Anda di halaman 1dari 6

.

ooting
Interaction
Spreadsheets help reduce design time for footings with complex loading
BY SAM ESKILDSEN

Diagrams
pread footings are typically designed to resist three different types of loads: gravity forces, moments, and uplift forces. Some footing designs are more complex, involving net bearing forces, uplift forces, moments, surcharge loads, and passive resistance from cantilevering slabs-on-ground. This article presents a procedure that allows designers to account for all of these design loads in their analysis and view the results in an interaction diagram. As with concrete and concrete masonry unit (CMU) columns, an interaction diagram representing the envelope of allowable combinations of axial load and moment that can be resisted by a rectangular footing can be created. The procedure presented in this article only considers moment about one axis of the footing. While developing the procedure, I made several simplifying assumptions, and they are: s Plane sections remain plane; s The soil cannot resist tension. However, upward forces generated by applied moments are assumed to be resisted by gravity loads: the footing weight, the soil weight, any permanent surcharge present, and any passive resistances (for example, cantilevering slabs); and

s The relationship between the stress and strain of the soil is linear when the applied loads are less than the ultimate capacity of the soil. Referring to Fig. 1 and 2, consider four distinct stress distribution ranges of the soil. In Range 1, all soil beneath the footing is in compression. Due to the presence of a moment, the soil on the left experiences more stress than the soil on the right. Eventually with increasing moment, the soil stress at the extreme right will be zero. This is the start of Range 2, which assumes the footing self-weight, soil above the footing, permanent surcharges, and passive resistance counteract any upward forces or uplift. In the context of this discussion, surcharge refers to the footing weight, weight of soil above the footing, and gravity loads other than the axial load applied to the footing from the structure. Such an applied surcharge could be a slab-on-ground that lies over the footing. Typically, a calculation is done to determine how far the slab-on-ground over the footing will cantilever beyond the limits of the footing when supporting its own weight. The procedure outline in this article allows inclusion of this type of resistance in the surcharge called passive resistance.

104

MARCH 2003

/ Concrete international

When the upward stress at the extreme right (Fig. 1) equals the surcharge value, Range 3 begins. Soil to the right of the neutral axis is capable of resisting stress equal to the applied surcharge. No stress beyond the surcharge is considered. In Range 3, the surcharge is considered activated, providing resistance to footing uplift (that is, the soil does not supply resistance through tension). Range 4 is similar to Range 3 except the footing is not resisting a net uplift.

where A is the footing area. Note that P is the axial load applied to the footing not including the surcharge, soil weight, and footing weight

M=

bp up 2

CALCULATION O. THE INTERACTION DIAGRAM


Figure 1 presents Ranges 1 and 2 where l bp = footing length; = allowable soil gross bearing pressure less the active portion of the surcharge (footing weight, soil weight, gravity surcharges, load from slab directly above footing); = incremental bearing pressure, less than bp; and = uplift stress (less than the maximum) that can be resisted by the footing weight, soil weight, and surcharges (a value less than sc, which is the value of the total applied surcharge).

where W is the footing width. Points along the interaction diagram for Ranges 1 and 2 are obtained by incrementally changing reduced (in Range 1) and up (in Range 2) from bp to the total applied surcharge sc. For Range 2, as the soil stress at the extreme left shifts from bp to sc, the neutral axis location also moves to the left. One can determine the location of the neutral axis at the point when the soil stress at the extreme right reaches sc

reduced up

bp
bp

+ sc

The axial load and moment supported by a footing stressed in Ranges 1 and 2 can be expressed (replace up with reduced for use in Range 1)

Data points for the interaction curve in Ranges 3 and 4 can be obtained by keeping the soil stress at the left equal to bp and incrementally shifting the location of the neutral axis l to the left. From Fig. 1 (for Range 3) and geometry we can write

P = average A

or

P=

1 ( bp + up )A 2

a=

l sc bp

b = l l a

600 500 400 Axial Load 300 200


Range 3 Range 1

Range 2

0 0 100 Moment 300 200 400

Range 4

500

Fig. 1: An example of a footing interaction diagram, showing the four different soil stress ranges for different axial force and moment load combinations
Concrete international

/ MARCH 2003

105

Stress at Start of Range

Range 1

l 2

l 2

bp

reduced
Stress at End of Range

Range 2
l 2

Stress at Start of Range


l l

l 2

up
Stress at End of Range

bp

Range 3
l
l 2

Stress at Start of Range


l l
l 2

sc bp
Stress at End of Range

Range 4

Stress at Start of Range

See Range 3 Figure.


Compressive Stress at Footing Bottom (upward resistance)

KEY:

Stress at End of Range Compressive Stress at Footing Top (downward resistance)

Fig. 2: The four distinct stress distribution ranges of the soil under a footing

106

MARCH 2003

/ Concrete international

Dividing the total downward resistance into a triangular region at a and a rectangular region at b

Fa =

1 a sc 2

Fb = b sc thus Ft = Fa + Fb

Unfortunately, the previous procedure does not lend itself to the determination of an ultimate overturning moment. Traditionally, the factor of safety against overturning is computed

with a total compression force of:

SF =

Fcomp = 1 bp lW 2
we can add forces to arrive at the resistance to axial load P

Pl 2M

P = Fcomp (Fa + Fb )W
For convenience in obtaining an expression for the moment, we can locate the resultant of the two downward forces by adding moments at the left edge of the footing

Such a computation assumes that at the ultimate condition the soil beneath the footing will continue to deform plastically after reaching its ultimate stress. Applying this same assumption, the ultimate overturning moment at any given axial load can be computed from Fig. 3. Given an axial load, l can be located

P + sc .85Wl l = bp + sc
and the allowable ultimate moment computed

Fa l + 2 a + Fb l b 3 2 = Ft l
Thus the moment that can be resisted by the footing with a neutral axis location dl is

M = .85 bp lW 1 (l .85l ) 2

+ .85 sc (l l )W 1 (l .85(l l )) 2
SUMMARY O. CALCULATIONS
Interaction diagrams for footings may be obtained by entering the preceding equations into a spreadsheet. The equations given here assume the footing weight, soil weight, and surcharge may be used to resist upward forces when evaluating the capacity of a footing. A factor of safety against uplift can be

M = [ Fcomp l l + Ft l l ]W 2 2 3
STABILITY
Two important considerations in footing design are the factors of safety against uplift and overturning. A factor of safety of 1.5 against uplift is easily obtained using the previous procedure and limiting sc to sc /1.5.

Fig. 3: The ultimate overturning moment at any given axial load can be computed assuming the soil beneath the footing will continue to deform plastically after reaching its ultimate stress
Concrete international

/ MARCH 2003

107

Fig. 4: Screen image of a spreadsheet that uses the procedure outlined in the article

provided by reducing the value of sc used in Ranges 2 to 4 by 1.5. Overturning stability can be achieved by computing the ultimate moment as given in the previous stability section and reducing it appropriately, typically by 1.5. If a spreadsheet is used to generate values of the interaction curve for Range 1 through 4, the computed allowable axial load from the interaction diagram can be substituted into the ultimate moment equations. The resulting moment can then be compared to the moment obtained from Ranges 1 through 4 using the equations from the interaction section. The lesser value from these four ranges can then be plotted.

WHY SUCH A COMPLICATED PROCEDURE?


Why not just include the surcharge in the axial load and determine the footing capacity based on the standard triangular pressure distribution? Simply put, it is not efficient to handle passive surcharges with traditional methods. Passive surcharge does subtract from the available bearing pressure. If the designer is

not intent on considering passive resistance, then this method is not an absolute necessity. When a spreadsheet includes the preceding calculations, however, a method of this form has other advantages. Such a method is able to handle challenging and unusual cases. When input into a spreadsheet, the software can draw the interaction diagram and plot the loads as they relate to the interaction curve. Figure 4 is a screen image of a spreadsheet that uses the methods discussed previously. The designer has a better picture of the overall situation and can make rapid changes to the input without performing lengthy hand calculations. Though the method is complex, only one sitting is required to input it into a spreadsheet. The flowchart shown as Fig. 5 summarizes the procedure for input into a computer program or spreadsheet. Results from the spreadsheet are graphical and give the engineer a much better feel for a design with complex loading.
Received and reviewed under Institute publication policies.

108

MARCH 2003

/ Concrete international

Start Compute
reduced

bp

bp bp sc

Compute P and M: 1 P bp reduced A 2 M


bp reduced

Compute P and M: P Fcomp Fa Fb W


M [F
comp

l 2

l 3

l ]W 2

Incrementally reduce

reduced

Incrementally reduce

Yes

Is reduced in compression?
No- Start Range 2

No

Is

=0
Yes

Stop Compute P and M: 1 P bp up A 2 M


bp up

Incrementally reduce

up

Yes

Is
SC

up

less than
No- Start Range 3 and 4

Fig. 5: Flowchart summarizing the procedure for input into a computer program or spreadsheet

Disclaimer: The information about the computer software reported in this article is solely that of the author(s). Publication here does not represent endorsement of the software, nor of author(s) claims about it, by this magazine or by the American Concrete Institute; nor have any of the American Concrete Institute staff tested or used the software mentioned. This article is provided as information only to our readers, and it is urged that users of the software cited exercise proper and sufficient technical and other necessary knowledge when testing and applying the mentioned software. For any additional information about the software, it is recommended that the author of the article be contacted directly.

ACI member Sam Eskildsen is a project engineer with LBYD Inc. in Birmingham, AL. He is a graduate of Auburn University and a member of ACI Committee 355, Anchorage to Concrete.

Concrete international

/ MARCH 2003

109

Anda mungkin juga menyukai