5 = 8.75 ft 1 H2 + Hwater + tfoot = 10.833 ft Hwall Hwater 3 H3 Hwater + tfoot 0.5 = 3.75 ft 1 H4 = 2.5 ft Hwater + tfoot 3 1 H5 Htoesoil + tfoot = 1.167 ft 3
A10.7
Lateral Force Summations for Overturning, Sliding and Wall Design kip LF1 P1 Hwall + tfoot = 2.689 ft
kip LF1slide LF1 + P1 Dkey = 2.919 ft kip LF1wall P1 Hwall = 2.458 ft 1 kip LF2 P2 P1 Hwall Hwater = 1.767 2 ft
This is the same value for all 3 calculations.
kip LF3 P3 P1 Hwater + tfoot = 2.973 This value changes for all 3 calculations. ft kip LF3Slide LF3 + P3 P1 Dkey = 3.567 ft kip LF3wall P3 P1 Hwater = 2.378 ft 1 kip LF4 P5 P3 Hwater + tfoot = 2.342 This value changes for all 3 ft 2 calculations. 1 kip LF4slide P6 P3 Hwater + tfoot + Dkey = 3.372 ft 2 1 kip LF4wall Hwater = 1.499 P4 P3 ft 2 1 kip LF5 P8 Htoesoil + tfoot = 2.292 2 ft
This value changes for all 3 calculations.
1 kip LF5slide P9 Htoesoil + tfoot + Dkey = 4.678 2 ft 1 kip P7 Htoesoil = 0.749 LF5wall 2 ft
A10.8
Vertical Force Calculations (Service and Strength) kip w1 Hwall twall conc = 3.6 ft kip w2 tfoot twall + Ltoe + Lheel conc = 2.363 ft kip w3 Wkey Dkey conc = 0.338 ft kip w4 Ltoe Htoesoil m = 0.805 ft kip qtotal q Lheel = 2.75 ft kip w5 Lheel Hwall Hwater m = 6.325 ft kip w6 Lheel Hwater s = 4.125 ft
kip w1f DLFactor w1 = 4.32 ft kip w2f DLFactor w2 = 2.835 ft kip w3f DLFactor w3 = 0.405 ft kip w4f DLFactor w4 = 0.966 ft kip qtotalf LLFactor qtotal = 4.4 ft kip w5f DLFactor w5 = 7.59 ft kip w6f DLFactor w6 = 4.95 ft
A10.9
Vertical Force Centroids twall D1 Ltoe + = 4.25 ft 2 Lfoot = 5.25 ft D2 2 Wkey D3 Lkey + = 5.25 ft 2 Ltoe D4 = 1.75 ft 2 Lheel = 7.75 ft D5 Ltoe + twall + 2 D6 D5 = 7.75 ft
Stability Checks
Overturning This check is taken from the base of the toe of the footing.
ft MR1 w1 D1 + w2 D2 + w3 D3 + w4 D4 = 30.884 kip ft ft MR2 w5 D5 + w6 + qtotal D6 + LF5 H5 = 104.975 kip ft ft MR MR1 + MR2 = 135.858 kip ft ft MOT H1 LF1 + H2 LF2 + H3 LF3 + H4 LF4 = 59.667 kip ft MR OSF = 2.277 MOT SF = 0.659 UCOT OSF
This retaining wall passes the overturning check because it has greater than a 1.5 safety factor.
A10.10
kip FSlide LF1slide + LF2 + LF3Slide + LF4slide = 11.625 ft kip R w1 + w2 + w3 + w4 + w5 + w6 + qtotal = 20.305 ft kip FFriction R = 10.153 ft 1 kip LF8 P9 Htoesoil + tfoot + Dkey = 4.678 2 ft kip The forces resisting sliding are due to both FResist FFriction + LF5slide = 14.831 friction and passive pressure on the toe ft
side of the footing. Total vertical force
A10.11
Hwall = 16 ft
#6 bars interior. #4 bars exterior #4 bars horizontal each face
Hwall H1wall = 8 ft 2 Hwall Hwater H2wall Hwater + = 9.333 ft 3 Hwater H3wall = 3 ft 2 Hwater H4wall = 2 ft 3 Htoesoil H5wall = 0.667 ft 3
A10.12
Pu 0 kip Mwalls LF1wall H1wall + LF2 H2wall + LF3wall H3wall + LF4wall H4wall LF5wall H5wall ft Mwalls = 45.787 kip ft HLFactor = 1.6 ft Mwallf HLFactor Mwalls = 73.26 kip ft dbinside dcant twall coverinside dbhoriz = 15.125 in 2 dboutside dprime coveroutside + dbhoriz + = 1.75 in 2 Asinside fy Asoutside fy awall aprime = 0.975 in = 0.433 in 0.85 fc s 0.85 fc s awall Asinside fy dcant 2 12 Mnwall s 12 ft Mnwall = 48.501 kip ft
This is the moment capacity in the wall not considering compression reinforcement
A10.13
wall 0.9 ft PhiMnwall wall Mnwall = 43.651 kip ft Mwallf BendingInteraction = 1.678 PhiMnwall
Note: The program takes into account compression reinforcement as well, so the program reported value is a little larger (44.029).
Hwall BarsHoriz1 Numfaces = 38.4 swallhoriz BarsHoriz round BarsHoriz1 = 38 Ashoriz Asprovh BarsHoriz = 7.461 in 2 2 Asprovh rhoprovh = 1.799 10 4 12 Hwall twall rhominh .002 Asminh rhominh Hwall twall = 6.912 in 2
Inside Face Vertical Reinforcement The total number of horizontal bars in the wall. As provided (H)
Lwall BarsVertInt1 = 15 s BarsVertInt round BarsVertInt1 = 15 Asprovint BarsVertInt Asinside = 6.627 in 2 Asprovint rhoprovint = 2.557 10 4 Lwall twall 12
The total number of interior vertical bars in the wall. Int As Provided (V)
A10.14
Lwall 12 BarsVertExt1 = 180 s BarsVertExt round BarsVertExt1 = 180 Asprovext BarsVertExt Asoutside = 35.343 in 2 Asprovext rhoprovext = 0.001 Lwall twall 12
Total Vertical Reinforcement The total number of exterior vertical bars in the wall. Ext As Provided (V)
Shear Design
Concrete check:
Hwater dcant Hwall dcant kip Vwallds1 LF1wall + LF3wall + LF2 = 5.91 ft Hwall Hwater
2 2 P4 P3 kip Hwater dcant P7 Htoesoil dcant = 0.833 Vwallds2 ft 2 Hwater Htoesoil 2
For the concrete check we are using the shear force at a distance d from the base.
kip Vwallds Vwallds1 + Vwallds2 = 6.743 ft kip Vwalldf HLFactor Vwallds = 10.788 ft
A10.15
Steel Check (shear friction) In this example the wall is not poured monolithically with the footing. All code references are per the ACI 318-11.
kip Vwallbases LF1wall + LF2 + LF3wall + LF4wall LF5wall = 7.353 ft kip Vwallbasef HLFactor Vwallbases = 11.765 ft in Here we are using the As of the wall Asinside + Asoutside 12 ft in 2 Avf = 0.957 reinforcing, as the dowels from the s ft foundation match the wall r/f.
Equation 11-25
A10.16
kip Vn1 0.2 fc Ac = 172.8 ft kip Vn2 480 psi + 0.08 fc Ac = 172.8 ft kip Vn3 1600 psi Ac = 345.6 ft kip Vn4 0.2 fc Ac = 172.8 ft kip Vn5 800 psi Ac = 172.8 ft
A10.17
| Lfoot qmaxS if e1S < | = 5.603 ksf 6 | R 6 RS e1S | S | + 2 Lfoot | L foot | else | | 4 RS | 3 Lfoot 2 e1S |
| Lfoot qminS if e1S < | = 0 ksf 6 | R 6 RS e1S | S | 2 Lfoot | L foot | else | 0 ksf |
A10.18
Design of the Heel (Shear) covertop = 2 in dbtop = 0.75 in dblong = 0.5 in stop = 8 in slong = 16 in Astop = 0.442 in 2 Aslong = 0.393 in 2
Because the footing will tend to shear off as shown here, the shear check should occur at the face of wall.
A10.19
kip Vuheel1 w5f + w6f + qtotalf + DLFactor conc tfoot Lheel = 18.425 ft LsoilheelS LbasesoilS Ltoe twall = 4.09 ft LbasesoilS Ltoe twall qmaxheelS qmaxS = 2.521 ksf LbasesoilS 1 kip LsoilheelS qmaxheelS = 5.155 Vuheel2 2 ft kip Vuheel Vuheel1 Vuheel2 = 13.27 ft
Vuheel1 is the total downward shear force on the heel. Vuheel2 is the total upward shear force on the heel. Because the net force is downward, the location of the shearing is con irmed.
A10.20
kip PhiVcheel v Vcheel = 17.788 ft Vuheel ShearheelInteraction = 0.746 PhiVcheel Design of the Heel (Moment)
fc 4 ksi
aheel 12 in kip ft The reinforcement Mnheel Astop1 fy dheel = 50.157 spacing is at 8" oc, so the stop ft 2 wall = 0.9 kip ft PhiMnheel wall Mnheel = 45.142 ft
A10.21
Design of the Toe (Shear) coverbot = 3 in dbbot = 0.75 in dblong = 0.5 in sbot = 8 in slong = 16 in Asbot = 0.442 in 2
Because the footing will tend to shear off as shown above, the shear check should occur at a distance d from the face of wall.
A10.22
LbasesoilS Ltoe + dtoe qmaxS qtoedS = 4.197 ksf LbasesoilS 1 kip VutoeOT Ltoe dtoe qtoedS + qmaxS qtoedS = 11.179 2 ft Ltoe dtoe kip VutoeR = 1.246 w4f + DLFactor conc tfoot Ltoe ft Ltoe lbf 2 fc 4000 in 4 kip Vutoe VutoeOT VutoeR = 9.933 ft kip PhiVctoe v Vctoe = 16.649 ft Vutoe SheartoeInteraction = 0.597 PhiVctoe kip Vctoe 2 fc dtoe = 22.199 ft
A10.23
Design of the Toe (Moment) LbasesoilS Ltoe qmaxS qtoefaceS = 3.446 ksf LbasesoilS
Ltoe 1 2 MutoeOS Ltoe qtoefaceS Ltoe Ltoe + qmaxS qtoefaceS 2 2 3 kip ft MutoeOS = 29.916 ft Ltoe kip VutoeRbend VutoeR = 1.911 ft Ltoe dtoe Ltoe kip ft MutoeR VutoeRbend = 3.344 ft 2 kip ft Mutoe MutoeOS MutoeR = 26.571 ft 12 in Asbot fy sbot atoe = 0.975 in 0.85 12 in fc fc 4 ksi Asbot in 2 = 0.442 Asbot1 1 ft ft
atoe 12 in kip ft Mntoe Asbot1 fy dtoe = 46.844 sbot ft 2 kip ft PhiMntoe wall Mntoe = 42.16 ft Mutoe = 0.63 BendtoeInteraction PhiMntoe
wall = 0.9
A10.24
Distance from c/l of pedestal to c/l of piles in the x direction. Distance from c/l of pedestal to c/l of 1st piles in the z direction. Distance from c/l of pedestal to c/l of 2nd piles in the z direction. Distance from piles centroid to face of pedestal in x direction. Distance from 1st piles centroid to face of pedestal in z direction.
A11.1
d tcap embed c dbar = 33.75 in dtop tcap embed = 36 in Applied Loads Pd 250 kip Pl 350 kip Vx 20 kip Vz 40 kip
tcap Mx Vz Hped + = 150 kip ft 2 wped Hped Lped Wped conc = 0.88 kip Ptot Pd + Pl + wped + wcap = 666.442 kip Pile Forces (Service)
tcap Mz Vx Hped + = 75 kip ft 2 wcap Lcap Wcap tcap conc = 65.562 kip
We will assume the individual pile forces are correct and use the RISAFoundation output.
Ppile1 54.1593 kip Ppile2 56.6083 kip Ppile3 59.0573 kip Ppile4 61.5062 kip Ppile5 51.8634 kip Ppile6 54.3124 kip Ppile7 56.7613 kip
Pu1 76.1068 kip Pu2 80.0252 kip Pu3 83.9435 kip Pu4 87.8619 kip Pu5 72.4333 kip Pu6 76.3517 kip Pu7 80.2701 kip
Ppile8 59.2103 kip Ppile9 49.5675 kip Ppile10 52.0164 kip Ppile11 54.4654 kip Ppile12 56.9144 kip
Pu8 84.1884 kip Pu9 68.7599 kip Pu10 72.6782 kip Pu11 76.5966 kip Pu12 80.515 kip
A11.2
Wcap Wped wucapresistx 1.2 Lcap tcap conc = 32.292 kip 2 Lcap Lped wucapresistz 1.2 Wcap tcap conc = 34.178 kip 2 Lcap Lped Mux Pu3 + Pu7 + Pu11 w1z + Pu4 + Pu8 + Pu12 w2z wucapresistx 4
3 Mux = 1.438 10 kip ft
Wcap Wped Muz Pu1 + Pu2 + Pu3 + Pu4 wx wucapresistz = 932.815 kip ft 4
Here are the calculations for minimum steel for both temperature and shrinkage and lexure.
Asminx .0018 Lcap tcap = 13.835 in 2 lbf 200 Lcap d in 2 Asflexxbot = 20.588 in 2 fy Asreqdxbot 6.226 in 2
Asminz .0018 Wcap tcap = 10.13 in 2 lbf 200 Wcap d in 2 Asflexzbot = 15.075 in 2 fy
Asprovxbot 12.812 in
Asprovxbot fy ax = 1.235 in 0.85 Lcap fc ax 3 PhiMnx 0.9 Asprovxbot fy d = 1.91 10 kip ft 2 Mux UCMx = 0.753 PhiMnx Asreqdzbot 9.609 in 2
Values given in the program
Asprovzbot 14.137 in
A11.3
Asprovzbot fy az = 1.862 in 0.85 Wcap fc az 3 PhiMnz 0.9 Asprovzbot fy d = 2.088 10 kip ft 2 Muz UCMz = 0.488 PhiMnx
In the x direction the Asreqd (and even 4/3 Asreqd) is less than the minimum temperature and shrinkage steel, the program uses that minimum. In the z direction the 4/3*Asreq'd is greater than the As S&T, thus we use 9.609*4/3 = 12.812 in ^2.
L2 Lped + db = 57.75 in Pupileped Pu1 + Pu2 + Pu3 + Pu4 + Pu5 + Pu8 + Pu9 + Pu10 + Pu11 + Pu12 = 783.109 kip
This value represents the sum of the factored axial forces in piles outside of the pedestal punching shear perimeter.
Pupunch Pupileped wucapped = 715.134 kip Muxped 1.6 Mx = 240 kip ft Muzped 1.6 Mz = 120 kip ft
Force in the pedestal.
bo 2 L1 + L2 = 231 in L1 c1 = 28.875 in 2
Punching shear perimeter. This is the distance from centroid to extreme iber.
A11.4
3 2 A c bo d b = 7.796 10 in
Jc is the polar moment of inertia and this equation can be found in the commentary to section 11.11.7.2 of the ACI 318-11.
dpile = 14 in
A11.5
0.55
bo1 2 Lpile = 86 in
If we were to calculate it exactly.
8 fc bo1 dtop = 215.389 kip PhiVcpunch 3 0.75 4 fc bo1 dtop PhiVcpunch2 = 220.284 kip 2 Pu4 = 87.862 kip Pu4 = 0.399 Puratio PhiVcpunch2
Because in the x direction w > d, the critical location is at a distance d from the pedestal. This means that we need to calculate the weight of the pile cap resisting the shear at this location.
Wcap Wped wucapresistxshear d Lcap tcap conc = 10.397 kip 2 Vux Pu1 + Pu2 + Pu3 + Pu4 wucapresistxshear = 317.54 kip
Because in the z direction w < d, the critical location is at the face of the pedestal. Because of this we can use the wucapresistz that we used for the moment calculation.
Vuz Pu3 + Pu4 + Pu7 + Pu8 + Pu11 + Pu12 wucapresistz = 459.197 kip
3 Mux = 1.438 10 kip ft
dz > wz, therefore the critical location for shear at the face of the pedestal.
A11.6
lbf cz1 1.9 fc + 2500 provx MVratio = 95.725 psi in 2 Vc_z1 cz1 Lcap d = 591.221 kip
A11.7
Pedestal Design
Inputs dpedlongbar 1 in dpedshearbar 0.5 in coverped 1.5 in Wped = 24 in
dpedlongbar = 21.5 in dped Wped coverped dpedshearbar 2 Concrete Shear Capacity Vcped 2 fc Wped dped = 48.952 kip
= 0.75
spedshear 10 in
Vsmax 8
Vs min Vs1 , Vsmax = 50.658 kip Combined Bending and Axial Forces Puped 1.2 Pd + 1.6 Pl + 1.2 Hped Wped Lped conc = 861.056 kip
For this pedestal the interaction diagram actually produces a worst case code check at the top of the pedestal. Thus, the axial force in the pedestal is not including the pedestal self-weight and the moment at the top is zero in both directions.
A11.8