,.

"

FOUNDATION DESIGN ....

HANDBOOK~ .

:;~-~~~
_
~
~ ,.,.,.
_. . . . . ~ _
- _....,. . _.....:l
. .

,.

~
,-,.J.........-,.v-r - .-1'.1/J' .
y
~ - ~ ~1"
/
,..

IlL" .

. _, ... -~

.... . -

-,

-~;

- ~-.."]C,;:, . .

~_.
Ill
..- . .:;

_._.

~- _:_~ .
~\.'-.

Reprinted from HYDROCARBON PROCESSING Gulf Publishing Company 1968 $1.25 ;i.
:V:"'::Ii~

.
"j!l)' .. -- .. <r' . ~, ~~ .... ~
. oi:ll?. ...::.~~. ~-. .i;s.: . ..-~~..-~.,.. ;

;~ ~

- ~.- ..-

- - -.-

.... .n:.~-

--~!1 41; : ~:.\.> - -.. -- ~

This reference manual. has_b.een reprinted from the reg Jar m

issues of HYDROCARBON PROCESSI-NG. Other Handbooks
Manuals in the series are:
.. '
;

...

o;'

LINES FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT

~

ESS Jf)ISTRUM

FOUNDATION DESIGN HANDBOOK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

TOWER FOUNDATIONS . ... . . . .. . .. .. . .... .. .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .

Foundation Design For Stacks And Towers .. . . . .. ... . . .. ... ... . . .... .
Simplified Design For Tower Foundations .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .
Calculation Form For Foundation Design . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. .
Use Graph To Size Tower Footings . . . . .. ... . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .
Simplified Design Method For Intricate Concrete
Column Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.... ... . .... .. ... ...
Unusual Foundation Design For Tall Towers
.. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . .
Foundation Sizing Simplified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dowel Sjzing For Tower Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Short Cuts To Tower Foundation Design
. .. . .... . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. . . . .
VESSEL FOUNDATIONS
. ... ..... ..... . .. ...... .
Foundation Design For 8-Legged Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pressure Vessel Foundation Design
. . ... . ... ... ... . .. .. .. .. . ... . .
COMPUTER FOUNDATION DESIGN . . . . . .. . . ... . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. .
How To Calculate Footing Soil Bearing By Computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Concrete Support Analysis By Computer
.. . ... .. .. . .. .. .... . ..
FOUNDATIONS ON WEAK SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Foundations On Weak Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. ..... ..
Graphs Speed Spread Footing Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .. .. .
Use Graph To Analyze Pile Supports
. . . . .. .. .

5
21

27

35
39
44
50
53
57
60
61
63
70
71
77
84
85
89
93

.... , ..

. ....

TOWER FOUNDATION.S
'

. .

,....

.. .

Foundation Design
For Stacks and Towers
The same principles apply in both stacks and towers. Use this method in
making your calculations for either.

V. 0. Marshall, Tennessee Eastman Company, Kingsport, Tenn.

From the viewpoint of the foundation designer,

stacks and towers may be divided into two general
classifications, depending on the method utilized
to maintain them in a ver tical position; (a) Selfsupporting, whi ch resist the overturn ing forces by
the size, shape and weight of the foundation; (b)
Guye d, in which the overturning forces are resisted by g uy wires. It is obvious that the conditions affecting the design of foundations for
these two types will not be the same, an d that it
is necessary to treat them separately.

3. Soil Loading
(See Section 20 for complete definition of terms.)
The soil loading may be determined by the
following formula:
S=S,+S.

(1)

where
S =total unit soil loading (lbs./sq. ft.)
S. =unit soil loading due to dead load (lbs./sq. ft.)
S. = unit soil loading due to overturning m()tllent
(lbs./sq. ft.)

4. Dead Load
The dead load S, may be determi ned as follows:
STACKS AND TOW ERS are closely related as
far as foundation desi~n is concerned- in fact, the
same principks apply. Tn the case of stacks, the
brick lining is a variable load, corresponding to, and
requiring the same trcatment as the li(juid, insulation,
etc., in a tower. T his discussion will be based on the
design of tower foundations, however, it should be
kept in mind that it is also applicable to stacks.

2. Self-Supporting Tower
There are two main considerations in designing
the foundation for a self-supporting tower; {a) soil
loading (b) stability. The foundation must be of
such size and shape that the load on the soil below
will not exceed the maximum load which it will
safely support. The foundation must also maintain
the tower in a vertical position, so that it will
not be overturned by the maximum forces acting
upon it.
No direct method of calculating the size of th~
foundation has been developed, therefore, it must
be determined by trial and error. A size is assumed, and the soil loading and stability calculated. If the results are not satisfactory, another
assumption is made, and the calculations repeated.

S,= -a(2)
where
a= area of base of foun dation (sq. ft.)
W = total weight on soil (pounds) calculated by
the following equation:
W= Wc+W.
(3)
We= Minimum dead load (pounds ), which is the
weight of t he empty tower plus the weight of
the foundation, including the earth fill on top
of the base.
W. =Weight of auxiliary material and equipment
supported by the tower and foundation
(pounds), which shoul d include the liquid in
the tower, insulation, platforms, piping, etc.
(Does not include weight of tower)
Thl1 Is a revised ar91clo which wa previously published
In the Augvst, 1943 luue of PITROLIUM REfiNER. All
copies of that Issue, all Nprlnh and all copies of the
1940 Process Handbook, In which tho original article wa1
reproduced, failed to meet the demand for this ongln-rlng data.
When the author considered tho Nvltlon he extonclecl
tho tub(ect to Include actual design of foundation types
comononly requiNd In the erection of Nflnery veuels.
Tho roawlt Is a thorough s ..dy of a M(ect which continues
to hold a forefront potltlon In refinery engineering.
Reprint will be provided In quantity suttident to Include
tho demand thcrt has extended Into construction fields
outside of reftnlnt. Price $1.00 per copy.

5. Overturning Load
The overturning load S~ is the result of the overturning moment. Under ordinary conditions, the
only for ce tending to overturn the tower is the
wind pressure.
The magnitude of the wind pressure is obviously a function of the wind velocity, which varies
in different lo<:'alities. In many instances Jaws have
been enacted which state the wind velocity or
wind pressure to be used for design purposes.
The United States Weather Bureau has proposed the following formula:
B
p = 0.00430V'
(4)
where
p = wind pressure on a flat surface (pounds/sq. ft.)
B = barometric pressure (inches H.)
V = velocity of wind (miles per hour)

For a baromet ric pressure of 30 inches, the

formula becomes :
p =0.004V'

(5)

It has been found that the wind pressure on a

cylindrical tower is about 60 percent of tha t on a
flat surface. For a cylindrical tower, therefore,
formula (5) becomes:

P
0.0025V'
(6)
where
P< = wind pressure on the projected area o a cylindrical to wer (pounds per square foot) .

Wind Preaeure Pw

:r:

..
-..
c

CJ

a::
Foundation
Top

Gra~e
~~'V

Foundation
Base

Db

Mr= P. L

(7)

where
Me= overturning moment about the base of the
foundation (foot pounds)
P .. =total wind load (pounds) to be calculated as
follows:

P .. = p. D.H

(8)

L =lever arm of wind load (feet) to be calculated

as follows:
H
L= hr+ 2
(9)

f"A

--

FIGURE l
Foundotion for self-supporting tower.

In most localities, a wind velocity of 100 miles

per hour is considered the maximum. This gives
a pressure of 25 pounds per square foot on the
projected area of the tower, which is the figure
generally used for design purposes. It should be
emphasized, however, that this figure is subject to
variation in different localities, and that local laws
should not be overlooked in this con nection.
(Note: As a matter of interest, the wind pressure on an octagon shaped stack is considered t o
be 70 percen t of that on a flat surf ace.)
Figure 1 represents a tower, mounted on a concrete foundation. The wind pressure (P.,..) tends to
rotate the tower and foundation about point A at
the intersection of the vertical centerline and the
base of the foundation. This rotating effect produces an overturnin g moment which can be calculated as follows:

Do= diameter of tower measured over insulation

(feet)

H = heiJ;rht of tower ( feet)

h, =height of foundation (feet)

It should be noted that all dimensions are stated

in feet, giving the overturning moment (Mt) in

foot pounds. This avoids the use of the excessively

large numbers encountered with the usual inch
pound units. Care should be taken, however, to

use consistent units, that is foot pounds, in all

calculations.
The stress, or load, on the soil resulting from
the overturning moment (M 1 ) varies from point to
point, and the maximum load (S,) can be calculated as follows :
Mr

s.=z-

(10)
where
Z =section modulus of the base of the found"ation.
(Not e~ Z to be based on dime nsions in feet .)

The value of (Z) can be expressed as follows:

I
Z= c
(ll)
where
I = moment of inertia of the base of the foundati?n (based on dimensions in feet).
c = dtstance from neutral axis of foundation base
to point o f maximum stress (feet).

Having calculated (5 1 ) and (5 2 ) as explained

above, the total soil load under maximum dead
load conditions can be determined by equation (I).
This maximum soil load occurs at the edge of
the foundation, desi~nated as F, and is frequently
referred to as the 'toe pressure." It is obvious
that the maximum toe pressure (S) should never
exceed the safe bearing load of the soil in question.

6. Stability
It should be noted that (52 ) is positive at point
F, and negative at E ( Figure 1). In other words,
the wind load causes compressive stresses on the
soil to the left of point A, the maximum compression occurring at F, and tensile stresses of equal
magnitude to the right of A, the maximum tension
occurring at E.
Since the earth has no strength whatever in
tension, it is obvious that the sum of the stresses
at any point must be positive. In other words, the
base of the foundation must exert a compressive
force on the soil over its entire area, otherwise a
tensile stress will be produced at E, which means
that the tower and foundation will be unstable,
and likely to be overturned by the action of the
wind.
It was shown by equation (1) that the maximum
soil load is equal to (S1
S 2 ). Since the value of
S:~. at point E is negative, the minimum soil load
(which obviously occurs at point E) is (S1 - S 2 ).
It is very important to note that the condition
of poorest stability occurs immediately after the
tower is mounted on the foundation, and before
the insulation, platforms, piping, liquid, etc., are
in place. In calculating the stability, therefore,
(S1 ) must be replaced by (S,m) as follows:

w.

S, .. = - .(2-a)
where
S,.. = minimum soil loading due to dead load
(lbs./sq. ft.)

The minimum soil loading which can ever exist,

therefore, is found to occur at point E when the
dead load is at its minimum value, and can be
expressed as fo llows :
Smto = S,,..- St
( 1-a)
Therefvre, in order that (501111 ) may always be
positive, thereby assuring a stable condition at all

times, (S1 m) must never be less than (S 2 ). In a

perfectly balanced system, (S,m) is exactly equal
to (S 2 ) , in which case

s.... = s... -S.=o

(1-d)

Although, such a balanced system is rarely possible, it is the ideal condition. The upward force
at E due to the overturning moment is exactly
balanced by the dead load, so that the stress at
E is zero. The stress at F in s uch cases is the
minimum which can exist and still maintain a
stable system.
It should be emphasized that while (S 1m) is frequently greater than (S,) it should never be less.
It should also be emphasized that the stability
is based on the minimum dead load (Wt) while
the soil loading is based on the maximum dead
load (W).

7. Example No. 1
Design the concrete founation for a tower 4
ft. dia. by 54 ft. high, including a 4 ft. skirt, and
weighing 30,000 lbs. empty. The insulation, platforms and piping weigh 9000 lbs., the maximum
wind velocity is 100 miles per hour, and the frost
line at the location of the proposed installation is
4 ft. below grade. The maximum safe soil loading
is 2000 pounds per square foot.
Solution
Since the frost tine is 4 ft. below grade; the
foundation will be 6 ft . deep, with the top 1 ft.
above grade, making t he bottom of the foundation
5 ft. below grade, or 1 ft. below the frost line.
The foundation will be octagon shape, which is
recommended for such cases, as it combines the
features of stability, ease of construction and minimum material better than other shapes. The top
course will have a short diameter of 6 ft. since
the tower is 4 ft. dia. and allowance must be made
for foundation bolts, etc. The short diameter of the
base will be assumed to be 13.5 ft. The thickness
of the base will depend on the bending and shearing forces (see Sections 19 to 19h incl.), however,
for the time being the thickness will be assumed
to be 2ft.
The weight of the foundation will be calculated
as follows (all slide-rule figures) :
Area of 6 ft. octagon = 0.828 d' = 0.828 X 6' = 29.8 sq. ft.
Volume of top course = 4 ft. X 29.8 119.2 cu. ft.
Area of base (octagon) (a) = 0.828 X 13.5':::.: 151 sq. ft.
Volume of base= 2 ft. X 151 = 302 cu. ft.

Total volume= 119.2 302 = 421.2 cu. ft.

Weight of concrete=
421.2 cu. ft. X ISO lbs./cu. ft.= 63,000 lbs.
Volume of earth fill
(4 ft. - 1 ft.) X (151 sq. ft.- 29.8 sq. ft.)= 363 cu. ft.
Weight of earth tiU = 363 cu. ft. X90 lbs./cu.ft. = 32,700 lbs.
Weight of empty tower= 30,000 lbs.
W. = 30,000 631 000 32,700 = 125,700 lbs.
W.
will be as tollows:
Insulation, platforms, piping, etc. = 9,000 lbs.
Water required to fill the tower
( 4 ft . dia.) (50 ft. high)
= 39,500 lbs.
Total (W.)
= 48,500 lbs.
W = 125,700 48,500 = 174,200 lbs. (from equation 3)
a= lSI sq. ft.
174,200 Jbs.
S, = 151 SQ. ft. = 1155 lbs./sq. ft.= Maximum dea~
load on soil (equation 2)

Allowing 3" for the thickness of the insulation,

the effective diameter of the tower exposed to the

action of the wind is 4.5 ft. A wind velocity of 100
miles per hour is equal to 25 pounds per sq. ft. of
projected area.
Therefore:
P = 25 lbs./sq. ft.
D.= 4.5 ft.
H =54 ft.

P ... = 25 X 4.5 X 54= 6080 lbs. (equation 8)

hr= 6ft.
L = 6

54

+ 2=33
ft. (equation 9)

Mr = 6080 X 33 = 200,000 foot pounds (equation 7)

Z = 0.1016 d' = 0.1016 X 13.5' = 248.5

From equation (10)

_ 200,000 ft. pounds
b
S2 = 803 I s./sq. ft.= maxi248.5
mum soil load due to overturning moment.

The total maximum soil load (toe pressure) can

be calculated from equation (1) as follows:
S = 1155 + 803 = 1958 lbs./sq. ft.

JAILI 1
llomeftts of o~togonal ....
Short

Diam.

(Feet)
3
3.5
4
4.6
6
6.6
6
6.6
7
'1.6
8
8.6
9
9.6
10
10.6
11
11.5
12
12.5
13
13.6
14
14.5
15
111.5
16
16.5
17
17.6
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
20.5
21
21.6
22

22.5

23
2.'!.5
24
24.5
25
25.6
26

26.6
27
27.5
28
28.5
29
29.6
30
31
32
33
34

35
36
37
38
39
40

Area a
(Sq. Ft.)
7.46
10.6
13.2
18.8
20.7
26.0
29.8
34.8
40.6
46.6
62.8
59.5
66.8
74.6
82.8
91.2
100.0
109.8
119.5
140.0
129.2
151.0
162.0
174
186
199
212

226

240

203

268
283
299

315
332
348
365
383
401
420
438
458
477
497
618
639
ti60
582

603

526
6110
6'72
696
720
746
796
848
902
958
1015
1075
1134
1196
1260
1325

IA!n~h

of a e
(ll'eet)

Neutral Alii
to.!ztreme
Sec:tloD
Fiber c:(Feet) Modulu Z

Radluaof
Gyration r
(Feet)

1.242
1.449
1.666

1.62
1.89
2.16

2.74
4.37
6.110

0.772
0.900
1.029

1.863
2.070
2.277
2.484
2.891
2.898
3.105
3.312
3.519
3. 726
3.933
4.140
4.347
4.554
4.761
4.968
5.382
6.176
5.589
6.796
6.003
6.210
6.417
6.624
6.831
7.038
7.245
7.462
7.659
7.866
8.073
8.280
8. 41!7
8.694
8.901
9.108
9.316
9.522
9.729
9 936
10.143
10.350
10.667
10.784
10.971
11. 178
11.386
11.592
11.799
12.006
12.213
12.420
12.834
13 248
13.662
14.078

2.43
2.70
2.98
3.26
3.61
3. 78
4.06
4.33
4.59
4.87
6.13
5.41
6.67
5.94
6.22
6.48
7.03
6.76
7.30
7.57
7.83
8.11
8.38
8.65
9.02
9.19
9.46
9.72
10.00
10.25
10.55
10.81
11.08
11.36

9.23
12.68
16.46
21.90
27.90
34.90
42.80
52.00
82.70
74.10
87.30
101.60
117.60
136.00
164.10
174.50
221.00
198.00
248.50
277.00
309.20
342.00
375.00
416.00
455.00
497.00
543.00
690.00
624.00
652.00
731.00
811.00
873.00
933.00
1005.00
1085.00
ll45.00
1240.00
1320.00
1400.00
1490.00
1585.00
1685.00
1787.00
1900.00
2010.00
2110.00
2220.00
2360.00
2470.00
2600.00
2740.00
3021.00
3330.00
3660.00
3980.00
4370.00
4730.00
6130.00
5580.00
6020.00
6500.00

1.168
1.286
1.415
1.542
1.67
1.8()
1.93
2.06
2.17
2.31
2.44
2.57
2.70
2.83
2.00
3.09
3.34
3.22
3.47
3.60
3.73
3.86
3.99
4.12
4.24
4.37
4.00
4.63
4.76
4.89
5.02
6.14
5.27
5.40
5.63
566
5.78
5.92
6.04
6.17
6.29
6.43

14.~

14.
16.318
15.732
16.146
16.560

11.62

11.90
12.17
12.43
12.71
12.98
13.26
13.52
13.79
14.07
14.33
14.61
14.88

15.15
15.42
15.68
15.96
16.23
16.77
17.31
17.86
18.38
18.92
19.47
20.01

20.55
21.09
21.65

6.56

6.68
6.82
6.94
7.07
7.20
7.33
7.46
7.58
7.71
7.97
8.23
8.48
8.75
9.00
9.26
9.51
9.77
10.04
10.28

This loading is satisfactory, as the soil will

safely support 2000 lbs.jsq. ft.
From equation (2-a)

s.... =

125,700 lbs.
lSI
= 830 lbs./sq. ft.

This is the dead load under the worst stability

condition, and since it is greater than the overturning stress (S~ = 803), the soil below the foundation will always be under compression at all
points, thus indicating that the foundation is
stable.
Usually it is found that the first assumption as
to foundation size is not correct, in which case, another assumption is made, and the calculations
repeated.
It is interesting to note that the soil loading of
2000 lbs.jsq. ft. allowed in this problem is rather
low, as good clay soil will usually support about
4000 lbs.jsq. ft. Care should always be taken, to
ascertain the actual load carrying value of the soil
at the site of construction.

8. Eccentricity
It will be noted that there are two forces acting
on foundations of the type under consideration ;
(a) The dead load, acting in a vertical direction;
(b) the wind load, acting in a horizontal direction.
The combined action of these two forces, that is,
their resultant, has thE:. same effect as an eccentric
vertical load. As explained previously, it is not
necessary to calculate the eccentricity in order to
determine the stability of the foundation. Several
methods have been proposed, however, which
make use of the eccentricity, and since there are
definite relationships between eccentricity and stability, they will be explained as a matter of interest.
The eccentricity can be calculated as follows:
e= Me
Wt
e= eccentricity (feet)

where

(12)

Note: The value of (e) calculated by equation

(12) is the maximum value, as the dead load (Wt)
is minimum. The eccentricity for other conditions
of dead loading may be obtained by substituting
the proper weight in place of (W 1).
It has been shown by previous discussion that
the following relationships exist:
Wt
s... =-a-

(2-a)

Mt

s.=z

(10)

Z=c
combining equations (10) and (11)
:M,c

=-.-

(11)

(13)

rearranging equation (12)

Mr= Wte

(12a)

combining equations (12a) and 13)

_ Wtec
S2 - l

(14)

It was shown by equation (1-a) that in order

to avoid tensile stress at E (which would make
the foundation unstable), the maximum value of
(S 2 ) is as follows:

OCTAGOJJ

a = o.a2842.
c:

0.54ld

I : O.OStid+
(15)

So= S,.,

Z : O.l016ds

thus making the value of (Smln) equal to zero, as

shown by equation (1-d).
Substitutipg the values obtained by equations
(2-a) and (14) in equation (15)

r : o.&5'14

w.

w~ec

=-a(16)
The value of I can be expressed as follows:
I

I= ar
where
r =radius of gyration of base (feet)

HEXAGOH

a = o.se84'

(17)

c : o.s7'7ct
I : 0.064

substituting in equation (16)

w.ec

w.

ar'

z : o.104cts

(18)

Hence, the maximum value of (e) for stable

conditions is

= o.ae44

e.....

=c

(19)

In the case of a circular foundation

d

c=y

a:

(20)

Substituting in equation (19)

e.... =

2r'

r: o.. aaM

Substituting the value of (r2 ) in equation (21),

the maximum value of (e) for a circular base is
(: ). thus confirming the common rule that in a
stable foundation the resultant must fall within
the middle-quarter of the diameter of a circular
base.
In the case of the octagon base usually used for
tower foundations, the maximum allowable eccentricity becomes

Mt
200,000 foot pounds
125,700 lbs.
e = W, =

t.S9 ft.

From equation (22), the maximum permissible

eccentricity is
e...u = O.t22d 0.122 X 13.5 = 1.64 ft.

Inasmuch as the actual eccentricity (1.59) is less

:"'"D'

z : o.u8cl,

(21)

e..... = 0.122d
(22)
The area surrounding the center of the base,
within which the resultant causes a compressive
stress over the entire base, is known as the kernel
or kern.
It follows, then, that the resultant must always
fall within the kern of the base in order to assure
stability.
In example No. 1 (Section 7), it was shown that
the foundation is stable, since the overturning
stress (S 2 ) is less than the minimum dead load
stress (Smlo).
The stability of this foundation will now be calculated (as example No. 2) on the basis of the
eccentricity for the purpose of comparing the two
methods.
From equation (12) the eccentricity is

o.707<l

ct

c:..f1 : o.ot9ct

z : o.oe8cl'

r=+
FIGURE 2
Eltmectta of foundotion bases
(Axis A-A)

than the maximum permissible eccentricity (1.64)

the foundation is stable, thus confirming the conclusion reached in Section 7.

9. Method of Calculating SoU Load From

Eccentricity
It is possible to calculate the soil loading (toe
pressure) as a function of the eccentricity. This
method will be explained in order that it may be
compared with the method described in Sections
3, 4 and 5.
Let (k) be a factor by which the dead load pressure must be multiplied to equal the soil loading
due to overturning as follows:
(57)

TOW~It

J~----------~----------;k

FIGUU l

fiGVRI Ja

FIGUU lb

Substituting in equation (1)

or

S= S;+kS.

(58)

s = s. (1 + k)

(59)

Since the term ( ~) occurs m both equations

(65) and (66), it follows that

From equation (2)

and

s.=a-

(2)

From equation (10)

(10)

therefore
Mr= S.Z

(60)

Substituting the value of (S 2 ) from equation

(57)
M, = S, kZ
(61)
therefore

s.=w

(62)

From equations (2) and (62)

and

WkZ
M, =-a-

(63)

(64)

From equation (12)

In the case of an octagonal base,

a= 0.828 d'

(70)
(71)

z = 0.01016 <l'
Substituting these values in equation (68)
8.15e

e= Wt

Therefore, for an octagonal base, equation (69)

be written:

m~

(73)

For comparison, the maximum soil loading in

example No. 1 will be calculated (as example No.
3) on the basis of eccentricity. From previous calculations, it was found that:
W

= 174,200 pounds

(12)

The value of (e) calculated from equation (12)

is maximum for any particular foundation, which
is the value governing stability. At the present
moment we are concerned with the maximum soil
loading (toe press ure) which occurs when the
dead load is maximum. It is therefore necessary
to substitute (W) in place of (Wt) as follows:
Mr
e= W

(72)

Mt = 200,000 foot pounds

M,

(65)

Equation (64) can be written

10

(68}
Substituting t his value of (k) in equation (59)
S= St
(69)

s....... = s. ( 1 + -8.15e)
d-

M,

S,=-a- = kZ

kZ

w =--;-

k --~
z

KochJ=-d-

Mr

M,

(67)

(t+ C:)

Mr
s.=z-

kZ
e=a

(66)

Therefore by equation (65)

e=

200,000
174,200

= 1.1

The maximum soil loading due to the dead load

(S 1 ) was found to be 1155 pounds per square foot,
and (do) is equal to 13.5 feet.
Substituting in equation (13)
8.15 X 1.15 )
1155 ( 1
13.5
S = 1155 X 1.693 = 1955 pounds per square foot.

s=

This checks the value of 1958 pounds per square

foot calculated (by slide rule) in Section 7, thus

....

d
I&

.\;_ ./ i
v.

...

I
0

m t-

.I

'

. '
-----L-~~---

--

-~ ~--L!L.

.
J

'I

...-1c.
lq
~~:_j.
-- - 1--......
_,....-
_,......
.I"
_]
~-;

lm.

_...... w

_
---~,

;t:?'.,.........

............

________

............... c
1-- -_.-
...,.......~ :_jI
.......-
.
1--,:
C:::..:....
.
.
.
__j
t
f- - - f!.'l&.. .-::
_, . w
q, ___ _

"

"'v ~~ -,.....
'

r,

p
FIGUU le

fiGUU 3d

FIGUU 3c

indicating that either method yields the same

result.

obvious for this purpose that the same value of the

dead load should be used in the calculation of the
eccentricity (e), by means of equation (12).

10. Soil Loading at Any Point

Having calculated the eccentricity, it is a simple
matter to determine t he unit stress on the soil at
any point whose distance from the centroidal axis
is ( c').
The unit stress on the soil, from equation (1),
is as follows :

11. Stresses in Tower Shell

S=S.+S

(1)

Since the value of (5 2 ) for points to the right of

the axis is negative, the value of (S) will be:
S = S, -

s.

(see equation 1-a)

( 1-b)

Equations (1) and (1-b) can be combined as

follows:
(1-c)
S=S,S,
From equation (2)

The steel shell is required to withstand the

stresses resulting from , (a) the internal pressure;
(b) the dead load ; (c) the overturning mumenl
due to the wind pressure. This discussion will be
confined to the stress resulting from the wind
pressure.
It may be assumed, in determining the stress
due to the wind press ure, that the tower is a
vertical beam, and that the wind produces a bending moment. The ordinary formulas for determining bending moment and stress may therefore be
applied, asfollows:
M 1 = P .. (

_ M,c
S' - I

(2)

The value of (5 2 ) can be written:

S, =

\Vee'
ar' (see equations 14 and 17)

(23)

Thereiore,
S- W +Wee'
a - ar'

Simplifying:

S= ~ (I~~')

(24)

This value of (S) is the total unit stress at any

point whose distance (in feet) from the centroidal
axis is ( c').
It is important to note that equations (1-a), (14)
and (17) referred to above were used to determine t he stability and the eccentricity under the
poorest condition, which obviously occurs when
the dead load is at its minimum. Equation (24)
can be used to determine the stress under any
dead load, therefore, equation (24) may be based
on either (W) or (Wt) depending on the dead
load for which the stress is to be determined. It is

(26)

where
M, = bending moment about base of tower (foot
pounds).
also

s.=a

~)

(27)

where
S, = unit stress in tower shell due to bending
moment (Mt). (lbs./sq. ft.)

Note: The unit stress in the tower shell (St) is

calculated in pounds per square foot in order to be
consistent with the other calculations which are
in foot-pound unts. Steel stresses, however, are
ordinarily given in pounds per square inch. In
order to convert the stress from (pounds/sq. ft.)
as calculated, to (pounds/ sq. in.) it is necessary
to divide (S,) by 144.
T he shell is a hollow cylinder, in which case:
D

c=-y

(28)

and
I

'71'

= 64 (D- D\)

where
D = outside diameter of tower (feet)
D, = inside diameter of tower (feet)
when
t = thickness of shell (feet)
and
D -D,=2t
D,=D -2t

(29)

(30)

(31)

11

Substituting in equation (29)

The maximum tensile stress per foot of circumference to be resisted by anchor bolts is

'1r

I= 64 [D'- (D -2t)']

(31)

Substituting the values of I and c in equation

(27)

s. =

2 ___
___M,__;
'11'

&f[D'- ( D-2~)' ]
-

<rr

32M,D
<rr

[0'- (D -2t)']

<rr

[8D't -24D't'+ 32Dt' - 16t')

(32)

The values of t 2, t and t 4 are quite small and

the three terms in the denominator containing
t hem may be neglected without introducing appreciable error. For practical purposes, therefore,
equation (32) may be written as follows:
5 =

32M,D
8?TDt

71'D.

---w-

(38)

The load to be carried by each bolt can be

expressed
S.. _ 'lTD .( 4Mt
W. )
-

4M,

= NDb

<rrD'- <rrD!,
W.

- --w-

S.. =maximum load on each bolt (pounds).

The nut should always be tight, placing some

initial tension on the bolt. Of course due allow(32-b)

4Mt

<rrD'S,

(33)

By multiplying the stress in pounds per square

foot (S1 ) by the shell thickn~ss (t) the stress per
foot of circumference is obtained as follows:
4M,
tS. = <rrD'

(34)

12. Foundation Bolta for Self-Supporting Tower

The foundation or anchor bolts for a self-supporting tower are required to resist the overturning moment (Mr) resulting from the wind pressure, after allowance has been made for the resistance offered by the weight of the tower. Obviously
the I'esistance offered by the tower's weight is
least effective when the minimum weight is acting. The anchor bolts should therefore be calculated for the condition existing when the tower
is empty and without insulation, platforms, etc.
This weight will be designated by (W.).
It was shown that the maximum stress per foot
of circumference due to the wind moment can be
calculated by equation (34). That equation gives
th e stress at the circumference of the shell, however, at the present moment it is desired to determine the bolt stress making it necessary to substitute (Db) in place of (D). The stress per foot
of bolt circle circumference can then be written :
4M

'1rD!,.

(35)

where

Do= diameter of bolt circle (feet).

The compressive stress per foot of circumference due to the weight of the tower is

w.
11'Db

12

(39)

where

T he thickness of shell plate required to resist

the bending moment only, is therefore
t=

(37)

(32-a)

This equation may be reduced to:

4Mt
Sa= 71'D't

W.
?TDo

As5uming that the number of bolts is represented by (N) , each bolt will be required to carry
the stress over a portion of the circumference represented as follows:

32M,D
[D'- D' + 8ntt -24D't' + 32Dt'-l6t')
32M,D

4M,
<rrD' -

(36)

fiGURE 4

ance for the initial tension should be made in

determining the size of the bolt, and the strength
of the bolt should be based on the area at the root
of the thread. An additional allowance, usually
%", should be made for corrosion.
The number of foundation bolts should never
be tess than 8, and should preferably be 12 or
more, as the larger the number of bolts, the better
the stresses are distributed, and the less danger
resulting from a'loose nut on one bolt.
The bolt should be embedded in the concrete
foundation in such a manner that the holding
power of the concrete wi!l be at least equal to the
full strength of the bolt. It is common practice to
use a washer at the lower end, or to bend the end
of the bolt to form an "L" for the purpose of anchor.ing the bolt in the concrete (see Figure 7).

the sum of the pull due to wind pressure and the

initial tension as follows:

Rv= (R, Rt) cos 9

(45)
where
Rv =vertical component of pull on guy wire
(pounds)
Rt =initial tension on wire (pounds).

The value of the reaction at the collar (Rc) may

be determined by calculating the moments about
the base of the tower (the top of the foundation).
The wind moment was found by equation (26)
to be
p,.

The resrstmg mom~nt arm at the collar is h11

therefore the reaction (Rc) may be calculated as
follows:

13. Guyed Towers

In cases where the tower is very high, it is

sometimes found desirable to maintain stability
by means of guy wires rather than a large foundation. Although it is not uncommon to find two
or even three sets of guy wires on one stack, towers seldom have more than one set, and even these
cases are rare. This discussion, therefore, will be
confined to towers with one set of guy wires.
Four guy wires are usually used for each set,
although in some instances three, and in others
as many as six have been used. They are attached
to a rigid collar which is located at a point ap
proximately 2/3 (sometimes ~) of the tower
height above the foundation.
14. Pull on Guy Wires

The maximum pull on the guy wire occurs when

the wind blows along that wire, and each wire
must be designed to take care of the entire wind
reaction at the collar.
The pull on the guy wire can be expressed as
follows:

R.

R,= Sine
or

R.=
or

p,. (

1f)

h,

(47)

P,.H

R.= 2hI
(48)
where
h, =height from top of foundation to collar (feet}.

15. Foundations for Guyed Towers

It was shown by equation (1) that the total soil
loading, to be considered in the design of tower

foundations, is the sum of (S1 ) which is the dead

load, and {52 ) which is the load due to the over
turning, or wind moment. In the case of the guyed
towers, there is no overturning moment, however,
the wind pressure does have an important effect
on the foundation, as the soil is required to resist
the vertical component of the pull on the guy
wires.
For guyed towers, therefore, equation (1) must
be revised as follows:
S=S.+s.

(49)

where
5 1 = unit soil loading due to the pull on the guy
wire. (pounds/sq. ft.)

(40)

R, R. esc 8
(41)
where
R,= pull on guy wire due to wind pressure
(pounds)
R. =horizontal wind reaction at collar (pounds)
8 = angle that the guy makes with the vertical
(degrees)

The value of (S,) can be determined as follows:

S-R.
r- a

The value of the angle 8 will usually lie between

30 and 75 degrees.
The vertical component of the pull on the guy
wire can be expressed in any of the following
ways:
(42)
R, X cos fl
R. X cos 8
(43)
(44)

It is important to note, however, that there is

always some initial tension on the guys which
must be considered. This initial tension may be
assumed to be 5000 lbs.jsq. in., which amounts to
1000 lbs. for )12" wires and 250 lbs. for }4" wires.
The weight of the wires may be neglected, when
using tht:se figures.
The actual vertical component will be a function of the total pull on the guy wire, which is

(SO)

From equation (2)

S.=

Sin 8
R. X cot 8

(~)

w
a

(2)

Substituting in equation (49)

S= W+R.
a

(51)

16. Foundation Bolts for Guyed Towers

The foundation bolts for guyed towers are required to resist the shearing action of the wind
pressure at the base of the tower. It is obvious
that ample allowance should be made in the size
of the bolts to provide for the initial tension due
to tightening the nuts, and also for corrosion.
The shear at the base of the tower, which must
be resisted by the bolts, is equal to the horizontal
reaction to the wind pressure at that point. This
is equal to the difference between the total wind

13

pressure and the reaction at the collar and can

be expressed as foll ows:
L=~-L

(~)

where
R- = horizontal wind reaction, or shear, at the base
of the tower. (pounds)

17. Stress in Shelf of Guyed Tower

The wind pressure acting on a guyed tower produces a negative bending moment at the collar,

...
'1
_ ._ ........ _.a."-'- :or -t
'

.__

..

;!_-'

--""*"
.:-. b
-It'-lr- .....
1

~---

T--- I

1I
tl.::~

----- -------

I
~--------i--=- t--- - - - - - - - - - - - 1
I

FIGURE 5

and a positive bending moment between the base

and the collar. The maximum values of these two
moments can be calculated as follows :
M.=-

;i

h,)'

(53)

H )'
2h,

(54)

(H -

P,.H (
.M, = - 2 - 1 -

where
Me= negative bending moment at collar. (foot
pounds)
MP maximum positive bending moment between
collar and ba~e. (foot pounds).

Having determined the bending moments, the

stress in a given shell, or the shell thickness required to resist the bending moment may be calculated by substituting the value of (M.) or (Mp)
in place of (Mt) in equations (32-b) and (33).

18. Piling
In cases where the safe soil loading is very low,
it is sometimes found difficult to design an ordinary foundation which will not overload the s6il.
In such cases it is desirable to support the load
on piles rather than on the soil.
Wooden piles are ordinarily used, and they vary
greatly in length, depending on the nature of the
soil. The diameter at the lower end is about 6";
and the diameter at the top is about 10" for piles
not over 25 feet in length, and 12" for longer piles.
Wooden piles generally depend on the frictiona l
resistance of the ground for their load carrying
capacity, as they have comparatively little strength
as columns. The safe load which a pile will support
varies greatly in different localities. Building laws
sometimes govern the pile loading, and in such
cases, the load is usualy about 20 tons per pile,
although occasionally 25 tons is permissible.
When conditions are not definitely known, however, the only safe procedure is to drive a few
piles for test purposes. The common method of
calculating the safe load is by means of what is
known as the "Engineering News Formula," which
14

For drop hamme1

p- 2W.. f
- P + 1.0

(55)

For steam hammer

2W.,.f

P= P+O.I

(56)

where
P = safe load which each pile will support.
(pounds)
w.. = weight of hammer. (pounds)
f =height of hammer fall. (feet)
p .. = penetration o r sinking under the last blow, on
sound wood. (inches)

~--

.1 t4
r-~-1
,r--,.
-H--r

has been widely published. There are really two

formulas; one for piles driven with a drop hammer, and another for piles driven with a steam
hammer, as follows:

Care should be exercised in driving piles, to

assure that they are deep enough to develop their
full strength, but they should not be driven too
much, as this practice results in splitting or breaking, and greatly reduces the load carrying capacity.
Although piles have been driven with a center
to center spacing as small as 2' 6", it is strongly
recommended that this distance be not less than
3' 0''. Closer spacing disturbs the ground suffiCiently to greatly reduce or destroy the frictional
resistance.
The top of the piles should always be cut off
belqw the water level, otherwise they will decay
rapidly.
The reinforced concrete cap is constructed on
top of the piles in such a mann~r that the piles
extend about 6" into the concrete (see Figure 6) .

19. Stresses in Foundation

After having selected a foundation of such size
and shape as to fulfill the requirements of the
problem from the standpoint of stability and soil
loading, it becomes necessary to calculate the
stresses in th~ foundation itself, to see that they
do not exceed the allowable limits.
The first step in this procedure is to determine

FIGUR 6

the loading, which consists primarily of the upward reaction of the soil. Figure 3 represents the
plan view of a typical (octagonal) foundation, and
Figure 3a shows the loading diagram. In this diagram the dead load (S 1 ) is represented by the
rectangle (jklm). The wind load (52 ) , which is
positive on one side of the centerline, is indicated
by the triangle (mpw). On the opposite side of

the centerline the wind load is negative, thereby

counteracting a portion of the dead load (wlc).
The actual soil loading will therefore be represented by the area (jkcp). However, the. weight of
the base, and of the earth fill above the base (area
jkno Figure 3b) do not exert any upward force on
the foundation, and may therefore be deducted
from the total load, for the present purpose. The
effective upward reaction will then be the area
( oc1 p) in Figure. 3b.

19a. Diagonal Tension

The vertical shear, resulting from the upward
reaction of the soil, produces diagonal tension
stresses in the foundation. The critical section lies
at a distance from the face of the pedestal equal
to the effective depth of the base, as indicated
by pt>int (Z,) in Figure 3c. In other words, the
foundation tends to break along line (ZZ 1 ). The
vertical shear to be resisted is equal to the net soil
pressure on the part of the foundation outside the
critical section.
For design purposes, therefore, the load will be
the area (oqrp), (Figure 3c) applied over the
area (a, b 1 fg), (Figure 3). Because of the irregular shape of the load diagram, its magnitude can
be more conveniently calculated by breaking it up
into its component parts, the total load (V ,) being
the sum of the individual loads, as follows:
Shape of ~rt

Outline hi plan
(FII'. 3)

Outline In el nat loo

Rectangular Prism
Wedge
Wedge
Wedge
Pyramid
Pyramid

a, b, u, t,
a, t, g
b, fu,
a, b, u, t,
a, t, g
b, fu,

oqrv
oqrv
O<lrv
rvp
rvp
rvp

(Fl... 3e)

v.

fo= b'jd,
(80)
where
.
f =unit stress in concrete (in diagonal tenston)
due to vertical shear load. (pounds/sq. in.)
V = vertical shear load, outside the critical section
(see Figures 3 and Jc). (pounds)
b' = width of critical section which serves to resist
diagonal tension stresses (line a, b, Figure 3).
(inches)
j = ratio of lever arm o resisting couple to depth
(dr) (see Table 2).
dr = effective dept h of base measured from top of
base to centerline of reinforcing steel. (inches)

Example No. 4. Check diagonal tension stresses

in the foundation considered in example No. 1 :
Figure unit soil loading due to weight of base
and earth (see Section 7) :

Unit soil loading

63,000 lbs.
32,700 lbs.
95,700 lbs.
95,700 lbs.
151 SQ. f t. =

d,=72". d,=2lw. d.=I62"

d.=7221 21 = 114"
Line (gf) =67.1" (see Table 1).
114
Line (m, w)
57".
.
67.1 X 57 _
, _ (b')
Lsne (a, b,) =
- 47.2 .
81

=z-=

.
.
Ltne
(gt,) = 67.1 - 2 47.2 -- 995"
,
162- 114
11
Ltne (a, t,)
= 24
2

Factor j = .87 (see Table 2).

803 X 57
=
= 5651bs./sq. ft.
81
= 565 522 = 1,087lbs./sq. ft.

Load (m, r)
Load (qr)

Calculate shear load (V, )

w X 1,087 lbs./sq. ft.
"
472 X 24
144 SQ. in.

9.95" X 24" X

S.

~~~

238

47.2 X 24 X 2 X 144
9.95 X 238 X 24 X 2
3 X 144
Total (V,)

8,550 lbs.

1,805

935
263

= 11,558 lbs.

Calculate unit stress m concrete (equation 80)

11,558
lb I
.
fo = 47.2 X .87 X 21 = 13.4 s. sq. tn.

19b. Depth of Slab Required for Punching Shear

The thickness of the foundation slab (bottom
course) must also be sufficient to withstand the
tendency to shear along line (Z-Z 2 ), (Figure 3c)
at the edge of the pedestal. This shearing load may
be determined as follows:
(81)
S.= s.t s.
The stresses in this case are not distributed over
the foundation area, but are concentrated at the
edge of the pedestal.
Then

S,

= lineal
total maximum unit shearing load,
foot of pedestal perimeter).

SQ. t .

Total unit dead load ( S,) (jm, figure Jc) = 1,1551bsJsq. ft.
Unit dead load due to weight of base
= ~
and earth fill (jo)
Net soil load (om)
= 5221bs./sQ. ft.
Maximum unit wind load (S.}, (mp)
= 803
Maximum effective unit shear load (op)
1,3251bs./sq. ft.

(lbs. per

S, = unit shearing load due to dead load. (lbs. per

lineal foot of pedestal perimeter).
S, = maximum unit shearing load due to overturning moment. {lbs. per lineal foot of pedestal
perimeter).

The value of (S.) can be determined by adding

the weight supported by the pedestal to the
weight of the pedestal itself, subtracting the load
carrying value of the soil directly under the
pedestal, and dividing the difference by the pe
rimeter of the pedestal base as follows :
S, =

633 lb I

This stress is satisfactory, as 40 lbs.jsq. in.

would be allowed (see Table 2).

The unit stress (diagonal tension) resulting

from this vertical shear load can be determined
as follows:

Concrete base
Earth till
Total

162
Line {mw) = z - =81"

W,

W, WP- (a, S. u)
L,

(82)

where
W, =weight of foundation pedestal (top course).
(pounds)
a, = plan area of foundation pedestal. (sq. ft.)
S at> = maximum allowable unit soil loading.
(pounds/sq. ft .)
L, = perimeter of foundation pedestal. (feet)

Obviously, if the value of (ap S..u) is equal to

15

or greater than (W.

W ..
Wp), the value of
(S,) becomes zero, and (S1 ) will then be equal
to (S-6).
The value of (S 6 ) can be determined in a manner somewhat similar to that proposed in Section 12. In that section the overturning load was
calculated as a function of the periphery of the
foundation bolt circle, by means of equations (27)
and (35). T~e bolt circle was assumed to be a
hollow cylinder, the wall thickness being infinitely
small, as compared with the diameter.
In the determination of. the shear at the edge
of the foundation pedestal, a similar procedure
may be followed, substituting (Mr) in place of
(M1 ), and appropriate values of (I) and (c) in
equation (27), depending on the shape of the
pedestal.
Reduced to their simplest forms, the equations
for the ordinary foundation shapes are as follows:
Octagon

Mr

5'= .814dp1
Hexagon

s. =
Square

s.=

(83)

Mr
.832d.'

(83a)

Mr
.943d:

(83b)

Circle

Mr

s.=TBW

(83c)

I n these equations (d11 ) is the short diameter of

the pedestal (feet) .
Once the shearing load (S,) per foot of pedestal
perimeter is known, i~ is a simple matter .t'! ~al
culate the unit stress m the concrete, by dtvtdtng
(S,) by tpe effective depth of the base, as follows:

s.

f,= 12dr

(84)
where
.
f, = unit stress in concrete base due to punchtng
shear. (pounds/sq. in.)

Note: The factor 12 is introduced for the purpose of convertin~ (51 ) from (pounds/lin. foot) to
(pounds/lin. inch) as unit stress (fr>) is in terms
of (pounds/sq. in.).

Example No. 5. To illustrate the procedure, the

punching shear will be calculated for the foundation considered in example No. 1.
Calculate dead load shear (S) by equation (82)
W. = 30,000 lbs.
w. = 48,500 lbs.
W.= 119.2cu. ft. X 150lbs.
= I7,850lbs.

a.= 29.8 sq. ft.

s.w=

2,000 lbs./sq. ft.

2.484 X 8 = 19.87 ft.
3(),000 48,500 17,850- (29.8 X 2,000)
S.=
19.87

L. =

= 1.850 lbs.llin. foot.

Calculate shearing stress due to overturning

moment (S1 ) by equation (83)
M. = 200,000 foot pounds (see section 7).

d."= fl=36..

Sa= ::~~ = 6,820 pounds/lin. foot

S, = 1,850 6,820 = 8,670 pounds/lin. foot.
d.= 21"
8,670
44
dI
.
f,
12 X 21 :....: 3 . poun s sq. an.

16

(81)
(84)

This stress is satisfactory, as 120 pounds/sq. in.

is permissible. (See T able 2.)
In the case of guyed towers, or stacks, the shear
load due to overturning moment (S~) does not
apply, but is replaced by

( R;/L,)
which is the load due to the pull on the guy wires,
as f~ lows:
Sl(n,t() = S.

R:r
+ -y:;-

(81a)

19c. Reinforcement of Base for Upward Bending

Reaction of Soil
In designing the base of the foundation to resist
the bending moment due to the upward reaction of
the soil, the critical section is located at line (ab),
(Figure 3d) along one face of the pedestal (top
course). The moments are therefore figured about
line ( ab), on the basis of the load on the trapezoid
(abfg). The load which serves to produce the
bending moment in the base is the "unbalanced"
upward reaction. Since the weight of the base,
and the weight of the earth fill above the base do
not contribute to the bending moment, they may
be deducted from the total load when calculating
the bending moment. The effective loading will
therefore be represented by the area (o q 1 r 1 p)
Figure 3e.
The load is assumed to be applied at its center
of gravity, and the moment figured about line
(ab). Due to the irregular shape of t he load diagram, it is difficul t to locate the center of gravity,
and it is therefore more convenient to break it up
into its component parts (prisms, wedges, pyramids, etc.), and figure the moment of each part
separately. Obviously, the total moment (Mb) will
be the sum of the individual moments.
In the case of the rectangular prism, the lever
arm used in figuring its moment will be one half
of the distance from point (a) to point (t), {Figure
3d). In the case of the wedges and pyramids, the
lever arm will be two-thirds of the distance from
point (a) to point (t).
The individual components and their respective
lever arms are as follows:

m,t-a

OatllDe
Fl...

OatlJDe In elevatloa, FQ-. 3e

Rectangular
Prism
abut

q,r,v,o

Wedge

atg

q, r,v,o

Wedge

bfu

q,r,v, o

Wedge

abut

r,v, p

Pyramid

atg

r sVs P

Pyramid

bfu

r,v, p

Lever Ann

Distance (at)
2
Distance (at)
3
Distance (at)
3
Distance (at)
3
Distance (at)
3
Distance (at)
3

X2
X2
X2
X2
X2

In calculating the amount of re~nforcement re!}Uired, it is assumed that the portiOn of the. base
designated (abut), (Figure 3d) acts as~ canttl7ver
beam (of rectangular cross-section) havmg a wtdth
equal to one face of the pedestal (a b), a depth
equal to the effective depth of the base ( d r) and
a length equal to (at).
Having calculated the bf'nding moment as proposed above, the next step is to check the depth

of the base, and determine the amount of reinforcing steel required. These calculations are based
on the commonly accepted formulas for reinforced
concrete. (It should be noted that for this purpose
it is more convenient to figure the moments in
terms of inch-pounds, as the stresses in concrete
and steel are usually given as pounds per square
inch, whereas in figuring soil loading foot-pound
units are used, as soil loading is usually stated
as pounds per square foot.)
For balanced design, that is, conditions in which
both concrete and steel are stressed to their full
allowable capacity, the required depth (de) of the
base may be determined as follows:
_/

Mb

dr = "' f P J'b

(85)

where

dr = depth of base, measured from top of concrete

to centerline of reinforcing steel: (inches)
Mb =bending moment in base. (inch-pounds)
f. = safe working stress, reinforcing steel in tension. (pounds per sq. in.)

A0

P = (
dr ) = ratio of effective area of reinforcing steel to effective area of concrete.
j = ratio of lever arm of resisting couple to depth
(dr).
b.= width of beam (line ab, Figure 3d). (inches)
A.= effective cross sectional area of steel reinforcement in tension. (square inches)

If the design is balanced, that is, the actual

depth of the base ( dr) is that calculated by equation (85), the value of (A,) may be determined
as follows:
A.= b. dr P

(86)

If the depth ( dr) is greater than required by

equation (85), in which case the steel is stressed
to its full capacity but the concrete is understressed, the value of (A.) becomes:
Mo

A.=~d

Io'

(87)

If the depth ( dr) is less than required by equation (85), it is recommended that the dimensions
of the base be changed to give the required depth.
In case circumstances make it impossible to increase ( dt) to the required dimension, it will be
necessary to increase the amount of reinforcement
used. The determination of the amount of reinforcement required for such special cases is beyond the scope of this article, and reference is
made to the various publications dealing specifically with concrete design for further details.
Having calculated the cross sectional area of
steel required, a selection is made as to the diameter, shape, number and spacing of bars which
will give the required area. It is recommended
that the center-to-center distance be about 4 inches
if possible, but not less than 2~ times the bar
diameter for round bars, or 3 times the side dimension for square bars. Generally speaking, a
large number of small bars (0. %. or ~ inch) are
preferable to a smaller number of larger bars.
It should be borne in mind that the area of
reinforcement determined above is the amount required for that portion of the foundation having
a width equal to ( ab), Figure 3d, which was assumed to be the cantilever beam carrying the entire bending load. This amount of reinforcement

should therefore be placed within the limits of

the beam width (ab). However, additional reinforcement should be installed to reinforce the
base between the points (gt), and also at (uf),
using the same type and spacing of bars as determined for the beam section ( ab). This additional
reinforcement insures that the entire area of the
base is reinforced and weak spots eliminated.
Obviously, the reinforcing bars should extend
entirely across the base. Also, there should be a
set of reinforcing bars parallel to each of the axes,
i.e., four sets of bars for an octagonal base, three
sets for a hexagon, etc., thus providing strength
in all directions.
There should be at least 3 inches of concrete .
below the reinforcing bars at the bottom of the
base. Reinforcement in other parts of the foundation should be covered with not less than 2 inches
of concrete.
Example No. 6. Determine bottom reinforcement
for the foundation referred to in example No.1.
Figure bending loads
Line (m2 w)

72"

=-2- =

Load (m. r,)

Load (q, r,) =
Load ( v, p) =

36"
803 X 36
= 357 pounds/sq. ft.
81
357 522 = 879 pounds/sq. ft.
803 - 357 = 446 pounds/sq. ft.

Figure moment (Mb)

Line (ab) =29.8"
Line (ta) = 45"
Line (gt) = 18.65"
29.8" X 45"
45"
.

X 879 pounds/sq. ft. X - 2- = 184,000 m.-lbs

144 sq. m.
18.65 X 45
45 X 2
= 153,000
144
X 879 X
3
29.8 X 45
446 X 45 X 2
= 62,300
144
X -l- --318.65 X 446 X 45
45 X 2
144X3
X 2 x-3Total (Mb)

= 51,900
= 451,200 in.-lbs.

Check depth of base for balanced design ( equation (85)

f.= 18,000
p.= .0089
j = .87
b.= 29.8"
f. p. j = 138.7
d
_/
f(baloa. .l

="'

451,200
-- 10.5"
138.7 X 29.8

Since the actual depth is 21 inches, whereas

only 10.5 inches would be required, the concrete
will be understressed, and the area of reinforcing
steel should be calculated by equation (87).
451,200
.
A.= 18,000 X .87 X 21 = 1.37 sq. 10

Use 0 inch deformed square bars ( .25 sq. in.

area).
3
Number required ~i J = 5.5. Use 6 bars within
the width of beam (ab).
29
Spacing
= 4.96''. Use 5-inch spacing en67
tirely across side (gf). which will require
= 13 bars per set. Four sets of bottom reinforcing
bars will be required for the octagonal foundation.

t'

t'

17

19d. Reinforcement to Resist Stresses

Due to Uplift
As explained previously, the wind moment creates a positive soil load on one side of the centerline, and a negative load on the opposite side. In
other words, the action of the wind tends to lift
the foundation on the negative side. This upward
force, or "uplift" effect, is resisted by the weight
of the concrete base itself, and by the weight of
the earth fill on top of the base. It therefore becomes necessary to reinforce the top of the base,
to resist the resulting negative bending moment.
The procedure is quite similar to that described
for the upward soil reaction (Seetion 19c). The
load acts on the area (abfg), and the outline of the
theoretical beam carrying the load ig (abut) as in
Section 19c. However, in this case the load is th~
weight per square foot of concrete base, plus the
weight per square foot of the earth fill, and is uniformly distributed, thus simplifying the calculations. After figuring the moments, the reinforcement is determined in exactly the same manner as
explained in Section 19c, using the equation

M..

A.=
'dtf
o1-

(87a)

In this case, ( dr) is the depth of the base fron:

the centerline of the upper layer of reinforcement
to the bottom of the base, and (Mu) is the bending
moment due to the uplift forces (inch-pounds).
Example No. 7. Determine top reinforcement to
resist uplift in the foundation referred to in example No.1.
Weight of concrete
1SO lbs./cu. ft. X 2 ft.
Weight of earth
90 lbs./cu. ft. X 3 ft.
Total

= 300lbs./sq. ft.
= 270 lbs./sq. ft.
= 5701bs./sq. ft.

Moment
.~
29.8 X 45
144
X 570 X
2

18.6:: 45

X 570 X 45 ~

(M~)

Total

119,000 in.-lbs.

= 99,500
;:::: 218,500in.-lbs.

From equation (87a)

A _
-

218,500 inch lbs.

18,000 X .87 X 22

.636 sq. in. within beam

width (29.8")

Use 0-inch deformed square bars, at to-inch

centers.

19e. Bond
In order for the reinforcement to be effective,
the strength of the bond between concrete and
steel must be sufficient to permit the reinforcement to develop its full strength. The bond stress
may be calculated by means of the following
formula:

v.

= :t. jdt-

(88)
where
u = bond stress per unit of area of surface of bar.
(pounds)
::t. = sum of perimeters of bars within the limits or
the beam width (ab). (inches)
u

Example No. 8. Check bond stresses in example

No.1.
Bottom reinforcement

v. = 11,578 lbs.

(See example No. 4)

:t.= 6X .5 X 4= 12"'
By equation (88)
u

11,578

= -t'""z'"'x...,..;.:.8:::7_,.X....,...,..2t=- =53 lbs.

Bond stress for bottom reinforcement is satisfactory, as 75 pounds is permissible (see Table 2).
Top reinforcement
TAILI 2
Conttcaftta Applying to foundation DNI8"
Mt.ture:

Cement ..............................

Sand .................................

Coane Aallftaate .....................

1
l
5

I
l
4

--500
376
--2,000
1.500
--800
600
---

fb

Safe bcvlna load on concrete (lbs./IIQ. in.).

f~

Ultimate compreuive etrength (lbt./IIQ. in.)

fo

Safe unit atress In extn:me fibl!t' of concrete

(in comprcsaion)~(Jba./sq. ln.) ........

f4

Safe unit strass In concrete due to vertical

shear (diaronal tenaion} (lbs./~q. in,)

f.

Safe unit stresa in concrete baae due to

punchina shear. (lb&./IIQ. in.) ........

120

f.

Safe workinll, atreu. steel reinforcement in

tet~tion. (I e./tq. in.) ..................

18.000

(f. j)

(.l.bch-pounds) ..........................

16.600

(1. Jp.)

(l11ch-pounde) ..........................

138.7

Ratio. lever arm of rnlatlng couple to

depth (dr) .........

.87

Efu.. I

Ratio, modulue o( elatticity of steel to that

of concrete ..........................

16

[ n ..

{p.Ao/

/b.dr

Ratio. effeetlve area of tenalon reinforcernent to elf ~tive area of concrete ......

40

.0089

Safe bond ttrea.t (concrete to steel rein

forcemeDt} per "Ualt of area of ~urface

of ~:in(f:~~~! ...................
Deformed bart .....................

60
76

30

90
--18.000
--16.000
88.9
--.89

--IS
--.0056
--45

56

Note:-The 1:2:4 mixture Ia te>mmfJlded u moet satiafactory for foundatloru of the type. The conetanta for tha 1:2:5 mixture are preaented aa a matter
of latereet.

18

=4,480Jbs.

= 947

Total (V.)
::t. = 3 X .5 X 4 = 6
5427
u = 6 X .87 X 22 =48tbs.

= 5,4271bs.
(88)

The bond stress in top reinforcement is satis-

- - - factory, as 75 pounds would be atlowed.

Theae tiguree may be allihtly lno:r~ by makin& "U"-beoda on thf'

ende of tbe relnfordnl ban.

Figure shear
47.2" X 24"
X 570 lbs.
144
9.95 X 24 X
570
144

19f. Bearing Stresses

The bearing stresses (where the steel tower
rests on the concrete pedestal) seldom cause any
difficulty, but should be checked as a safety precaution. The bearing stresses consist of the stress
due to wind pressure, plus the stress due to the
dead load as follows :
Bearing stress= 4M,/rrD,2

+ (W. + W.)/17'0,

(37a)

(See Sections 11 and 12.)

Equation (37a) gives the bearing stress in
pounds per lineal foot of shell circumference.
These stresses are spread over the area of the base
ring, therfore for practical purposes the unit bearing stress can be determined as follows:

4M. + w.+w.
'IT

D.'

71' D,

f. =
12r...
in which
r., = width of the tower base ring. (inches)
fb = unit compre~sion stress on concrete.

(37b)

(pound s/sq. 1n.)

Equation (37b) may be modified slightly, depending on the exact shape and arrangement of
the base ring ( ~r base plate) , but in the majority

FIGURE 7

of cases it mav be used in the above form with

reasonable accuracy.
For guyed towers, equation (37b) becomes:
4M,
'iT

fb

n,

= --

+ R.+w.+w.
71' n,

(37c)

12r.,

19g. Allowable Stresses in Foundation

lt is to be noted that in actual practice the depth
of the base in the examples given above could be
reduced, if desired. All of the 5tresses for diagonal
tension, punching shear, bending (upward and
downward) and bond in the reinforcement are well
below the allowable values. As the examples in

this case are given for illustration only, the design

has not been changed to take maximum advantage
of the allowable stresses.
The stresses in foundations of this type should
not exceed those commonly accepted as good engineering practice in reinforced-concrete design, for
the particular mixture of concrete used. As a matter of convenience Table 2 is presented to show
allowable stresses and miscellaneous constants applying to two grades of concrete quite generally
used for foundations. It is strongly recommended
that the 1 :2 :4 mixture be used in practice, the
figures for the 1 :2 :5 mixture being shown primarily as a matter of interest.
19h. Sugge.tions and Recommendations
The calculations explained above provide for
reinforcement to resist the stresses due to the
various types of loading. It is good practice, however, to install additional steel as a means of
tying the foundation together, to form an integral
unit. The same size bars are used for this purpose
as for the main !'lab reinforcement, and the designer must use his own judgment as to the number and location of the bars. Figure 4 represents
what is considered good practice, and is offered
as a guide.
In the case of very large foundations, considerable concrete and weight may be saved by constructing the pedestal with a hollow center, as
illustrated in Figure 5. Of course, the inside form
is left in place. It should be noted that the base
slab extends all the way across, to provide protection and bond for the reinforcing bars.
Foundations supported on piles should be so
constructed as to allow the tops of the piles to
extend about 6 inches into the base, with the
bottom reinforcement about 2 inches above the
piles. (See Figure 6.)
Considerable inconvenience is sometimes encountered in setting the tower in place, due to the
difficulty of lowering the heavy vessel over the
foundation bolts without bending some of them
or damaging the threads. Figure 7 illustrates a
method of overcoming this difficulty. A sleeve
nut is welded to the top of the bolt, and so placed
that the top of the nut lies slightly below the
surface of the concrete, with a sheet metal sleeve
around it. The tower may then be placed in position without interference from the bolts. Stud
bolts are next inserted through the lugs on the
tower, and screwed into sleeve nuts from the top.

Nomenclature
Ao -

effective cross sectional ~rca of steel reinlorce~t iu Len

sion (sq~arc inchu)
F or balanced dul rn
Ao - bo dr Pr
(86)
If depth (dr) is anater than required by cq,ua1ion (85)

Mb
A o - T.J(jj

(87)

I'or top reinfo rcement o f slab to resist uplift struses:

M.
Ao "" f,jdr
a~

8' )
(ta

area of base of foundation (sq. ft.)

= plan area of foundation pcdcatal (sq. ft.)

B = barometric prcuure (inches Ha)
bo = width of the critical section (equal to the width of tbe lace

&v

of the pedestal) anumed to act as a cantilever beam resist

inr the bending streuu (line ab, Fi1urc 3d) (inches)

b' ~ width of critical aection which serves t o resist th e diagonal

tension stres ses. ( line &1 bs, Figure 3.) (inches)
c - distance from neutral axi s of foundation b"<e to point of
maximum st rus. (feet)
c'
di5tance from centro idal ais of foundation base to any point
under conoidcration. ( feet}
D ,.. outside diameter of tow er. (lett)
D, = inside diameter of tower. (feet)
Do= tower diameter measured over insulation. (feet)
Db- diameter o f foundation bolt circle. (feel)
do ~ short dial1) oter of foundation bue. (feet)
d. = shol'l diameter of critical section Cor diagonal tension
stresses (sec: Fiaurea 3 and Jc). (inclu:&)
dt = eUective depth of base of foundation, measured from top of
base 10 centerline of reinforcin&' steel. (inche&)

19

d,

= short

P .. -

diameter of found ation pedestal. (feet)

Ec ... modulus of elasticity of concrete.

Eo - modulua of elasticity of reinforcinr steeL

e = ecctntricity. (feet)
This factor i1 the distance from the centroidal axit of the
foundation to the r,oinf at which the resultant of the dead
load and the wind oad intersects the base of the foundation.
The eccentricity can be calcullled as followJ :
Mr
e = l jj;(12)
Equation (12) .rives the eccentricity at tbt condition of
poorest atability, that is1 with the minimum dud load. This
11 the value which ordmarily is used for design purposes,
however, it ia obvious that the eccentricity for maximum
dead lo11d c~nditions can be .calculated by substituting the
value of (W) in equation (12) in place of (Wo). The
m4.n"mm value which it is pos&iblt for (e) to han and still
maintain tbe stability of the foundation is

'- ' or
e .... - - c
ema.:- -

(19)

z-

(19a)

Values of (emu) for various foundation shapes are as

follows:
(22)
Ocl&Jon,: e .... - O.l22d
(22a)
Hexagon: e .... - 0.121d
(22b)
Square:
e , - O. ll8d
d
(22c)
Circle:
emaa--8
The value of (e) u calculated by equation ( 12), and bas~d
on the minimum dead load (W ) should 11cvcr oxcoed the
value calculated by equations (19) or (19a).
barometric prusu.re. (inchu H 1)
height of hammer fall. (feet)
1, = unit bearing stress on concrete. (pounds/sq. in.). (See equa
tions 37b and 37c)
fe - 1;8.ff! unh streu in ~xtreme fiber of concrete (In compres
sion). (pounds/sq. in.)
f'- ultimate compteuive ttrength of concrete. (pounds/sq. ~n.)
unit stress in concrete (in diaronal tension) due to vertocal
shur load. (pounds/sq. in.)
unit streaa in concrete base due to punching shear. (pounds/
sq. in.)
F I -

r.-

1--

fv -

s.

i2dt

(68)

Valuea of k for variou foundation shapes a1e as follows:

8.15e
Octaron: k- --d(72)
8.32e

= -(1 k = ..!:!~
d

IIe:ucon : k
Square:
Circle:

S.Ole
d

(72a)
(72b)
(72c)

lner arm of wind load (feet) t o be calculated as follows:

II

L~hr+--

(9)

~)

(26)

liLa - bending mom.:nt in base, due to uplift forus. (inch-pounds)

N = number of foundation bolu
n"" (Eo/Eo) - ratio, n.;~dulut of eluticity of ateel to that of
concrete.
P = safe load which each pile will support, (pounds)

20

= ( A.of ba dr)

= pull on

JUY wire due to wind pressure. (pounds)

R -

Re
Sin I

(40)

or,

R 1 =esc I
(41)
R.- vertical component of pull on rur wire. (pounds)
R.- ( Rr
Ro) cos I
(4S)
Rt - initial tension on guy wire. (pounds)
r - radius of gyration of the base of tlte foundation (feet). Its
relation to the moment of inertia can be expre&led u followa:

I ~ ar1
rear ran;inr:

(1 7)

r-~!
rw

(25)

width of tower base rinJ. (Inches)

unit soil loadinr. (pounds/sq. ft.)
(I)
SSs
also,
S -St (I+ lc)
(59)
s, =unit soil loAdinr due to dead load. (pounds/sq. ft.)
~ unit soil loading due to minimum dead load (r>ounds/sq. h.)
to inclu~e the weirht of the empty tower, the foundation and
the ~anh fill only. It does not include insulation, platforms,
piring, liquid, uc.
So .,. unit soil loadinr due to overturning moment . (poundJ/tq. ft.)
So= total maximum unit shurin&" load. (pounds per lineal foot
of ped~ s tal peri meter)
So - S.
S.
(II)
So ~unit shearin&' load due to dead load. (pound per lineal foot
o I ped est a I perimeter)

= total

s, +

s,,.

S ' ...

w. + w. + w,- <a, so~

J.,p

(82)

So- maximum unit sheaoing load due to onrtu rnio.r moment.

(pounds/linn\ foot of Pedestal perimeter).
For pedestals of various ohapes, the value of (S.) are as
follows:
Octaron ;
Ilexason:
Square'

(83b)

Cucle:

(83c)

Sou

= maximum allowable unit soil loadin&'.

(pounds/oq. ft.)
load on each foundation bolt. (pounds)
S, - unit soil loadi"i due to pull on guy wires. (pounds/aq. ft.)
total unit soil loadift&' under minimum dead load couidtioou.
(pounds/sq. ft.)
So ""'unit ttreu in tower shell due to bendin~r moment (Yt).
(poundo/oq. ft.)
t = h~JI thickness. (feet)
u ~ bond atress (between concrete and reinforcln~r steel) per
unit of aoea of urface of bar. (pounds)
V - velocity of wind. (miles per hour)
V
vertical shear load outside the criti~al xction (ne F igures 3"
and Jc:). (pound5)
W = total .weia-ht on soil (poundo) calculated by' the followin~r
equation;
s~

s.,.-

w-W+W

Lo -perimeter of foundation pedestal. (feet)

'M ~ bending moment in base. (inch-pounch)
Mo - negative bending moment at collar. (foot-pound s) (see equa
tion 53)
Mt- overturning moment about base of foundation. (footJ)Oundo)
Mr = Pw L
(7J
Mo - maximum positive bendinr moment between collar and base.
(foot pounds) (see equation H)
M ~ bending moment about bast of tower. (fooloj>OUtl<h)

= Pw

Ro - hori..ontal wind reaction or 1hur at base of tower. (pounds)

Ro- horizontal wind ruction at collar. (pounds)

(S7)

JcS,- S., also

Mt

P-

(M)

fo- safe workin1 strtss, ateel reinforcement in tension. (rounds/

sq. in.)
H - height of tower. (feet)
h r - keigbl of foundation. (feet)
hs = heilht of collar (to which the guy wires are attached) above
foundation. (fed)
r ... moment of inertia of the base of the foundation. (b~sed on
dimensions in feet)
j - ratio of lner arm of resisting couple to det>lh dt. (Sec
table 2)
lc - factor by which the soil loadi111 due to dead load m.usl be
multiplied to equal tbe soil loading due to overturnn.r, as
follows:

L-

total wind load (pounda) to be calculated aa follows :

Pw- P Do H
(8)
p ,.. wind prusure on a flat surface. (pounds per oq. lt.)
Pc - wind pressure on projected uea of a cylindrical tower.
(pounds per sq. ft.)
penetration or sinking of pile under the last hammer blow,
on sound wood. (inclies)
P = ratio, cflective area of reinforcin steel to effective area of
concrete.

(3)

weight of auxiliary material and equipment supported by the

foundation (pounds), includin liquid in the tower, insula
lion, platforms, piptng, etc. (Does not include weight of
tower.)
W - we!ll'ht oC hammer. <voundl!)
w, = weiaht of foundation pedestal (top course). (pounds)
W, =weight of empty tower. (pounds)
W ~ n1inimum dead load .(pou11ds) which is the weiJilt of the
empty tower plus the weirllt of the foundation, including the
earth fill on top of the base.
Z- uction modulus o{ the bate of the foundation (to b~ based
on foundltion dimensions in feet) as follows :
z - -1c
(It)
rr~ 3.1416
I ~ angle which ruy wil'e maku with the vertical. ( derrees)
l:o- sum of perimeters of noinforcin&' bars withi11 the limits of
the beam width (ab). (inchea).
W -

Simplified Design for

Tower Foundations
0

Curves reduce design time for octagonal

reinforced concrete tower foundations by
quick selection of base size, thickness, reinforcement area and unit bond stresses

+t
0

...o..,

t-- -t--+--+--'k;.::0_--1 ~ ~

~"g

...,_
::oCJ

--=

ou.

Andrew A. Brown, Union Carbide Chemicals Co.

South Charleston, W. Va.
DESIGNERS OF FOUNDATIONS have used many different
locations for sections and beam widths to compute bond
shear, bending moments, and diagonal tension shear.
Since agreement on these important phases is not complete, this presentation uses The American Concrete
Institute Building Code Requirements as a guide for
reinforced concrete design and the allowable unit stresses
therein. The usual assumptions are followed as to the
behavior of reinforced concrete and soils.
For simplicity, the derivations of formulas are based
on the inscribed circles of the octagonal base. This does
not influence the accuracy of the final results. The foundation engineer is ever mindful of the fact that a substructure design based on inexact soil bearing determinations, concrete with variable strength, and loads which
can be off 10 percent or more, is not very definite. The
application of good judgment coupled with experience is
more important than carrying out computations to more
significant places than the information and assumptions
warrant.

Foundation Size. As the size of the foundation is the

first design requirement after the permissible soil bearing
has been established, the formulas used for this determination will be derived in that order.
When the resultant of all forces acting on the foundation strike the base within the kern, the forces acting on
the soil can be represented graphically by a right regular
cylinder resting on an ungula of a right regular cylinder.
If it is on the edge of the kern the soil reaction forces
form an ungula whose base is a circle; when it is outside
the kern, the ungula has a base in the form of a circular
segment (Figure 1). The volumes of these solids are
equal to the total weight supported by the soil, and their
moments about the center of the base are equal to the
moments of the external forces acting on the foundation
about the same place. Then the eccentricity "e" measured from the center of the foundation equals
external moment of all forces (M)
Total vertical load (W)

which is equal to the moment of the forces acting on the

bottom of the foundation divided by the total forces
acting on the base.
Resultant Within the Kern. For the condition where
the resultant is within the kern (the area inscribed by a

Equivalent
Square
ACI 1208

Section tor Bond

ond Moment

ACI 1204 (o),l205(c)

FIGURE 1-The resultant of all forces is within the kern.

radius equal to Ys of the diameter of the circular foundation) the maximum soil pressure P is equal to the total
height of the right circular cylinder and ungula drawn
to graphically represent forces acting on the base.
For this condition the maximum soil bearing

W(

8e)

P= 1+?TR2
D

and the minimum soil bearing equals

the height of the soil pressure cylinder or

h =~(1
-~)
?TR
D
2

Let V equal volume of cylinder and ungala which

equals W, the total vertical load.
To get the general formula, let the maximum soil bearing equal unity and h equal minimum soil bearing, then
the total load
W = ?TR 2h +

?TR2 (1- h}
2
-

For a value of ~ less than

Ys,

?TRI

(h+ 1)

----=-2

the maximum soil bear-

ing (unity) can be computed in terms W and D. As an

example, for

e/D= .10, P 1 =A(1

W
TC1-.8)

+ .8) and Pmln. =

.2W
=-x-

21

SIMPLIFIED DESIGN FOR TOWER FOUNDATIONS .

If 1.8 is reduced to unity or P, then

Pm 1n . = - 9

the

height of the right cylinder and the height of the ungala

becomes%
Then
r.R2(
I
)
W=- --g+LO
2

= -5r.R2
- o r C R~
9
v

Where Cv is a coefficient which when multiplied by

the product of the maximum soil pressure and radius
squared will give W, or the total volume of the cylinder

R esultant Outside the Kern. For the development of

the equations for moments and total forces acting on
the base when the resultant force is outside the kern,
refer to Figures 1 and 2, which show this condition.
To get the volume of the ungula of height P, whose
base is bounded by the angle a as measured from the
X axis, we have dV = d A P'. dV is a volume whose
area of base is dA and height P' and is located a distance
R eo a cp from the Y-Y axis. Then by similar triangles

P'

P 1 (Cos</> Cos a)
_.:....:_
_ _ _ _.:...; dA=2R Sin</> dx and dx=R Sin</>d</>.
(I -Cos a)

and ungula for this condition. For the values of ~ , the

coefficients Cv ~ere computed, Column 8 Table I , and
C values, Column 9, were obtained by dividing
C, R 2 by 4 (

~)

TABLE 1-coeftlclents for Various e / d Values

I

3
4
--- - - -- -- v
M
I(
C.,Ra
CvR
1" - - - -- - -.10
u 62' .0660 .0603
2

.15
.20
.25
.30
.35
.40
.45
.50
.65
.60
.65
.70

.75
.80
.85
.90

.95
1.00

--

45 34'
sa 08'

60.

66 66 25'
72 6 32'
78 28'
84 16'
9006
96 44'
101 32'
1076 28'
tta 35'
120
12666 52'
134 26'
u3 08'
154" 09'
1800

.1198
.1823
.2618
.3269
.4068
.4904
.5773
.6666
.7679

.8604

.9440
1.038
1.128
1.226
1.312
1.404
1.488

1.671

.1045
.1516
.1088

.2448
.2879
.3276
.3626
.3927
.4172
.4354
.4493

..4667
.4557
.4537
.4408
.4297
.4107
.3927

e/D
M/2V

.467
.436
.416
.396
.374
.36 1
.333
.314
.291
.276
.256
.238
.220
.202
.165
.168
.153
.138
. 126

.Re~ultant outside or on edge of kern

V/ 4(o/ d)
.079
.167
.264
.403
.583

/D
.12
.II

.10
.09
.08
.07
.06

1.671
1.745
1.826
1.916
2.013
2.121
2.244
2.380
2.464
2.533

34.52
43."3
56.34

----v
CvR V/ 41e/ d)2
--1.602
27.82
74.84

.811
102.7
1.099
147.3
1.463
.05
224.4
1.921
.04
371.8
2.605
.036
600.8
3.235
.03
i03.i
4.170 1 - - - - 6.370
Rcoultant inside korn
6.97
8.94
11.65
14.99
19.60
26.13

p' :

--

FIGURE 2-The resultant of all forces is outside the kern.

c
.450
.425
400
.375
.350
.325
.300

to
.275
.250
.225
.200
.175
. 150
.125
.100
.10

ro
14.75

FIGURE 3-Curve used to determine soil bearing or diameter of foundation base.

22

k' O

10

a..

7S

.70
.65

.65

60

.60

.55

.55

50

.50

.45

.45

.40

.40

. 35

.35

. .30

.25

ACII205~a)

....

2
.c
(/)
....
0

.30

a:

.25

4 5 far Shear
ACI 1205 (b)

".a

Equivalent Square
ACI 1208

.20
.175

FIGURE 5-The soil reaction is the sum of the forces in the

shaded area.

. 15

.125

.125

or M = CRSP 1 where C =

.,

FIGURE 4-Curve plot of Columns 1 and 5, Table 1.

2R2P1
(Cos</> (1 - Cosa)

2R2P1
( I -Cos a )

2R P1
( 1 - Cosa)

)a

M
Column 5 = 2V

Cos a )Sin 2 </>d</>

[Sins</> -Cos a ( !_- _I_ Sin</> Cos</> )] "

3
2
2
0
1

Or V (W) = CR2P 1 where C =

2
[ Sin3a +Sin a Cos 2 a (1-Cosa)
3

a Cos

a]

and M

2R3P1
( 1 - Cosa)

[ - ..:_

=0

(~ )

andColumn6 =

The curves on Figure 3 were plotted by using Columns

5, 6, 7 and 9. From these curves the size of the foundation can be obtained for a permissible soil bearing or
conversely, the soil bearing can be computed for a known
foundation. The formula for soil bearing is

. . . (1)

where W = weight of foundation and equipment and

e
eccentricity caused by wind moment, seismic
forces, etc. and
C
a numerical coefficient for the respective e/ D
value.
With the maximum soil bea1;ng given

=
=

C=[(Cos</>- Cos a ) Cos</> Sin2 </>d</>]

( -1 Sin 4-cf> 4

cf>) _

Cos a

Sin~

"']It
0

2R3P 1
( I - Cos a)

[ a + Cos a Sin a 8

Pl = Ce2

2RSP1 } "'(Cos2 </> Sin2 </>-Cos a Cos SinZ </> ) d

1-Cos a) 0

2R P 1
( 1-Cosa)

. . . (2)

T he moment of any ungula which represents the forces

applil'd on the base of the foundation about the Y-Y
axis is the summation of the product of the differential
volumes, dV and R Cos q,.

a]

(Cos</>-Cosa) Sin2</>d</>

[Sin Sa
Sin a Cos2 -a- a Cos a
-_ (1 -2R2P
+
-----::--Cosa)
3
2

So dM

Cos a SinS
3

By use of equations 1 and 2, Columns 3, 4, 5 and 6

of Table 1 were computed for values of K or angle alpha.

Jy substitution,

and V =

Cosa)

a + Cos a Sin a - 2Coss a Sin a _

[
8

dV =

(1 -

2Cos3 a Sin a _

Cos a :inS a

Plc2

which locates 0

= C and D =

The relation between K and D is shown by the curve

on Figure 4 which was formed by using Columns 1 and 5
of Table 1.

Foundation Thickness. After getting the SIZe of the

hasP., the next step is to determine its thickness. Since
the
missiblc maximum unit shear is 75 psi this is usu-

23

SIMPLIFIED DESIGN FOR TOWER FOUNDATIONS

(!) Widl~

of fooling Ruisting
Shttt C 1 R (Stt Ttblt 2 Col13l

0
Voluont of Slrtll Prls
Whose But il Tropuoid ond

(!)

Voluou of Slrtu Pris

Wedge +Seclioo of Unouto
2
c ~~ R (Set Ttblt 2 Cot. s a 6 I.

Segment of Circle CPsR2(su Tobie

2 Col.3).

.40
.35
.30

.25

.25

.15
.15
.
l 0 - 2 0

.to

.1s

.20

to
c

.2e .30 .35 .40 .45.50.s6Sl .70 .80.90

1.5

25 3.0 3.5 4.04.550

tlrul~tf::E 10

FIGURE ~urves for computing shear for diagonal tension.

ally the controlling factor. In many designs this limits

the strength of the concrete to 2,500 psi for the most
P.eonomical foundation. The soil reaction considered in
computing diagonal tension is the sum of the forces acting
between 90 degree radial lines drawn from the center of
the base through the two corners of the equivalent square
and bounded by section B-B. This section is parallel to
the side of the square at a distance "d," (depth of concrete) from it. One can see by Figure 5 that these forces
can be represented by a section of an ungula whose
height is P,, a wedge whose base is a trapezoid abed and
. h
(.707-Cosa)P,
heJg t of
( 1 _Cos)
and a force solid whose area

By integrating and substituting the values of the trigonometric functions for the45 degree angle, the force V =
2R'P
( _cO:) [.11785- .1427 Cos]
1

This formula provided the value in Column 4 Table 2

for the various values of K (a).
The volume of the wedge is =
R2P4 (.707 -Cosa)2(2 Cos
6(1-Cosa)

and for the respective K and a values the volumes are

recorded under Column 5, Table 2.
These two columns are added (See Col. 6) and the
results are plotted producing Curve 3 of Figure 6.
T he width of the footing "b" for diagonal tension is
2R ( 1 - 2k). When a is 45 degrees or less, it is 2R Sin a.
These values form Curve 1 of Figure 6 and are tabulated
in Table 2, Column 13.

of base is the area of the trapezoid abed and the segment

of the circle whose chord is cd and of height P 5 This
latterareais [ :
[ :

2K')2

-( 1 -

-(1-2K') 2

JR The force is R P
2

.a+ 2.828)

J and is Column 3 of Table 2. (See

Bond-lending Moment. The slab is now investigated

to determine the area of reinforcement and unit bond
stresses. T he moment of all forces to the right of Section
A-A, Figure 1, determines the area of steel, and the sum
of these forces is the shear used in computing the bond.
Section A-A is located by passing a vertical plane through
the foundation along the side of the equivalent square.
The external forces acting on the base can be conceived

curve 2, Figure 6.)

When K is .1465 or less, this area is a segemnt of a
circle. T he volume of the section of the ungula can be
solved by application of limits of 45 degrees for in
computing the volume.

C5

2R' P
V= ( 1 _ Co: a) ) (Sin2 t/1 Cos t/1- Cos a Sin2 t/l)dt/1
0

TABLE 2-Values to Calculate Diagonal Tension, lond, Moment and Beam width
1

CPR'

.10
.15
.20
.24
.30
.35
.40
.45
.50

a& 52'

.1635
.2954
.4264
.53M
.62M
.6954
.7(54
.17M
.7854

411 84'
63 08'
60"
66 25'
7-;;- 32
78" 28
84 16'

90"

Sec. Unit.
C'PR'

weclr

Col .

.0660
.1198
.1611
.1860

.2029
.2144
.2232
.2302
.2~7

cp,

.....

:oio3
.0547
.0951
.1353

.1726

.2067
.2~7

Dlneooal Tension

24

'1

10

1l

ll

13

M.

lRaln
CR

Octaton

..b ..

SeQ. Cyl.

CR

CR

.0132
.0361
.0729
.12119
.1961

1.20
1.40
1.60
1.73
1.83
1.91
1.96
1.99
2.00

1.28
1.43
1.63
1.83
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00

1.20
1.40
1.20
1.00
.80
.60
.40
.20
.00

4+5

Ungula
CPoR

~.Cy1.

PaR 1

Mom.
Un l
CPt

.0660
.1198
.1804
.2407

.0668
.1198
.1823
.2518
.3269
.4068
.4904
.5773
.6666

.1635
.29115
.4473
.6142
.79?:1
.9780
1.173
1.389
1.671

.0076
.0203
.0422
.0729
.1140
.1658
.2294
.30t9
.39?:1

CPR

.2980
.3497
.3958
.4369
.47M

Bond

.2829
.3924
.5195
.6666

Bendin& Mom.

Width Beam

volume of Strtn Priam Whou Bou it Segment of

(!)

Circle , uud in Computing Shear C p 3 R 2'

_
.
_ CP3 R3
A A , Fog. I IO

(!)Volume of Siren Prism Which is on Ungula , ustd

(!)

in Computing Shear

Moment of Sinn Priam (Ungula) About Section

Moment of Strtu Prism , Section of Crlindtr

CP R3
About Section A-A ~

CPgR2

Width of Footing ot Section A-A used lor Shear and

Bonding Moment CR
.50
.45
.40

.35

.30 k.
.25
.20
.15

.10

c
FIGURE 7-Curves for computing shear for bond and bending moment for reinforcement.

as being in the shape of an ungula of height P 2 and a

segment of a right circular cylinder of height P3 The
sum of the two volumes is the shear force, and the sum
of their moments about A-A is the bending moment that
determines the reinforcement. The weights of the concrete slab and earthen fill are deducted from the vertical
forces. This is easily accomplished by reducing the intensity of the uniform bearing load acting ~n the bottom of
the base.
The volumes for the ungula have been computed
earlier for obtaining soil bearing and those values for K
equal to or less than .5 are shown in Column 7 of Table
2 and Curve B of Figure 7. {See Equation 1 for V.)
The volume of the segment of the cylinder is equal to
the product of the area of the segment and P8 The area
is easily computed by making use of the fact that the
middle ordinate is KD. Values for the respective K" are
shown in Column 8, Table 2 and plotted as Curve A,
Figure 7.
The bending moment equation is derived by substituting R (Cos 4> - Cos a) for R Cos 4> in the development
of the formula for moment about the center of the foundation.
2R3Pl
~a (Cos (1- Cos a) 0

. giVes
.
T hIS
M =
_
-

2RBP 1
(1-Cosa)
2

- Cos a ( :
M=

1 ( 1

d
Cos a) 2Sm 2

.
)
5 m 4- -

2 Cos a Sins
3

+ J:
Sin 2)

2 8 1
R P
[.::_(1+4Cos2a) -2-SinaCos3 a (l-Cosa)
8
4

- 2 C osa smsa
3

+ Sin a Cos a]
8

By substituting in this equation the trigonometric values for the respective angles corresponding to the K",
Column 9, was obtained and CurveD plotted on Figure 7.
The moment on the forces whose configuration is a
segment of a cylinder (see Figures 1 and 2) is derived
as follows:
dM = 2RSP8

2R3P3

~~Cos- Cos a) Sin2 d

3
Sins a

1
Cos a( - -- Sin 2 )

SinS -

4
+

Sin a Cos2a 2

]a
0

a Cos a

The values obtained for the angles a (K) are noted in

Column 10 and form Curve E, Figure 7.
The widths of the foundation at the sections are equal
to 2R Sin a and are shown in Column 11, Table 2, and
Curve C, Figure 7. Column 12 and the dotted curve
(Figure 8) indicate the width of beams for any octagon.
Use of Curves. As an illustration of application of the
curves, the following information is given: height of ves-

sel, 112 feet; diameter, 8 feet; the anchor bolt circle

requires a 10-foot octagonal pier; top of pier is one foot
above grade and 6 feet, 6 inches above the bottom of the
foundation; permissible soil bearing 3,000 psf (P 1 ) at 5
feet, 6 inches below grade; wind pressure, 30 psf of horizontal projection of the vessel.
Operating weight of vessel, 200 kips; vessel empty, 100
kips; and test weight, 300 kips.
The diameter of the base required under operating
conditions will be determined first.
The moment of wind force about the bottom of the
foundation is 112 x .03 x 8 x 62.5 = 1680 iap-feet.

25

SIMPLIFIED DESIGN FOR TOWER FOUNDATIONS ..

Estimate the weight of the foundation using a 22 foot,

6 inch octagon, two feet thick.
Pier=
Slab=
Fill =

(82.8) (6.5) (.15)

(419-82.8) (.3)
336.2 ( .35)
Total
Weight of vessel (operating)

w
. .
EccentnCity

= 81 kips
= 101
= 118
= 300
= 200
=500

1680
= 500
-- = 3.36 feet'

c2

= 11 .3

c=

500,000
( 11. 3 ) ~,OOO = 14.75. With this value of C, ejD
is obtained from the curve on Figure 3 as .153. Then
3.36
D = = 21.9ft.
. 153
Next try a 22 foot, 0 inch octagon with a thickness of
1 foot, 6 inches.
The weight of concrete and fill becomes 280 kips and
W = 480 kips. To compute the maximum unit bearing
1680
e =
= 3.5 feet e = 3.5 = .159.

480

22

From the curve used above, C = 13.5 and

480,000
. .
.
P,= _ ( . ) 2 = 2,900psf<3,000. Thts IS cons1dered to
13 5 3 5
be near enough to the allowable soil bearing. To strive
for closer agreement is believed to be inconsistent with
the accuracy of the established bearing value of the soils
and therefore would be a waste of time.
The unit bearing 1.mder the foundation for test conditions and one-half of maximum wind load is found to
be 2,370 psf.
To investigate the 1 foot, 6 inch slab for diagonal
tension, the area of the 10-foot octagonal pier is used
to compute the side of the equivalent square of 9.1 feet.
With the e/D of .159, K is found to be .88, by use of
Figure 4 and KD = 19.35 feet. The distance from the

About the Author

Andrew A. Brown, Captain, Civil Engineer Corps,
United States Naval Reserve, is Public Works Officer, Naval Training Center, South
Charleston, W. Va. and an engineer
in Design and Construction, Union
Carbide Chemicals Company, South
Charleston. Mr. Brown's professional
experience includes several years in
the Bridge Department, State Road
Commission of West Virginia. He
has been a consultant on bridges for
several cities. During his 12 years of
active duty in the United States
Navy some of his billets were: Design and Construction Officer, Fifth
Naval District, RO in CC, Naval
Brown
Missile Test Center, Point Mugu, California, and Public
Works Officer, Naval Station, San Juan, Puerto Rico,
and Naval Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. He is a
member of International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineers and has BSCE and CE degrees
from West Virginia University.

26

center of equipment to the point where the diagonal

9.1
tension is computed is2-+ 1.17 or 5.72. Then K'D =
5.28 )
11.0-5.72 = 5.28 and P. = ( - - 2,900 = 790 psf,
19.35
.
and P5 = 2,900 - (790 + 625) = 1,475 psf. K' =
5.28
22.0 = 24
By referring to the curves for computing shear for
diagonal tension (Figure 6) and using K = .24, the
width of the footing resisting shear is 1.04 ( 11.0) =
11.45 feet. The shearing force is= ( .515 ) (1,475) (1P)
+ (. 23) (790) ( 1 F) = 92,000 + 22,000 = 114,000
114,000
.
.
pounds. V = ( 11. 45 ) ( 14 ) ( 12 ) (.88 ) = 68 pst < 75 pst
maximum allowed.
The section for computing bond and reinforcement is
taken along the side of the equivalent square, A-A Figure
1. Then K'D =

11.0- ( -9.1- ) = 6.45 and K' = .293

2

6.45 ) 2,900 = 965 psf

P 2 = ( 19.35
P 3 = 2,900- (965

+ 625 ) =

1,310 psf

By use of the curves on Figure 7, the shear for bond,

the bending moment and width of beam are computed
for K' = .293.
Width of beam = ( 1.82 ) ( 11) = 20.0 ft. (circle): ( 1.96)
( 11) 0 = 21.55 ft. (octagon )
(3.15) (965) (112)
Shear for bond = (.76) (1,310) ( 112) '---'---~--'-10
= 120,600 36,800 = 157,400 lbs.

'8

d'
(1.08) (965) (113)
en mg moment O

+ (1.83) (1,310) (1 JS)

10
= 139,000

+ 319,000 =

458,000 ft.-lbs.
458
Area of steel required per foot =
(20) (14) (1.44)
= 1.14 sq. in. per ft. of width.
Since wind forces contribute more than 25 percent of
the moment, stresses can be increased one-third so the
area becomes (. 75) ( 1.14) = .85 sq. in. A six-inch spacing each way of No. 6 bars = .88 sq. in. ~0 = 4. 7 inchcE
.
157,400
and bond stress 1s = (20) ( l 4 ) (. 88 ) ( 4. 7)
137 psi.
Some foundation engineers prefer to base the steel and
bond requirements on the middle one foot wide strip.
Under this condition the force for bond is = ( 1,3 10 )
(6.45) -J (Y2) (6.45) (965 ) = 8,450 + 3,110 = 11,560
pounds.
The bending moment is = (6.45 2) (Y2) (1,310) +
( Y3) (6.45 2 ) (965 ) = 27,300 + 13,400 = 40,700 ft.-lbs.
.
.
.
(.75) (40.7)
As = (14 ) ( 1.44 ) = 1.51 sq. m., a five-mch spacmg each
way of number 7 bars = 1.44 sq. in., ~0 = 6.6 inches.
11,560
.
u = (6.6) (.88) (14) = 14 2 pst.
The design for the top of the slab reinforcement, "top
bars," which arc required by certain combinations of
##
loading, is left for the reader.

Calculation Form for Foundation Design

For complete design of octagonal
foundations for stacks and towers or
for estimates only, this form will
solve the problem easily and quickly
Bernard H. Shield, Celanese Chemical Co.,
Pampa, Texas
IN THE DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS and structures for
chemical plants, the structural engineer normally is not
too concerned with a highly theoretical, or complicated
mathematical approach. From a. practical standpoint, the
design assumptions quite often are not accurate enough
to justify such an approach.
Since the chemical industry is such a fast moving, often
changing, and complex field, the design engineer often
lacks sufficient time to make an accurate theoretical
analysis or sometimes even a very thorough practical
analysis. Quite often he must wade through a lengthy
article or text concerning an unfamiliar problem, or a
problem which he has not worked recently. While the
time schedule suffers and other details of the job are
neglected, he must set up the problem for practical
analysis. For many problems of a repetitive nature, much
time is consumed in setting up the sketches and framework for an analysis rather than in simply solving the
problem.
How many times have you heard the question, "VVhen
will the foundation drawings be out?" I have heard it
many times, quite often as soon as a request for appropriation for a new installation is approved. Faced with
this situation, the engineer must constantly seek solutions
to his problems that will give safe and economical designs
and use a minimum of his own time.
The following calculation form for octagonal foundations for towers and stacks was devised with this idea in
mind.
We have used the prototype of this form quite successfully for about seven years and believe it is worthwhile
to pass on to others. The. form is largely self-explanatory
with the nomenclature and design method being explained
as the solution progresses.

Design Basis. The following general comments should

be of help in using the form the first time. Moments are
computed about the centroid of the base of the pad,
ignoring any shifting of the neutral axis as loads are
applied. Soil stresses are computed using the section
modulus of the base pad around its axis of symmetry. The
slightly higher soil stress which would be obtained by
using the section modulus around a diagonal is ignored.
Stresses caused by a moment in the base pad are computed
according to the ACI code by computing the moment
along a line which would coincide with the side of a
square of equivalent area to the pier. Two-way reinforcement is then provided similar to the normal method of
reinforcement for two-way reinforced footings.

In computations of forces, the area and stress diagrams

are divided into simple geometrical shapes for ease in
computation. The design of tensile reinforcement in the
pier is a practical rather than a theoretical approach.
Anchor bolt lengths and hooks are designed according
to the ACI code for hooked plain bars. The length will
depend upon the design stress used for the bolts, so if a
designer wishes to use a stress which differs from that
shown on the anchor bolt table, he may easily change
the length.
If he desires additional safety, he may choose to use a
lower design stress for sizing the bolts and use the lengths
given in the table. I prefer using higher anchor bolt
stresses than some designers, taking advantage of the V3
increase in allowable stresses for combined loading in
which wind is a factor. This will of course give anchor
bolts which are smaller in diameter and longer in length.
I have a great deal of confidence in the reliability of design stresses in steel but very little confidence in the allowable bond stress for a smooth bar. Many times anchor
bolts are installed without proper cleaning and with
thread cutting oil all over them. So, who knows what
bond stress will be developed?
I believe much work remains to be done to devise, and
prove by tests, a really good method of design for large
anchor bolts. In the meantime, I prefer to use a design
which I believe to be safe and economical, and recognize
the right of other engineers to use their own criteria.
It should be noted that the use of this form is not
limited to the complete design of a foundation. Should
it be desired to obtain only the size of the foundation
pad, for such things as estimating or layout, one need only
proceed through Step 5. Step 15 with Figure 3 are quite
useful to transmit information to a draftsman, and the
anchor bolt tables are useful in fabrication of anchor
bolts.
The next time you have this type of design problem,
give this form a try. It is easily revised for special cases.
You may not appreciate its merits so much if you only
have one foundation to design. If you have two or more,
I think you might begin to like it. If you have 50, you
will probably become downright fond of it!

Procedure. Considerable time and effort are usually required to make a detailed and accurate design for octagonal foundations for towers, tall reactors, pressure vessels,
or stacks, particularly if the designer is unfamiliar with
the problem. Consequently, a complete design is often
not made, and this may lead to either an unsafe or uneconomical design or both. This method provides sufficient des.ign detail for a safe and economical design.
A relatively inexperienced designer can use the form, but
such work should always be checked by an experienced
designer. This form makes such checking easy. The
finished calculation provides a neat, understandable, and
legible record and should be maintained for record purposes.
This form is intended for the complete design of foundations which have relatively large base pads in relation

27

CALCULATION FORM FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN .

to pier sizes. It can also be used for foundations which
have relatively large pier sizes in relation to pad sizes;
however, for this condition the designer must be alert
to make necessary changes in the calculations. Referring
to Figure 2, the changes which will be necessary are as
follows:
When D2 > 0.45 D1, d will be a negative number, and
along with area (3) will di-op out of consideration. Dimension C will also have to be computed by other means
than as shown. Therefore the calculations for shear and
moment as outlined is Step 7 will have to be altered.
When e is zero or a negative number, the calculation
for shear is unnecessary and Step 11 may be omitted.

An orbltrorr 1ft. Is added Dotl

for vapor lines. loddert
p lotformt~t_!ltc~.==::::_- !=~;:;:;:~I

DIAGONAL
TENSION

Do- Dlo. outelcle

lntuL, ft

P..P4(T4)(q,tl)
lb

- ..
..:

...

..:
!
...
'a

lnsul.

...

.!

..

FLEXURE

80 0

DIAGONAL
TENSIO

FIGURE 1-Record dimensional data on this figure.

Step 1. Record dimensional data on Figure 1. Depth

below grade, h 5, should be determined by a reliable
soil survey for the site. The pier diameter, D 2, is usually
about 1'-6" larger than the tower skirt diameter. The pad
diameter, D 1 , and pad thickness, ht, must be assumed and
solved for by trial and error.
For selecting an initial trial pad size, the following
method is suggested.1
Where wind load is likely to govern:

FIGURE 2-Stresses due to flexure, bond and diagonal ten

sion are computed along these sections.

R efer in the ASA bulletin to Figure 1 and Table 3

and list wind pressures for each height zone for the plant
site as follows:
For height zone, T 1,
P1 = 0.6 (
) = _ _ __ _lbs./sq. ft.
Value from Table 3
For height zone, T 2,
P2 = 0.6 (
) = _ _ ,_ __ lbs/sq. ft.
For height zone, T 3 ,
P8 = 0.6 (
) = _____lbs/sq. ft.

D 1 = Trial dia. across flats, ft.

Mr =Total moment about base (See Step 2), ft.-lbs.
S =Allowable soil stress, lbs/ ft.2
(Suggest using 1,800 lbs ft2 for first trial.)

Wind load computations are based on the A.S.A. bulletin "Minimum De~gn Loads in Buildings And other
Structures," A58.1-1955.

28

For height zone, T 4 ,

P4 = 0.6 (
)=

_ _ ___lbs/ sq. ft.

Compute and record on Figure 1, the values of Ph P2,

etc., and the values of L 1, L 2, etc., for the size tower being
used.
WR = Weight of reboiler, full of water =

lbs.

Sten 2. Compute total overturning moment, Me.

Mw = Moment due to wind:
Lt (Pt) =

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ft.lbs.
X - - - - - - - - - - - -- ft.lbs.

L2 (P2) =
L 8 (P8 ) =

L, (P,) =

X - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - ft. lbs.
Tot. Mw

-------------

ft.lbs.

Ma = Moment due to reboiler weight:

Wa ('C) = - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - ft. lbs.
=Total=Mw+MR =

ft. lbs.

Step 3. Compute vertical loads.

A1 = Area of base

= 0.828 (D1 2) = 0.828 ( _ _ _ _ ) = - - - - - - sq. ft.

A2 = Area of pedestal = 0.828 (l;>l) = 0.828 (

A 8 = Area of fill

)=

. sq. ft.

WB = Wt. of base

= At-A2 - - -- - - - - - - - - _ sq. ft.

=A1 (h1 ) 150= _ _ X _ _ _ X 150= _ _ _ Ibs.

Wp = Wt.ofpedestal

=A 2 (h 2 ) 150= _ _ _ X _ _ _ X 150 = _ _ _ lbs.

Wp = Wt.offoundation = WB+Wp

+--- =

lbs.

Wc=Wt.offill =A3 (h3 ) 100=-- - X - - - X 100= - - - - - lbs.

WT= Wt. of tower at time of mounting on foundation ..... = _ _ _ _ _ _ lbs.
WA= Wt. of tower accessories and contents installed after
mounting:
._ _ _ _ _ lbs.

Wa = Reboiler wt.
Ww = Hydro. test water

- - - - - - - lbs.

Insulation

- - - - - - - lb$.

Piping

lbs.
_
__
_
__
_
lbs.
Platform and ladders
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ lbs.

Other

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ lbs.

WA, Total =

,_ _ _ _ _ lbs.

W = Max.wt. on soil= WF+wc +WT+WA

Subtract Ww
W8 = Wt. of finished tower, empty

- - - - - - lbs.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ lbs.

WL = Wt. of liquid when operating

=+ _ _ _ _ lbs.

W0 = Wt. of tower, operating conditions= W8 + WL

- - - - - - - lbs.

Step 4. Compute maximum soil loading.

SA= Allowable soil stress at site and depth = _ _ _lbs./ft. 2
Neglect maximum theoretical loading with tower full and full
wind load unless tower operates liquid full
Section modulus of fdn . pad= Z = 0.109 (D 1' ) = 0.109 ( _ _ ) = - - - - - ft.
Case 1. Tower operating with full wind load.
S 1 = Soil stress due to load = W0 /A 1

- _ _ _! _ _ _ =

S2 = Soil stress due to wind= Mc/Z

S

Maximum stress

_ ___, _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ lbs./ft.2

sl + s2

---

lbs./ft.t
= _ _ _,/ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ lbs./ft. 2

Case 2. Tower tested full with negligible wind.

S = W/A1

_ _ _ _ _ __

---- --- -----

lbs./ft.2

Use maximum, Case 1 or Case 2, must be~ SA

29

TABLE 1-Type 1 Bolts with 180 Hook

Projection

See "Anchor Bolu Detailing Dimensioru"

on Ia$! page of thiJ article

JThreada

____________ jn, __~r~l:=t

Sleeve
0
-dla.x_ln.

in.

Slze

Thd.

---

Net Hook

Serte1

Area

"."'.

D= 6d
D= 8d

. 1/2

for bolts 1/2" to 7/8"

1/2" for bolts 1" to 2 1/2"

Step 5. Check stability. The most unstable period is

usually just after mounting the tower on its foundation,
prior to adding the weight of accessories.

= (__ - __)

Erection smln. = (W- wA)/Al -S2

! ___ - ___
lbs./ft. 2

=___

Smto. (Soil stress on windward side) must be~ 0

This computation will give a resultant minimum soil stress
which is on the safe side for stability because the vertical load
is computed with the tower stripped of accessories and the overturning moment used in computing S2 includes moment due to

o-1

o-a

0'-9

o-a

1'-o-

,.

0'-4

1'-2.

O.SlH

I '-5'

0'-10

o-a

0'-4

1'~

1~

o.12s 1-1

o-11 0'-9'

O'~

t-s

0.929

1'-8'

1'-1

0'-10'

0'-5'

2'-0'

1.155

t- u

t'-2

o-u

0'-6'

2'-4'

1.405

2'-1'

1'-3

1'-0'

0'-6'

2'-7'

t.980

2'-s

1'-s

1'-2

0'-7

3'-a
3'-10'

Total

Len~th

- - - - - - 1 -- - t - - - 1 1 - - - 1- - -

2'

'".

2.652

2'-Q

l'-8"

1'-4'

0'-8.

2"

3.42:1

3'-t

1'-ll'

1'-6.

0'-9"

4'6

2~

4.292

3'-5"

2'- l"

1'-8"

0'-10"

5'-2"

accessories. Should the designer so desire, the moment can be

reduced for this check by substituting the tower djameter for
(D0 + I) in Figure 1, eliminating rcboilcr moment and recomputing moment on tower in a stripped condition as it nonnally
would be during erection. If this jg done, stability under operating conditions should also be checked as follows: (See Case 1
above)
S1 =

lbs./ft.

Subtract S = _________ Jbs./ft.

2
lbs./ft. and must be~ 0

Operating Smin. =

--(

___

______ lbsft 2

~a+d(S)

<- - -)
- -- - -----ft.

- - - = - - - - - --ft.

- _______ ft.

0'2

0'-4'
0'~

~D.

.414 (- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ft.

c = .707 (b) = .707

o-a
0'-5'

ft.2 = - - - - - ----ft.

o.4
0'-s
o'-6'

(ACI-318-PAR 1208 (a))

b= .414 (D 1 )

o-1
0'-9

0'-7'

Step 6. Compute dimensions and loads for computations of stresses in foundation pad. Compute size of
square pedestal with equi'"alent area of octagonal pedestal, A 2 (See Figure 2.)
a="VA; = V

0.120
0.202

1'-0

~~

11

Mln.
L

0'-10

1"'.

II
LJ

o.302

t}(

0.419

--~

__ ___
(

S7 = Sa -

SG = - - -

S8=S4 -

S0 = _ __

S9

_ _ _ Jbs/ft2

----

= ~!/:2 +D dz(S ) (d ~ .
4

) = ______ Jbs ft2

IS

. f

_ _ _ lbs/ft2

t.)

+
- --- _ (____) = _____ Jbs ft2

m =a+ 2 d 2 (d 2 is in ft., here)

=-

-+--------

ft.

y=b+c

---+----

+ +
- -------

- - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ lbs/ft2

S3

= ___ + _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ lbs./ft.2

30

) = _ _ _ _ Lbs/ft 2

------ - - f t .

~
S.=
WaA+lwr =----- ------ lbs./ft.2

S4 = S 1 + S2

_ __

- -----

_____ _lbs/ft2

TABLE 2-Type 2 Bolts with 90 Hook

See "Anchor Bolu Detailing Dimensions"
on last page of this article

Projec tion

_____ in.

------~n.

S ize

T h d.

SHiea

Sleeve
0
-dia. x_in.

Net Hook

Min.
L ..

Total

J
D
Len a th
- - ------0.126 0'-9'
0'-8'
0'-4'
0'-6'
0'-7'
- -- -0.202 0'-11 0'-11'
o-a
o-:9
-0.302
---1'-0'- -0'-5'- -- -1'-1'
0'-9'
1'-0"
1 -- -- - - - - -! - - 0.19 1'-3
1'-2'
0'-6'
0'-11' 1'-2'
t - - - -- -I - - - - O.Ml 1'.&
0'-7'
1'-0"
Area

o-~

J
1'
--1}i'
---

I
/

1~

1'- ~

0.728

Jj~
~;;;

~~

l.lM

'-s

1'-6'

0'-8'

1'-2'

1'-10'

1'-9'

0'-9'

1'-3'

2'-0'

2'-0'

1'-11'

-0.929
-

.~~

1'-~

1'-8'

0'-10' 1'-5'
2'-
- - -1
-- -1.405
--- - 2'-2" 2'-1" 0'-11' 1 -6
2'-7'
---1
----1.980 2'-7"
1'-0
2'-5"
1'-9'
3'-3'
~~
- -- - - - - u~
-2"
2'-0"
3'-10"
gf-oj 2.652 2'-lt" -- - - - -1'-2"- - - 2'-9"
UooU -23('
3'-lA'
3.423 3'4"
2'-3"
4'-6"
-- - -l'-6.- -2'6- -4.292 -3'-8'
3'6"
5'-2'

y
12d min.

~~

-<
"- ~

1'-4"'

D= 7d

2~

1/2"

Step 7. Compute total moment in pad along a section

at the edge of the equivalent square pedestal: See Figure
2, Section R-S.
AREA

IN

( 1)

( 1)

SQ. FT.
(c X b)

--

(2 )

X 56

.X

= ( c )2

(3)

X ( 7'!Jc+ d )

X ( _ _ _+ _

X(_

X Y3S 8

(d X D 1 )

)2X

{Y2C

-t

d)
.+ _

X( _

X S;;

X l4d

X_

= (d X D 1 )

X l4S7

X 31d

_ )-

V=

lbs.

Mu =

X
Totals

)=

.+ _ _ )=

= ___ X

= ___

X ( Ysc + d)

)2 X

= (_ _ _

(3)

X ( _ _ + _ _ )=

X 56

= (c)2

= MOMENT, ft. lbs.

X ( l4c + d )

X l4S8

= (_ __
(2)

= (SHEAR, lbs.) X ARM, ft

X LOAD ,Ibs.

_x ____ x

= (c X b )

Computations are made according to "Building Code

Requirements For Reinforced Concrete," ACI 318-56.

ft. lbs.

Step 8. Compute depth of pad required for flexure.

d 2 req'd =

'\J/ ~
KD

= ~ -~x-=--

------k

in.
ftc = 28 day compressive strength of concrete

2 X _ _ _ _ _ X _ _ __

in 2

fc = 0.45 ftc = 0.45 X _ _ __

=v
fs

--..J

- _ _ _ _ lbs/

d2 req' d

= fc/ 2 kj =_

Allowable tensile stress in steel.

--~-

{$

= _ __lbs/in 2

- _ _ _ _ lbs/in2

+ -nfc

1-

- - - - - - - ---

Ysk =

t + _ __ _ _ __

- - - --

D 1 is in feet in formula, see Fig. 1; MB is in ft. lbs.

d 2 + bar diameter

The following factors may be obtained from tables in Concrete

Design Handbooks or computrd as follows:

_ ___ +

+ 3 in. must be =

+ 3 in. =

or

< assumed h 1
in. Actual d 2 used

- -- - - -- - in.

31

CALCUlATION FORM FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN ..

Step 10. Compute bond stress for steel design above:

:EO = Sum of bar perimeters.

Step 9. Compute steel required for bottom of pad for

flexure. (Ref. ACI 318, par 1204-e)
_

A - 0.85

12 M

12 (
)
0.85 --'7--:---:-:---'-

c-(
') 8 J d2

_ x _ x_

M 8 is in ft. lbs. See Step 7

=Number of ban across D1 X bar perimeter.

----- - - - in.2

-X.

- - - - - - - -- --in.

p. = Computed bond stress, lbs./in.z

= l;Ojd2

- - - X --- X -

- _ _ _ _ _ _ lbs./in.:

d 2 is in inches. Sec Figure I.

Use _ _ _ No. _ _ _ ban at _ _ _
uniformly) both ways across D 1

*Allowable p. - - - - - - - - lbs./in.2

in. o.c. (distribute

V =Total Shear, lbs. See Step 7.

d2 is in inches, See Figure 1.

Steel supplied = - - - - X - - -- - _ ___ in.2

*Ref. ACI 318, Sec. 305

Step 11. Compute shear unit stress as a measure of

diagonal tension along Section f-g, Figure 2.
Stress indicated on
stress diagram.

Area on plan.
(4)

Volume of area-stress.
Geometrical shape

+ (5)

Shear for
diagonal tension

m+y
=S 9 - - (e)
2

(The numbers here are for defining the

geometrical shapes on Figure 2. Fill in
blanks at right for computation.)

= - 2 - (_

(4)

=~(e)(m)

+ __ ) ( _ ) =

Su

= - 2- (_ _ ) ( __ l=
(5)

s1o

(_

= s1o ( b-;

sl2

s~2

= -

lbs

)=

lbs

T)

(b)

- ( _ _ ) ( _ _ )= _ _ _ lbs

( 7)

=....!!. (c)2
12

-12-

(_

V 1 = Total shear for diagonal tension= Total of above---

Compute diagonal tension shear unit stress, v:

)'= _ _ _ lbs
- _ _ _ lbs

V 1 =Total shear across Section fg (See above), lbs

v=---

m = Length of Section f.g (See FIG. 2)

mj d2

d 2 is in inches, See FIG. 1.

___ ___ ___

- - ---:--- -- - -) (

) (

Allowable v = _ ___lbs/in2
Ref. ACI-318, Sec. 305.

32

H=

Y) (T)

=4 - ( _ + __ )(_

v=

lbs

3
=~

(6)

= 2 S 11 (e)2

Su

(6) + (7)

lbs

= _ _ _ lbs/in.,2
)

= _____ inches

+- - - (100) =

Step 12. Compute ftexure in top of pad due to uplift.

Figure 2, Section R-S.

W' = - - - ( 150)

W' =Uniform downward load on areas ( 1), (2) and (3),

Figure 2.

See Figure 1, and using an average weight of reinforced

concrete = 150 lbsj cu. ft. and an average weight for
earth fill of 100 lbsjcu. ft.

h 1 (150)

+h

(100)

AREA
(1)

IN SQ. FT.

X LOAD, lba ft2 X ARM, ft.

bXc

XW'

- - X _ _ X _ _ __
(2)

_ _ _ lbs/ft2

= MOMENT, ft. 11>4.

x(-2 +-)= - -

XW'
_ _ _ _ )2

(3)

x____ x(-3-+--)=-----X d/2

XW'

_ _ X _ _ X _ ___ X - - -- - - 2
Mu, Total moment - - -- - - - - ft. lbs.

Step 13. Compute steel required for flexure in top of

pad.
12 Mu
12 X
A's = 0.85 fs j d = 0.85 -..,..x..,----..,...X..,---

d 1 is in inches. See Figure 1.

Use
No.
bars at _ _ _ _ inches on center.
(Distribute uniformly across D 1 both ways)

- _ _ _ _ in.2

Steel supplied = Number of ban X Area each bar.

- ____ x ____

Mu = Moment due to uplift across Section R-S, Figure 1.

= _____ in.2

Step 14. Compute size of anchor bolts.

Refer to Figure 1 and compute moment at base of tower
as follows:
M 8 w =Moment at base due to wind:
(Ll -

h, )

PI = < - - - -

(L2-h,) P2 =

- -- - - - - ft. lbs.

(---

ft,,lbs.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ft . lbs.

(L3-h4) Pa = ( - - --

(L,-h,) P4 =

( - --

- - --

ft. lbs.
Mnw = _______ ft. lbs.

M 8 = Moment due to reboiler from Step 2 - - - - - - =

ft. lbs.

+ Mn - - - - - - - =

ft. lbs.

MT = Total moment at base= Mnw

N =Number of bolts =
("N" should never be less
then 8 and preferably 12 or more)
Db= Diameter of bolt circle - _ __ _
Fb =Tensile force, due to MT, per
(W-r/N)

ft.

bolt= * (~

MT/NDb) -

= (4X _ _; _ _ X _ _J-( _ _; _ _)= _ _ _ _ _ Ibs.

_ _ _ _ lbs.
FT =initial tensile force due to tightening nut. - - - - - - - =
(5,000 lbs. is suggested for "FT")
lbs.
F=Total maximum tensile force= Fb
F-r- --- - - - - -- - Net Area (At root of thread)= F/Allowable stress

- -------~------- -

- - - - m.

Size of anchor bolt (Add }ln to size determined above for corrosion.)
- - -- - - - - in. dia.

Net Area of selected bolt. = - - - - - - -- - in.2

See Tables 1 and 2 for detailing dimensions of anchor bolts, and for net areas to use in selecting bolt sizes.
Thi simplified formula is not exact, but is always on the safe side.

33

..

..
::t

0
CIO

c!

Uae _____"dia. - - - - - " long galvanized Iron sleeves.

,....-Fin. EleY. =
No.
Dio.
1----~-==*r- uae _ _ ---"dia. bolts

..:

1------rt-....ott-- .#3

ties at 12" o .c .

-if- ~;:::;:::::;::::::;::::::~::Dt:==~~jjb1~-;;_7T~;;~;;.;

"

o .c. both way 1.

- - - - " O . C.

both WO)'I.

ELEVATION

Step 15.

Pe~estal

steel and reinforcing steel placement.

Thll 1ketch is for u .. in drafting finished drawings.

For vertical steel in pedestal use greater of following

two steel areas:

( 1) A8 =Net area of anchor bolts.

--------- in.~

(2) A8 =No.5 bars at (max.) 6 inch spacings.

- - - - - - - - - in,2
Use
No.
bars distributed uniformly around pedestal in octagon as shown (Figure 3)
As =

,_ _ _ __ in.2

Anchor Bolts Detailing dimensions. Tables 1 and 2

can be used for fabrication simply by marking or circling
the desired bolt size and shape.
*Total length = P + S + L +A
***Net area = an, in. 2
** Design basis for L: = Computations are made using an
allowable stress of 26,600 psi. Allow 10,000 psi for the hook

PLAN
FIGURE 3-Foundation details.

About the Author

Bernard H. Shield is an engineering group leader
with Celanese Chemical Company, Pampa, Texas. He
supervises a departmental group
handling mechanical design phases
of plant alterations and expansions
including project engineering, mechanical, electrical, and instrumentation. Mr. Shield holds a B.S. degree in civil engineering from The
University of Texas. He worked with
the Surface Water Branch of the
USGS and instructed in the Civil
Engineering Department of the University of Texas before joining
Celanese. He is a Registered Civil
Engineer in the State of Texas, a
Shield
member of Chi Epsilon, Tau Beta
Pi, ASCE and TSPE.

34

and develop the remainder of the bar strength in bond over

length, L.
L

= fs an - fsliag
7rdp

Where: f 8 =Allowable stress at root of thread= 26,600 psi.

a.,= Net area at root of thread, in.2
p =Allowable bond stress for 3,000 psi concrete= 135
psi.
f 8l i =Allowable stress over gross area due to hook =
10,000 psi.
ag =Gross area of bolt, in. 2
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
There haw: been many fine articles published on this subject and 1 wish tc
acknowledge the information which I have gained from them. In addition,
good comments from Celanese engineers, particularly the late Eddie Bayers
of Charlotte, North Carolina, and Willard Johnson and Womac Soward with
Celanese at Bishop, Texas, have contributed to the development of this
paper. I abo wish to recognize the work of our draftsman, DOn Stafford, in
the drafting of this form.

LITERATURE CITED
1 Wilbur, W. E., "Foundations (or Vertical Vessels,"
34, No. 6, 127 (1955).

PETROLEUM RutNI!.R,

Use Graph to Size Tower Footings

Dimensionless numbers, computer
calculated and plotted on graphs, simplify sizing of octagonal, square and
rectangular spread footings.

J. Buchanan, Newcastle University College,

Newcastle, N.S.W., Australia
GRAPHS OF SIMPLE dimensionless numbers may be used
to size spread footings. These numbers describe the action
of the footing under a known load system and allow the
user to select a footing size that will maintain stability
without exceeding a specified maximum allowable soil
bearing pressure.
A typical footing arrangement is shown in Figure 1.
As in the usual treatment the soil under the footing is
taken to be perfectly elastic, and no credit is allowed for
the soil lateral support. When the moment (M) is negli-

If M is increased further the structure must topple.

So long as the allowable pressure is not exceeded, all
of these possible arrangements are inherently stable. However, at some stage in the sequence, the maximum soil
pressure, that is the pressure at the extreme point on the
leeward side, becomes equal to the allowable pressure.
As the moment is increased further, the pressure at this
point exceeds the allowable and the structure is in danger
of toppling caused by differential settlement.
For any particular footing shape (square, octagonal,
etc.) and orientation, a pressure pattern as shown in any
one of the diagrams of Figure 2 prescribes a unique
relation between W, M, the maximum pressure P, and
the plan size of the footing-described by some characteristic dimension L.
For any such case the dimensionless groups, which may
be formed from these variablesWL

""M'

W3
W
M2P ' PL2' etc.-

have fixed values.

The graphs of Figures 3 and 4 show the relationship
between two of these groups,

w /w

M'\JP

FIGURE 1-Typical footing arrangement for tall towers.

gible compared with the dead weight (W), the soil bearing pressure is uniform over the whole area of the base of
the footing as shown in Figure 2(a). As the moment
increases, the soil pressure distribution changes, as shown
in Figure 2(b), (c) and (d), until it reaches the extreme
(and in practice impossible) case shown in Figure 2 (e)
where the structure is just balanced on one corner of the
footing and the :.,caring pressure is infinite at that point.

w
and PL2

'

for footings having square and octagonal plan shapes and

the orientations shown.
The terms of the first group and the footing shape are
the design data. Calculation of this group and reference
to the graph for the footing shape specified gives the
value of the second group from which the size of the
footing may be calculated.
Figure 3 includes all the cases where the whole of the
base of the footing is loaded as in Figure 2 (b) ; that is,
where there is some pressure over the whole of the lower
face of the footing. The upper limit is at the point where
the minimum pressure is 95 percent of the maximum.
Beyond this point the effect of the moment load may
safely be neglected.
Figure 4 describes the cases where only part of the
base is loaded [as in Figure 2 (d) ] . The lower limits correspond with cases where only about one tenth of the
base area is under load. Actual designs will rarely approach this condition or go beyond it. The upper limits
of Figure 4 correspond, of course, with the lower limits
of Figure 3.
For a given loading system on a footing, there is, except
for a circular footing, some critical orientation of the axis
of rotation which produces the highest maximum soil
pressure. For both the square and the octagon this orientation is the axis passing through two vertices.
The curves for the octagonal footing have been calcu-

35

(a)

(c)

(b)

(d)

(e)

FIGURE 2-Changes in soil pressure for tall towers.

lated on this basis. Similarly, for a completely unrestrained structure on a square footing, the curves for the
diagonal axis should be used for calculating the minimum
size of footing.
If the structure is restrained so that rotation about only
one axis is possible, as for instance in the case of a pipe
rack standard, a more economical design results if a
square footing is arranged so that this axis is parallel to
one side. The appropriate curve is then used for calculation of the footing size. In this orientation the required
size of the footing is somewhat less.*
In such a situation, however, an even more economical
design may result from using a rectangular footing with
its greater side perpendicular to the axis of rotation.
The curves may be used equally well for design of rectangular footings by using the factor a, the plan aspect
ratio of the footing.
a=

dimension perpendicular to the axis of rotation

di.tnension parallel to the axis

In these cases,
L

= dimension perpendicular to the axis of rotation

Usually a will be greater than 1, but if for some other

reason a rectangular footing must be laid out so that a
is less than 1, the graphs may be used in the same way.
The procedure then is to find the size of a square
footing which, with the same loading, would produce a
p

maximum bearing pressure of matically by using the groups,

This is done auto-

M*a Wa

--and-2

PL

lb.
kips
tons

lb. ft.
ft. kips
ft. ton

lb./ft.2
kips/ft.2
ton/ft2

When the size of the footing base has been calculated

it is necessary to calculate the thickness and reinforcement necessary to resist the shears and bending moments
in the footing itself. For convenience in these calcula-

u : ~:;-

minimum pressure
n= - - : - - - - - maximum pressure

and in Figure 4,
p = the proportion of the width of the

footing under load.

Knowing the value of the appropriate parameter and

of the maximum soil bearing pressure, P, the load distribution over the lower face of the footing and the required thickness and reinforcement may then be calculated by the methods of Marshalla or Brown.1
In this connection it should be particularly noted that
when a portion of the footing is unsupported by soil reaction there are shears and, more important, bending
moments in the unsupported section of the slab in the
opposite sense to those usually considered in the design.
These stresses must be evaluated and the slab design may
require modification to resist them (e.g. by the addition
of top bars to resist the reverse moment) .
In common with all other methods proposed for estimating footing size, the calculation must be a trial and
error process. The known data are usually:
Structure deadweight (empty, working and under hydrostatic test conditions, if required) ;

Pedestal size and weight;

Depth of footing base below ground (from knowledge
of frost line level or situation of desirable load bearing
strata) ;
Allowable maximum soil bearing pressure (P).
For full details of estimation of these see Brownell and
Young,2 or MarshalJ.S The moment load (M) can then
be calculated from the wind load and depth of footing
base below ground. The total deadweight (W), however,
comprises, besides the weight of the structure and the
pedestal:
The weight of the footing itself, and
The weight of overburden above the footing.

is less than 0. 73, the situation is reversed, but in this

cue a ~quare-or recta~footing with axis of rotation parallel to a

aide should atill be wed.

36

p have been added

Wind and other eccentric loads;

as

marked on the graphs.

As is usual with dimensionless correlations, the units of
the terms must be consistent. The length unit will usually
be feet; the force unit may be pounds, kips, tons, or any
other convenient. Typical sets are:
L
ft.
ft.
ft.

tions, values of the parameters n and

to the graphs, where in Figure 3,

These can only be calculated when the footing plan

size and thickness have been fixed. Thus it is necessary

to guess initially a footing size so that (W) can be estimated, and then to refine this estimate by trial and error.
Often, and particularly for deeply based footings, the
slab thickness is of minor importance at this stage, since
extra thickness of concrete only displaces overburden of
not greatly different density. If the initial estimate of the
thickness is reasonably good. final adjustment will have no
great effect on the deadweight (W).
It is usually desirable to compute separately the footing
size required for several critical load conditions. These
are:
Minimum weight and maximum wind effect, e.g., in
course of construction;
Working weight a~d maximum wind;
Test conditions-filled with water and 50 percent of
maximum wind moment.
The evaluation of the first and last of these depends
on the design and method of construction, and no useful
general rules can be given. A reduction in wind load for
test conditions is allowed since it is most unlikely that the
test period and the maximum wind would coincide. Since
the construction period is normally much longer than the
4 5 6

8 10

20

30 40

60 80 100

200 300 400

'!!..fWD

MIP

FIGURE 3-Relationship between two dimensionless numbers

for all eases where some pressure acts on lower base face.

0.5

0.4

0.3

T
_L

---..__

---f-.........._1

.. ,-:,

;I:

0..

0.2
0.15

W = Weight of structure, footing and overburden

M = Moment of wind load and any other eccentric
loads about the center line of the base of the
footing
P = Maximum allowable soil be:~ ring pressure
L = Characteristic length: square-length of side
octagon-width across flats
rectangle-length perpendicular
to the axis of rotation
(See Figure 5)
a = Plan aspect ratio of rectangle
_ Length perpendicular to axis of rotation
Length parallel with axis of rotation
(See Figure 5)
For other cases, a= 1
n (Figure 3 )

= Mini.mum pressure

p (Figure 4)

= Proportion of

Maxtmum pressure
which is under

the width of the footing

lo:~d.

0. 10 l+++l+.<l.'tM,;'
0.09
0.08
0.07

0.06
0.05

0.04

0.5 0.6

0.8

1.5

7 8

~f-f
FIGURE 4-Relationship between two dimensionless numbers
for eases where pressure acts on only part of lower base face.
(i.e. Fig. 2d).

test, no such allowance is possible for min. wt. and max.

wind effect.
The procedure to be followed is illustrated in the following examples.
Example--Octagonal Tower Footing. A footing is to
be designed to carry a tower 54 feet high and 4 feet in
diameter to be placed on soil for which the maximum
allowable bearing pressure is 2,000 lb/ft. 2
The frost line is 4 feet below grade and the pedestal
top is to be 1 foot above grade. The footing base is made

37

SIZING TOWER FOOTINGS ...

Lt =

5 feet below grade, i.e., I foot belo\11 the frost line.

The design ma.ximum wind velocity is 100 mph.
The maximum wind moment ahout the base of the
footing is calculated to be 200,000 ft. lb. (M) .3
Tower weights are as follows:

L = 8.86 ft.

Restrained so that rotation about only one axis is

possible.

PL 2 = 0.380 (from graphs)

30,000 lb.
9,000 lb.
40,000 lb.

Empty Tower
Appurtenances and working contents
Water fill for hydrostatic test

25
0.380

L~=--=658 ft2

For a pad estimated to be 13.5 feet across Oats and

foot thick with an octagonal pedestal 6 feet across flats
and 4 feet deep and clay fill of density 90 lb. / ft. 8, estimated weights are:
Concrete
Fill

25
0.318 = 78.6 ft.2

= 8.1 ft.

63,000 lb.
33,000 lb.

Then calculations for the three critical conditions arc:

(lb.)
M (lb. ft. )
p (lb./ft.2 )

:~;

Empty

Working

Test

126,000
200,000
2,000

135,000
200,000
2,000

166,000
100,000
2,000

o.63

PL2 (from graph)

L2
L (ft. )

v63

0.675

t.66

v83

= 5.54

=15.11

0.405

0.423

0.585

63
0.405
12.47

67.5
0.423
12.61

83
0.585
11.9

Thus the assumed size is too large and could be reduced. The next trial would assume a 12-foot octagon,
and the minimum size would probably be somewhere
near this figure.

Ul

)(

<{

FIGURE 5-For rectangular foot ings, "a" is usually greater

than one.

Example-Rectangular Footing. For the loads as in

the square footing example above, assume a
3 (short
side parallel with axis):

w '\j~
M
P -= 0.5 , ,----3 X 25 =

Example-Square Tower Footing. A square footing

is to be designed to carry a total estimated deadweight
of 50,000 pounds and a maximum overturning moment
of 100,000 lb. ft. on soil having a maximum allowable
bearing pressure of 2,000 Jb./ ft2

Wa

PL~

w~
- p =0.5 v- 25=2.5

L
L

Unrestrained. Diagonal axis

PL 2 = 0.318 (from graph)

4.34

= 0.505 (from graphs)

75
L2 = -- = 148.5 ft 2
0.505

-M

= 12.2ft.
= 4.1 ft.

The rectangle required is 12.2 ft. x 4.1 ft. having plan

area 49.5 ft~ as against 65.8 ft2 for the square footing
under the same conditions.
In each of the above examples the maximum pressure
will be equal to the allowable, and the pressure distribution may be immediately sketched after finding the value
of the parameter p or n from the appropriate graph.
Considering the essentially rare and transitory occurrence of the maximum moment load, the basic assumption
stated at the beginning are sufficient for most applications. The assumption of perfectly elastic soil, however, is
not entirely sound and in critical cases the advice of a soil
mechanics expert should be sought.

About the Author

38

_j

67.5

= 5.00

J ohn Buchanan is a lecturer in

chemical engineering design at Newcastle University College of the University of New South Wales, Tighe's
Hill, N.S.W., Australia. He holds
B.E. (Chern.) and M.E. (Chern.) degrees from the University of Sydney.
Mr. Buchanan held positions as a
design e ngineer with Monsanto
Chemicals Ltd. and Union Carbide
Ltd. in Sydney prior to accepting
his present position.

o::,

LITERATURE ClTJo:D
Brown, A. A. liVDROCARBON PROCI!.IISINO & PTROLEUa.l lU.PINEil 42, No. 3,
141 (1963).
Brownell, L. E. and Young, E. H. in "Process Equipment Design"
Chapter 9, New York, John Wiley and Sons (1959).
Marshall, V. 0. Puaou:uM lU.PtNu 37, No. 5 Dcoign Suppl. (1958).
1

Buchanan

Simplified Design Method for

Intricate Concrete Column Loading
Combined biaxial bending and axial load on reinforced concrete columns present
difficult design solutions. This method bypasses the usual tedious computations
E. Czerniak, The Fluor Corp., Ltd., Los Angeles

HERE's A NEW AND SlMPLlFID METHOD of solving concrete column problems consisting of an axial load combined with diagonal bending. The method can be used
to determine the combined stresses and the eccentric-load
capacities of reinforced concrete columns from known or
assumed positions of the neutral axis. The approach is
unique because it provides greater accuracy with less
computation than methods used up to now. It considerably simplifies the stress analysis of many structural components used in Hydrocarbon Processing Plants, e.g., pipe
supports and rigid frame structures for supporting exchangers, compressors, etc. The method bypasses the
usual, time consuming, tedious computations of principal
axes as well as the need to rotate all computed properties
about the principal axes. Significantly, the method is
valid for both elastic and plastic stress distributions. It
thus unifies in one, simple approach the straightline and
the ultimate-strength methods now used in reinforced
concrete design.
The methods of analytic geometry and the basic equilibrium equations from statics may be applied to avariety
of problems involving stress analysis. The term 'analytic'
preceding 'geometry' implies an analytical method,
wherein all results are obtained algebraically, with any
diagrams and figures serving merely as an aid in visualizing the problem. All given data must, therefore, be expressed in coordinates with respect to a suitable set of
axes (preferably selected so as to make. the coordinates
as simple as possible). The procedure will be illustrated
by the rather intricate problem of axial load combined
with diagonal bending.
In general, when bending in a concrete column occurs
about both coordinate axes, and there is tension on part
of the section, the effective portion of the reinforced concrete section (transformed area) resisting the applied
load is not symmetrical about any axis. Though the unit
stresses may still be expressed by the well known formula:
P

..._ M.c,

A -

-~-.-

..._ M,c1

-~-r-

such a process is rather laborious because all the values

must be related to the principal axes through the centroid of the acting section. Thus, for each assumed neutral
axis, one must repeat the numerous and tedious computations of: the centroid of the acting section; the orientation of the principal axes: moments of inertia about the
principal axes; and, not the least, the calculation of load

eccentricities with respect to same principal axes. No

wonder, then, that 'exact' solutions have been consistently
avoided by practicing engineers. The technical literature,
though abundant in advice on the 'how to' side of problem solving, is extremely meager when it comes to specific
examples, except maybe for the most simple cases.
Should You Trust Computers? The increasing use of
digital computers has somewhat improved the situation.
Computer programs are now available that can accomplish the tiresome solution through successive approximations, at extremely rapid rates. However, when the engineer views the computer output sheet, he may sometimes
bewilderingly wonder just how accurate these results
really are and whether he could and should put his trust
in the modem maiVel of technical automation 'design
via computerization.' Needless to say, the engineer has
no right, nor authority, to abdicate his responsibility for
professional judgment. The responsibility for structural
adequacy must always be his, irrespective of the methods
or tools used to come up with the answer, be it a slide
rule, desk calculator or a giant electronic computer.
Hence, if he is to make the most out of the new tool, he
must possess some simple means for spot checking the
machine. In the case of biaxial bending on concrete
columns, the method outlined below could probably serve
such a purpose.
Two Design Methods. The Building Code requirements
for reinforced concrete (ACI 318.56) permits columns
subjected to combined bending and axial load to be investigated by two methods:
The so-called elastic method in which the straight line
theory of flexure is used, except in regard to compressive
reinforcement.
The ultimate strength method on the
action.

basi~

of inelastic

Ultimate strength design is relatively new in American

Codes, and hence some of the old timers may feel ill
at ease with new concepts and new criteria. I t will be
shown, through illustrative examples, that the same approach applies throughout the full range, from elastic
analysis to clastic-plastic and ultimate strength considerations. In the straight line stress distribution method.
the code requires that colurflns in which the load P has
an eccentricity greater than % the column depth t in

39

INTRICATE CONCRETE COLUMN LOADING . . .

either direction, the analysis should be based on the use

of the theory for cracked sections, e.g., that the concrete
does not resist tension. This e/t allowance does not apply
in ultimate strength design. At ultimate loads, flexural
tension in concrete is insignificant, and the Code requires
that it be completely neglected.

Method of Analysis for Rectangular Sections. In the

case of rectangular sections, it is convenient to choose one
comer as the origin and let the axes coincide with two
sides of the rectangle. In Figure 1: 0, B, C, and D are
the comers of the given concrete section. Line QR designates the neutral axis (line of zero strain), and intersects
the x and y axes at a and b respectively.
Let the coordinates of the eccentrically applied load,
P, be i and
and the coordinates of any given reinforcing bar, of area A1 be x 1 and y,.
The intercept form of the equation of the neutral axis
QR is :

y;

~+..!..=t
b

Now, assuming that the stress f, at any point (x~, y,),

is proportional to its distance from the neutral axis, then
by multiplying fo, the stress at origin (o, o) , by the ratio
of the distances of point (x1y1 ) to that of (o, o) we obtain the general stress formula:
f1

=f

1-

~)

The engineer need not keep track of the sign, as the

stress formula will automatically result in positive stress,
or compression, for all points lying to the left of the neutral axis (see Figure 1) and negative stress, or tension
beyond the neutral axis.
The coordinates of the centroid of the triangular area
under compression, OQR, are a/3 and b/3. Hence, the
average compression stress within the effective concrete
section will simply be:
x=a/3
y=b/3

A1 (x 1,

Qc ,,

y )
1

P<i.n
FIGURE 1-In rectangular sections, choose one corner as the

origin.
compression, is a triangle. In the general case, when line
QR is partially outside the concrete section (see Figure
3), one or more smaller triangles must be subtracted from
the over-all larger one. This is illustrated in the following
examples.

Reinforcing Steel Stress. The stress in the reinforcing

bars is obtained by multiplying the value (fs) in the
general stress formula, by the modular ratio, n, the ratio
of the modulus of elasticity of steel to that of concrete.
Section 60 l of the ACI Code gives the ratio, n, as equal
to 30,000/f'.,.
Hence, the stress in any bar A1 designated by coordinates x, and y, is:
f1 1 =

nfl

= nf0 ( 1 -

X~

and the load in said bar, having an area A, is:

F 11 = f 1 1 X A 1

The total load carried by the reinforcing bars (tension

and compression) 1s the summation of the loads in the
individual bars:

and the total compression load in the concrete :

Fe= (Average Stress) X (Area)=~ f0 X

Yz ab =

ab
f0 6

It can also be shown that, for equilibrium, the load

Fe is located at coordinates, a/4, b/4; hence, the moments

of the compression load in the concrete, about the x and

y axes are:
, _
ab
M - f 0 6 X

a _

T M' 01

a2b

f 0 24 (in x direction, about y axis)

=f

ab2

24

(in y direction, about x axis)

(The reader may note that a 2b/24 and ab 2/24 are simply
the values of the section moduli of the effective concrete
area, in the x and y directions respectively.)
In Figure 1, the intercepts of the neutral axis, line QR,
are shown smaller than the corresponding dimensions of
the section. Hence, the effective concrete area under

40

where N = total number of bars.

Similarly the steel load moments about the coordinate
axes will be:
N

M'.,.

= _2:
t=l

F 81 x 1

and

M'r

= 1:

F81 y 1

1=1

The above formulas are completely general and the

engineer, if he so wishes, may use different diameters for
the individual bars, and he may or may not arrange the
bars with symmetry about either axis. However, since the
same modular ratio n was applied to both tension and
compression bars, we did presuppose that the bond
between the steel and concrete remains intact, and they
deform together under stress. That is, the steel in the
compression zone can withstand a stress only n times that
in the concrete. In reality, this is not exactly so. Because

20"

.. - f8 ......

1-r-tt...;...;....;.;.._ _ _ _ _-.---;c 1211, 1s1

Az

117.5, ll.S)

FIGURE 2..:...Example 1. Find eccentric load P and moments

about centerline.

of plastic flow in the concrete, the compression bars are

stressed more than indicated by elastic analysis. Codes
have recognized it, by assigning higher values to the reinforcing bars in the compression zone. Section 706 (b)
of the ACI Code requires that: "To approximate the
effect of creep, the stress in compression reinforcement
resisting bending may be taken at twice the value indicated by using the straight-line relation between stress
and strain." However, in permitting this use of 2n the
Code limits the stress in the compressive reinforcing to
be equal to or less than the allowable stress in tension.

FIGURE 3-Generally QR is partially outside the concrete

section.

hence, use: f 0

(c) Tensile stress in steel governs when:

X

where ft is the allowable tensile unit stress in column reinforcement. Also, a correction shall be made for the concrete area displaced by the steel bar by subtracting ( f 1 )
from the steel stress in said bar. Hence, compressive
load carried in bar A; will be:
F = A, (f -,)= AI (2n- 1)

ft

-;-+ b > 1 + .45f' n

0

When this happens limit the stress in the extreme tension

bar to (- f 1 ) Hence, use:
-

r. =

In the examp les that follow, the stress in the compressive reinforcement shall be made equal to:
(Compressive reinforcement only)

ft

ft

n(-;- + ~ - 1)

-n-(""'"~--:---''-~--:-) =

Example 1. Find the maximum value of an eccentrically

applied load P, and the moments about the centerlines
of the column shown in Figure 2, when the neutral axis
is in the position indicated. f' c = 3,000 psi ft = 20,000
psi.
Solution:

r,

Governing Stress-Concrete or Steel Tensile. In the

general stress formula for f 1, the stress at origin (o, o) is
designated as f0 , and is the maximum compressive stress
in the concrete. According to the ACI Code, Section
1109 (d) : "The maximum combined compressive stress in
the concrete shall not exceed 0.45fc'. For such cases the
tensile steel stress shall also be investigated." Hence, f.
will equal to 0.45fc' only if concrete governs, or when
concrete and steel reach simultaneously maximum allowable values (balanced design). To determine the value
of f., compare:

= 30,000

f'c

A 1 = 0.79 sq. in/bar

10

r. s 0.45 X 3,000 s 1,350 psi

f 1 S 20,000 psi
a= 12" (given)

b-

12
X 15=20"
12 - 3

hence,

TABLE 1--Coordinates, Stresses, Bar Loads and Moments

for Example 1

(x/a+y!b) to I + (V0.45f'eD)
&I

where x and y are the coordinates of the tension bar,

farthest away from the neutral axis.

Poiat

< +

f1
.45fen

hence, use: f 0

0.45 f' c

(b) Allowable concrete and steel stresses are reached

simultaneously when:

11

-0 - 0
I

(a) Concrete stress governs when:

x+

= 0.45 f' c

11

0
0
16
2.6 12.6
17 6 12.6
17.6 2.6
2.6 2.6

11

1- - - 12 20

ti.OO

0.26
+0.187
- I.Olr.l
-D.683
+O.M7

...
I.I

I.

(psi)

M',.

)1',7

(la-k;po)

(Ja.ki,.)

+ 3.38 + 8.45
-11.65 -202.13
- 6.22 -108.85
+lUI + 33.78

-144.38
- 16.55
+ 33.78

+63.16

+2M.35

'I

(kipo)

+I~

+337.6
+226
- 1462.6
- 787.6
+GOO

+ 4,500
-14.&26
- 7,876
+18.000

+42.~

4
- - - - - ------ ----- --Load on rtin!oreinc bars
- O.S8 -268.76 - 83.t0

Load on coocrtte eft"eetive ~tetiou

Total

+161.37

-+52.28
- - -- 107.38
- - -+172.45
--

f,ow in I'Ompreuive rtln!orcemcnt ccrrte~d lor area or ooocnte dieplaeed by bar.

41

(I- ~~ - ;~)

f 1 = fo

Coordinates, stresses, bar loads and moments are tabulated in Table 1. Also see Figure 3.
The load and moments in the concrete are calculated
next.
F = 1.35 X 12 X 20
c
6

0.34 X 3 X 5
k'
= 5 3.1 6 lpS
6

M'cx= 54.0 x 3.0- 0.84x 0.75

= 161.37 in-kips

~+..2:.._+_:_= 1
a

where a, b and c are the intercepts of the plane on the

x, y and z axes, respectively. I t is immediately apparent
that z is a measure of the strain, and the constant c is
the maximum strain, which conforming to usual notation, may be written as E0 Constants a and b designate
the neutral axis as before. Hence, the general relationship for the strain e 1 at any point x., y 1 may be written
as:

M'cy = 54.0 x 5.0-0.84 x 16.25 = 256.35 in-kips

x=

. y

-107.38
=-2.05"
52.28

= + 172.45

52.28

+ 3.29"

The eccentricities of the load with respect to the centerlines of the concrete section are:

Ex= 10.00 2.05 = 12.05"

E1 = 7.50-3.29 = 4.21"

Results:
P = 52.28 kips
Mx 52.28 x 12.05 630 "k
My= 52.28 X 4.21 = 220 "k

I t should be noted that in above example the ratio eft

is less than 2/3 in either direction, and according to Section 1109 of the ACI Code could have been analyzed as
an uncracked section. The example was selected on purpose, so that the interested engineer may compute, for
the gross transformed section, the value of the maximum
allowable load at the same eccentricities, and compare it
with the 52.28 kips calculated for the assumed cracked
section in Example 1.
Ultimate Strength. The term "ultimate strength design"

in reinforced concrete denotes an analysis based on inelastic action. It focuses attention on ultimate rather
than design loads. As in elastic analysis, it is assumed
that plane sections normal to the axis remain plane after
bending, and as is common in a reinforced concrete column, tensile strength in concrete is neglected. The departure is, that stresses and strains are not proportional
at ultimate capacities. Section (A603) of ACI Code
permits "the diagram of compressive concrete stress distribution to be assumed a rectangle, trapezoid, parabola,
or any shape which results in ultimate strength in reasonable agreement with comprehensive tests." Furthermore,
it limits maximum concrete strain Eo to .003, and maximum fiber stress in concrete to 0.85fc'. The stress in
tensile and compressive reinforcement at ultimate load is
limited to the yield point or 60,000 psi, whichever is
smaller.
Now, when the position of the neutral axis is known or
assumed, the magnitude of the ultimate load Pu and its
eccentricities, which result in the prescribed limit strain,
may be easily determined by using the same approach
as before.
From the assumption that plane sections remain plane

42

Multiplying both sides of the strain equation by E. we

obtain:

The engineer should not have any qualms about using

the constant E. at ultimate strains. Since the stress in the
concrete shall be limited to 0.850 ' , any hypothetical
stress above this value will be subtracted. T he equation
of the line for which f 1 reaches the value 0.85'. may be
written by making fo equal to e0 X 1000.' (Note: Ee is
assumed equal to 1000'.).
or
0.85 f' c = eo X 1000 f' 0

1-

: -

~)

(Note that f' 0 cancels out)

which for the specific case of e0 = .003 reduces to:

_x_+_Y_=l

.717a

.717b

from which the intercepts on the x and y axis are seen to

be Xu = 0.717a and Yu = 0.717b respectively.
Stress in reinforcing bars:
f

=nf0

- :!Sf
( 1 -x,a - -Yt)
b

About the Author

Eli Czerniak is a principal design engineer with The
Fluor Corp., Los Angeles. He coordinates computer
applications for the Design Engineering Dept., reviews manual techniques and develops new methods
and procedures better adaptable to
systems conversion in automating
the design and drafting of refinery
units. Mr. Czerniak received a B.S.
in engineering from Columbia University in 1949 and an M.S. in Civil
Engineering from Columbia in 1950.
He is a registered engineer in California and has published a number
of technical articles. He has had
field experience as a civil engineer
Czerniak
and worked in design and drafting
with Arthur G. McKee Co. in Union,
N. J., for two years before joining Fluor in 1953 as a
structural designer. He soon headed up the structural
design and drafting on various projects until assuming
his present position.

''

''
''
''
,
,/

.,

FIGURE 4-This drawing helps visualize the problem in Example 2.

and, as before, a correction for the concrete area displaced by compressive reinforcement shall be made by
subtracting the concrete stress from the steel stress, when
determining the load in the compressive bar.

Tabulations of the calculations are given in Table 2.

Example 2. Compute the Ultimate Load Pu and its

eccentricities with respect to the centerlines of the section, for the neutral axis given in Example 1. Use yield
point of reinforcement, f 1 = 40,000 psi. Figure 4 is
drawn to help visualize the problem.

Xu = 0. 717 X 12
X

E. = 10

y- ~::

E1 = 7.5-4.86 = 2.64"

=+ 4.86"

+ 1.08 =

11.08"

TABLE 2- Loads on Steel and Concrete for Example 2

Solution:
f0 = .003

-2 15
x =-- = - 1. 08"
199

= 8.60"

Yu = 0.717x20= 14.34"

II

Poi11t

II

-0 - 0

1000 X 3000 = 9000 psi= 9.0 ksi

Within triangle OXuY, concrete stress equals 0.85'. =

2,550 psi
fo- 0.85 f' c = 9000 - 2,550 = 6,450 psi
(maximum value of excess stress)

Xu
Yv

I
2
3

0
15
8.80 0
0 14.3.
12.5
17.$ IU
17.$ u

3X5

II

,,;

20

fooo~
+8.283
.187
-1.083
-Q.$83
+0.847

HOOO
+ZUO
+2UO

+2650

6.45

8.60 X
6

1~.34

Ultiote Streuca
- ---Coacrelo
Steel
poi

-$~

psi

M'..

M'.,

'It

'It

' I

kj,.

2UO
2UO
2UO

2650
1500

:!:~; ....

+8000 Q

Loedt and momtol.l oo coocrel.l

Total

2.25

12

u
-Loed-and momenl.l
oo o~l

Load on concrete effective section

9.0x l 2x20
p uc=
6

11

11

1- - - -

+ 15,000 + 10.7
-40,000 - 31.8
-31.8
+ 29,6
+40.

~::=

27

74

+ 134

-553 -395
-553 - 78

74

-2U

-2118

+221.8

-100$
+ 7110

+ 188.t

-215

+ 887

+1233

Loado in com.,-ve reinforcement comcted for._ of concnl.l displaeed by bar.

= 221.80k

and the moments about the coordinate axis

M't = 360 X 3-5.63 X 0.75 -

132.57 X 2.15 = 790"k

M'., = 360 X 5 - 5.63 X 16.25 - 132.57 X 3.58 = 1233"k

Hence, for the concrete section shown, a maximum

ultimate load of 199 kips (divided by the proper load
factor) may be placed at distances 11.08 inches and 2.64
inches from the centerline.
##

43

Unusual foundation
design lor

TOWERS

TALL

Close centerline distance, high towers,

weak clay soil and hurricane winds gave
Phillips some interesting problems
Edward V. French
Phillips Petroleum Compony, Bartlesville, Oklo.

SEVERAL UNUSUAL conditions faced Phillips' engineers in the design of a common foundation for two
tall fractionating towers. The towers were to be located
in the Phillips' refinery near Sweeny, T exas.
The design conditions preSl'ntcd thtse difficult problems:
The towers w<n fairly high and clost' to one another.
The soil consi!'ted of a relatively weak clay.
Horizontal forces were to be based on hurricane
, winds and aerodynamic vibrations.
Each tower had to be structurally independent of
the other and each self supporting.
Layout Study. A study of proposed la>outs indicated
that it was economically advantageous from a piping
viewpoint, to space the towers close to one another. An
.,..... investigation showed that for independent foundations,

FlGCRE 1-Gin pole

44

~upport~

tower "" it is raised free of ground.

construction joint tie mat

and pedestal together

FIGURE 2-This is the foundation after the first pour.

octagonal mats at least 40 feet in diameter would be

required and that any spacing of about 40 feet or less
would involve a combined foundation.
Although this investigation indicated that there would
be no appreciable economy in materials using a combined foundation, one advantage was apparent although
somewhat unmeasurable. It is possible that the towers
may vibrate when subjected to steady winds of 35 to 55
mph velocity. A natural vibration period of 1.0 second
per cycle was calculated for the shorter tower and 1.4
second per cycle for the taller one. Assuming aerodynamic vibrations to occur at these frequencies, impulses transmitted by either tower into .a common
foundation would tend to be damped by the effect of
the unlike opposite tower. This damping would be
effective to some degree whether one or both towers
were in motion or regardless of wind direction.
In view of these factors, it was planned to space the
towers on 28 foot centers using a common foundation.
This spacing allowed adequate clearance for erection
and maintenance operations. A plan and elevation view
showing the arrangement and general details is shown in
Figure 3.

Soli Conditions. The soil at the foundation site is cohesive. Borings were made and laboratory tests run of the
soil samples. A 5-foot top stratum consists of black and
tan organic clay. This is underlain with 2 feet of stiff

tan inorganic clay below which lies clayey sand and sand.
Using shear strengths indicated by the tests and Terzaghi's bearing capacity equation, the allowable soil
pressure of 4,000 psf was determined. This was based on
a safety factor of 2 at a 7-foot depth with no increase
permitted when combining wind and vertical loads. After
the mat had been sized, uniform soil pressure due to
vertical loads totaled only 1,500 psf. Computed total
settlement was consequently small and a major percentage of it could be expected to occur during construction.

Load Combinations. The effects of three separate combinations of vertical and wind loads from the towers
were investigated:
1. Vessels ready for operation plus full wind forces
but without operating liquids.

2. Vessels operating plus full wind forces.

3 . Vessels ready for operation under water test conditions without wind.

Tower Fabrication. Schedules controlling tower fabrication and tray delivery were coordinated so that the
trays could be shop-installed. Also, platforms, ladders
and most piping were scheduled for installation immediately after the towers were to be erected. In addition,
backfill material was to be placed before the towers were

45

erected. Since the likelihood was remote that both towers

would be left stripped down for an appreciable time, no
"erection" condition was considered other than to check
for stability.
Wind forces were computed on the basis of 125 mph
maximum gust velocity at a 30 foot height. Height factors were then applied which gave the following pressures in three height zones:
0- 50 feet . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 psf
51-100 feet ..... . ... . ..... . ....... 62 psf
Above 100 feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.2 psf
These values represent pressure against flat surfaces.
A shape factor of 0.6 was applied to compute the pressure against projected areas of cylindrical surfaces.

Anchor Bolts. In designing anchor bolts, the upper

pedestals were analyzed as cantilevered flexural members, loaded with combined bending and axial forces.
Compressive stress in the concrete and tensile stress in
the anchor bolts was then calculated according to the
theory of flexure for concrete. Both carbon and alloy
steel were considered for bolt material, but investigation
showed that an alloy steel with higher allowable stresses
and less tendency to creep under load was the most desirable. The practical limit on the number of bolts that
could be placed around either tower perimeter was approximately 36. This in effect established the total tension force which each bolt must resist. Maximum bolt
diameter was not a limiting factor, but by using the
higher allowable stress of alloy steel a substantially
smaller bolt could be used. This was advantageous from
a handling and installation viewpoint. Since some degree
of aerodynamic vibration of the towers is possible, it was
considered imperative that all anchor bolts be pretensioned and that under sustained loading; elongation be
held to a minimum. For each tower, 36 one-piece bolts,
projecting 2 feet above the concrete, were equally spaced
around the vessel perimeter. All bolts were threaded on
each end and anchored mechanically .at the bottom with
a 2Y2 -inch thick rectangular plate held between two
torqued nuts.
Octagon Pedestal. Because vertical loads for both
towers were considered equal they were centered symmetrically about the foundation centerline. The condition causing the greatest eccentric loading from vertical
forces alone would result from either tower being water
tested singularly. This eccentricity, found to be considerably less than that caused by maximum wind forces, was
not critical. The combined wind overturning moment
from both towers applied at the top of foundation was
27,750 foot kips. Any wind shielding effect by either
tower was neglected and the overturning moment was
assumed equal in all directions. Because of this, an
octagonal outline for the foundation mat was more suitable for limited soil pressure than was a square or
rectangular shape.
Using a maximum toe pressure of 4,000 psf, a 50-foot
diameter octagon was found to satisfy all load combinations, with the number 2 load combination actually controlling the diameter. The weight of the operating
liquids was relaively small when compared with the total
mass and overturning moment. As a result, there was
less than 10 percent difference in the toe pressure and/or

46

PLAN
14'

14'

"I

'to.

10'
X 203'

11 12,170 "

J)_

1115,580

1
"

ELEVAnON

FIGURE 3-Plan and elevation showing towers

spaced at 28 feet on centers.
DESIGN CONDITIONS

One tower is 11 ~ feet in diameter by 177 feet in

height. The other is 10 feet in diameter a.nd 203 feet
high. Although the towers differed considerably in size,
there was less than 3 percent difference in the calculated vertical loads for each. This was found to be
true for both operating and empty conditions. For
design purposes, vertical loads for each tower were
considered equal. Empty tower weights included the
v~ls plus all accessories ready for operation. Operating weights consisted of empty tower weights plus
operating liquid. Other data and conditions which
governed foundation design are as follows:
Tower weight, empty, each 425 kips.
Tower weight, operating, each 500 kips.
Maximum velocity of wind, 125 mph.
Maximum allowable soil pressure, 4,000 psf.
Maximum settlement allowed,

inch.

Minimum stability ratio, 1.5.

Concrete-3,000 psi in 28 days. Where applicable
ACI Code {318-56) to govern desiP, and detailing.
f 0 and f 1 to be increased by one-th~rd where stresses
are due to combined wind and vertical load.
Maximum allowable anchor bolt stress:
Alloy steel, 40,000 psi.
Carbon steel, 20,000 psi.

Unusual Foundation Design .. .

eccentricity between operating and empty conditions.
The stability factor under load combination 1 was 2.4,
and for load combination 2, 2.6.
Step Sedion. After the mat had been sized it was de-

termined, by trial and error calculations, tha~ a stepped

section through the ~enter was desirable. Thts step was
run continuously one foot thick, across the mat center
and for convenience w.as made equal in width to the
octagon side. At the edge of the step, the mat depth was
set at three and a half feet which with sufficient bottom
steel would approach a balanced design for the resisting moment from soil pressure. This d.epth was th.en
continued to the outer edges of the mat m order to mmimize the steel requirements and to maintain over-all
stiffness. The pedestals were then made equal in width
for symmetry and connected: A minimum allowable
cover of 12 inches outside of anchor bolts on the 11foot 6-inch tower 'determined the 14-foot, 6-inch width.

'

'

Mat Reinforcing. The mat reinforcing in the transverse

direction or perpendicular to face of the step w~ determined by analyzing sections across the ent!re Width of
the foundation. Shear and moment at sections through
the center, at the face of pedestal, at the face of step,
and at points between the step and outside edge of m~t
were computed. Load combination 2 caused a maximum moment at the face of the pedestal and step and
at other points toward the edge of mat. Maxim~m moment in the same direction through the foundatiOn centerline was caused by load combination 3. To satisfy this
shear and moment, eighty-one # 11 bars were spaced
on six inch centers in the bottom of the mat at the face
of the pedestal and step, forming a center strip 40-feet
wide. Alternate bars of the above group, plus three
shorter #11 bars along each edge were extended
through the center to the opposite side totaling 4 7 # 11
bars to resist moment through the cener. As the moment
decreased toward the outer edge of mat, alternate bars
were discontinued in two stages leaving # 11 bars on
2-foot centers at the extreme outer edges.
In computing transverse reinforcing req~irements ~or
the top of mat, negative moment on the wmdward s1de
caused maximum tension at the face of the step. Here,
41 # 11 bars were placed on one-foot centers with al-

About the Author

Edward V. French is a senior
structural design engineer with
Phillips Petroleum Company, Bartlesville. lie directs the structual
and civil engineering design phase
of assigned projects. Holder of a
B.S. deg ree in ~ivil engi~eerin~
from the Univers1ty of M1ssour1.
He has been with Phillips in the
Engineering Department since his
graduation in 1952. Previous to
this time he had two years' experience in general construction work.

ternate bars discontinued in two stages both toward the

outside and toward the center, leaving # 11 bars at
4-foot to run continuously through the center. In computing this moment, only the weight of the .overburden
directly above the mat, plus the concrete m the mat,
was considered acting downward.
The heaviest reinforcement in the opposite direction
or parallel to the longitudinal axis of the pedestal was
also required for load combination 2. Assuming the wind
from a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the
pedestal, tension from the wind moment on the leeward
vessel combining with the effect of soil pressure produced maximum tension in the top of pedestal. This
was near the inside face of the leeward tower. Assuming all the tension to be resisted by longitudinal ste:l
alone 22 # 11 longitudinal bars were placed for th1s
purp~se in the top of pedestal. For the same combination of forces tension in the bottom of the mat near the
inside face ~f the windward tower required 47 # 10
longitudinal bars. These were placed in a 20-foot wide
strip through the center of foundation. Other reinfo~ce
ment in the longitudinal direction was of a nommal
nature and was placed in sufficient quantities to assure
proper continuity.
Shear Key. It was first considered desirable to specify
a continuous concrete pour between the mat and pedestals thus providing the best possible shear connection
between the sections. Several factors making a continuous pour impractical were excessive .dead l~~ds ~n forms;
inaccessibility; possible difficulty m pos1t10mng bolts;
and unnecessary exposure of the excavation to weather.
A large portion of the anchor bolts and pedestal reinforcing totaling some eleven tons would normally require support from pedestal form work and create a
support problem. Concrete placement in the center
portion of the mat would be difficult with all pedestal
reinforcing and bolts in place. It was felt that accuracy
in positioning anchor bolts might be sacrificed if a continuous pour was made. Assuming a continuous pour,
the excavation would be exposed to weather longer before pouring could begin, the~eby subjecting .the s?il
below the footing level to detnmental change m mmsture content.
In order to eliminate these disadvantages, a construction joint was designed between the step and pedestal
so that the mat and step could be poured first. A 14-foot,
6-inch wide by l-inch deep recess centered beneath
each tower provided a four way shear key between step
and pedestal. This recess also provided additional depth
for maximum bolt anchorage.
Vertical Reinforcing. Particular attention was given to
the selection of adequate vertical reinforcing through
the center of foundation, tying the mat and pedestal .together, because of the unusually high vessel overturnmg
moment. The two, fourteen and one-half foot octagons
were first assumed to act as separate round stems and
the connecting center section neglected. They were then
analyzed as round sections acting in bending and dir~ct
stress the critical section being taken at the construction
joint.' This analysis resulted in a total of 120 square
inches of vertical bars required for each stem. Under
this assumption, these stems could tra~sfer ~l of the
over-turning moment from the towers wtthout mfluence

47

from the connecting center section. This connecting section became functional when the full depth of the foundation was considered a flexural member resisting a moment in the transverse and longitudinal directions.
For vertical bars in each stem, 120 #9 bars were
arranged into two rows, one row on either side of the
anchor bolt circle. It was felt that in placing these bars
in two rows, stress from the anchor bolts would be transferred more evenly and that any tendency for the concrete to separate at the construction joint would be minimized. Additional #9 bars were then spaced on 1-foot
centers along each side of the connecting center section
to prevent separation at the joint when the entire foundation acted in flexure. Figure 2 shows the foundation
after the first pour was completed and it also shows the
vertical bars and the keyed construction joint used to
tie the mat ;tnd pedestal together.
Gin Pole Bases. The possibility of combining a con-

crete base, which would support and anchor the tower

erection gin poles was considered. By providing such
supports, considerable time and labor could be saved
when setting the poles by eliminating the need for tying
down the pole bases. The position of each tower prior
to raising was planned with the tower lying at 45" to
the main foundation axis. The pole bases at the closest
possible position would straddle either tower on approximately 30-foot centers. Figure 1 shows the poles with
the 10-foot by 203-foot tower free of the ground support. When the foundation was analyzed, applying concentrated vertical reactions from the poles spaced at
30-foot centers, it was found that tension across the top
of the concrete might cause extensive cracking. This
cracking, although probably not detrimental, was undesirable and to prevent it, additional heavy reinforcement would be required. The estimated additional cost
of materials to provide these integral foundations was
estimated at $2,000. This was considered too costly for
the advantages offered and the plan was abandoned.
As an alternate method, the gin pole bases were set
outward and placed on timber cribbing completely
clear of the tower foundation with cables providing the
necessary anchorage.
Leveling The Towers. The pedestals were poured to

within 2 inches of the finished elevation. As the towers

were erected, the base rings were set on a series of steel
shims which had been previously leveled. Final leveling
of the towers was then accomplished by adjusting shims
and anchor bolt nuts. After all adjustments were completed, two inches of grout was placed across the top
of pedestal and beneath the tower base rings. Each anchor bolt was torqued to an initial stress of 45,000 psi.
No inconvenience was reported by the contractor because the anchor bolts projected two feet above the concrete. Neither was there any difficulty reported in regard to spacing anchor bolts to match the tower base
rings.

FIGURE 4-Tower installation complete with insulation,

platlorm and piping.

two independent foundations. This was substantiated by

further experience when a third tower of similar proportions ( 10~ feet x 177 feet) was designed and installed
simultaneously, nearby. This tower was placed on the
usual mat and pedestal octagonal foundation and required only 140 cubic yards of concrete. However, under
the circumstances which established the design conditions, there were still advantages in the saving of space
in conformance with the best piping arrangement and
in the possible vibration damping effect gained.
Trend. There is a definite trend in the industry toward

Materials. A total of 383 cubic yards of concrete and

27 tons of reinforcing steel was placed in the foundation.

As mentioned previously, no large savings, if any, in
concrete materials were realized over those required for

48

the use of taller fractionating vessels containing more

trays. The experience acquired during the design and
installation of these towers will be useful in determining
the feasibility and planning of future units.
##

NOTES

49

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3

Foundation Sizing Simplified

Tables can be used to select foundations
as easily as capacity tables are used
to select pumps

5 - 47 k -61 k'
C,=7r/64 (5-Sk) + ( 16
2

\j/ k -

+ 31

k' )

k' + ( Sk- 5 ) arcsin (?k--1)

32
-

2(1-k)

David H. Kannapell, Girdler Construction

Corp., Louisville, Ky.

JUST AS a designer can select a storage tank using

capacity tables, so a structural designer can choose a
foundation based on tables of capacities. Entering the
tables with a given weight and moment (or eccentricity)
you can quickly select the minimum size of foundation
required. In addition, you can readily determine the
distribution and magnitude of soil pressures under the
foundation.
How t o Make Capacity Tables. Two cases of foundation loading are considered in developing capacity
tables. The first case consists of a loading which produces uplift on part of the foundation. This case is
shown in Figure 1. The second case covers bearing
under the entire foundation and is shown in Figure 2.
For calculating the capacities of an octagon foundation subjected to soil pressures as shown in Figure 1,
the following formulas 1 are used.
C,=7r/8(1 - 2k) + ( + - +k++k'

)~~+

. ( 2k - 1 ) arc sin (2k- 1)

4

50

E =D X (2C,-C,)

2C,
M = EP

The capacities of an octagon foundation subjected to

loading as shown in Figure 2 are determined from the
following formulas'.
E=~ X (1 -

P=8E2p

(1

m)

+ m)

X (l+m)'
( 1-m)'

M= EP
NOTATION

P = Concentric vertical load capacity, kips

M = Overturning moment capacity, foot-kips
E =Eccentricity of load to produce corresponding moment,
feet. E = M /P.
p =Unit soil pressure, kips per sq. ft.
k = Ratio of unloaded length of diameter to diameter of inscribed circle of octagon. Used in Figure 1 loading only.
m =Ratio of minimum unit soil bearing to maximum soil
bearing. Used in Figure 2 loading only .
D . = Diameter of a circle equivalent to the inscribed diameter, D, of an octagon, feet. D.= 1.04D.

C, and C, are coefficients used to shorten algebriac operations.

By decrementing k and incrementing m, capacities of

a one-foot diameter octagon are developed based on a
maximum unit soil pressure of one kip per square foot.
The relations of the capacities and eccentricities of any
other diameter octagon, n., to those for the one-foot
octagon are as follows:
Ex = E,._,;,, X Dx for a given "k" or "m" value

n. for a given "k" or "m" value

M. = M,...,, X n.for a given "k" or "m" value
P. = P,....,, X

Tables 1 and 2 are illustrative of tables that may be

used to estimate and design footings subjected to the
forces described. The tables were developed on an electronic digital computer.

"Adjusted" M = ---;-;-:-----'M:..::...__,.-:---:-~
Allow. pressure, kips/sq.ft.

The eccentricity, E, remains the same for any soil

pressure.
Step 1- Assume weight of foundation, pier and earth
backfill as 50 kips.
P = 50.0

+ 50.0 =

100 kips.

Step 2-Calculate eccentricity and "adjusted" value

of P:
E

= 147 = 1.47 ft.

100
_I00.0
"Adjusted" P - - -_ 500k'
. tps
2.0

Step 3- Enter tables with "e" and "adjusted" P. Select

11'-0'' octagon (Table 1) (table capacity P = 51.393
kips, "E" = 1.429 ft., k = 0.0 ) .
Step 4-Check assumed foundation weight:

ILLUSTRATIVE PROBLEMS

Pier:
5'-0" Oct. 3'-6" high
Foundation: 11'-0" Oct. 1'-6" thick
Backfill:
(100.2-20.7)x 2.5x0.1
Total

To demonstrate the use of the capacity tables, several

illustrative problems arc presented as follows:

Problem 1. Size an octagonal foundation for the selfsupporting vertical vessel shown in Figure 3, using the
following data:
p = 2000 lbs./sq. ft. (2.0 kips/sq.ft. at 4'-0'' below grade)
P. =50 kips, weight of tower
M = 147 ft.-kips, about base of tower.

Since the tables show capacity of foundations based

on a maximum soil pressure of 1 kip per square foot, it
is necessary to first use an "adjusted" value for P and M
to compensate for the larger soil bearing value. The following relationships are used :

P=
E=
Adjusted P =

=
=
=
=

10.87
22.50
19.88
53.25

kips
kips
kips
kips

50.0
53.25 = 103.25 kips
147.0 = 1. 42
103.25
10

~ 25 = 51.6 kips

Re-enter Table 1 and check selection. Inspection indicates 11'-0'' octagon is satisfactory. Since k = 0.0, the
distribution of soil pressure is such that 100 percent of
the foundation is under compression; minimum soil
pressure is zero on the windward edge and 2,000 pounds
per square foot on the leeward edge.

Alternate Solution.
"Adjusted" P = ""'7':-:----.::.P_-:-:-~:---::-
Allow. pressure, kips/sq.ft.

Step 1-Same as in original solution.

TABLE 1-octagon Diamete r = 11.0D

korm

ru

37.009
40.037
43.016
45.923
48.729
61.393
53 ..963
66.533
59.102
61.672
64.242
66.812
69.381
71.951
74.521
77.090
79.680
82.230
84.799
87.369
89.939
92.609
95.078
97.648
100.218

85.596
84.784
!'3.016
80.412
77.147
73.493
69.818
66.143
62.469
58.794
55.119
61.445
47.770
44.095
40.421
36.746
33.071
29.397
26.722
22.047
18.373
14.698
11.023
7.349
3.674

.20
.15
.10
.05
.00
.05
.10
.15
.20
.26

.30

.35
.40
.45
.50

60
r 55
65
.70

.76
.80
.85
.90
.95

Capultlee hued on 1000 lb/ aq. f t . ano ...b le

Area of baae 100.2 aq. ft.
T h lckneu
1'---Q*
1'--6*

2'-o
2'-6"'

TAILI 2-octagon Diameter = 14.0D

E

2.312
2.117
1.929
1.751
1.683
1.429
1.293
1.169
1.066
.953
.857
.769

korm

.M

.688
.612
.642
.476
.415
.357
.303
.252
.204
.158
.115
.075
.036

~u

bearing

.20

r.15
5
.10
.05
.00
.05
.10
.15
1 20
.25
.30
.40
.45

.50
.65
.60
.65
.70
.75

I .85
.SO
.90
.95

p
59.949
64.8M
69.679
74.387
78.933
83.249
87.412
91.574
95.737
99.899
104.062
108.224
112.386
116.549
120.712
124.874
129.0.16
133.199
137.361
141.524
146.686
149.849
154.011
158.17-l
162.336

60.605

63.029
45.453
37.878
30.302
22.726
15.150
7.575

2.943
2.695
2.466
2.228
2.014
1.819
1.646
1.489
1.345
1.213
1.091
.979
.876
.779
.690
.606
.528
.464
.386
.321
.259
.202
.147
.096
.046

Capacltlee Baaed on 1000 lb./ aq. ft. Allowable Soli Bearing

Area of Baae -

Weight (klpe)

Thlckneea

15.0
22.5

1'-o"

30.1
37.6

176.466
174.793
17U47
165.778
159.048
151.514
143.938
136.362
128.786
121.211
113.635
106.059
98.484
90.908
83.332
75.766
68.181

1'-6
2'-o
2'~

162.3 aq. ft.

Wlaht (klpa)
24.3

36.5
48.7

60.9

51

Foundation Sizing Simplified . ..

Step 2-0btain "adjusted" values of P and M:
"Adjusted" P

= ~~~0 = 50.0 kips

Problem 3. This problem illustrates use of tables to

determine soil loading under an existing foundation.
For this problem, refer to Figure 3 and use the following data:
P. = 300 kips, weight of tower
M = 373 ft.-kips
D = 11'-0", diameter of octagon

1
"Adjusted" M = :: = 73.5 ft.-kips

Step 3-Enter Table 1 with these adjusted values. Select 11'-0" octagon as bef~re.

I n the solution of this problem, the following relationship is used :

~=~or
p, =~for
a given "k" or "m" value.
1.0
p
p

Step 4-Same as in original solution.

Problem 2 . This problem illustrates the method for
obtaining sizes of foundations other than those given in
the tables. For this problem refer to Figure 3 and use

the following data:

p = 5,000 lb.)'sq. ft. (5.0 kips/sq.ft.) at 4'-0"
P.= 235 kips, weight of tower
M = 990 ft.-kips

Step ! -Calculate weight of pier, foundation, and

earth back-fill:

I n the solution of this problem, the following relationship is used:

Pier:
5'-0" octagon 3'-6" high
Foundation: 11'-0" octagon 1'-6" thick
( 100.2- 20. 7) x 2.5 x 0.1
Back-fill :
Total

D,' =_f.!. or D, = - /_f.!. X D'

D'
P
V P

Where D1 = octagon diameter desired

D = table octagon diameter
P1 = load to be carried by octagon D 1
P = table octagon load capacity.

Total load = 300.0

E - 990.0 = 3.09 ft
-320.0
.
320
0
= 64.0 kips
"Adjusted" P =
5.0

Step 3-Enter Table 2. Closest capacities are P =

59.949 kips, E = 2.943 ft., k = 0.25 for 14' -0" octagon.
P = 68.819 kips, E = 3.153 ft., k = 0.25 for 15'-0'' octagon.

64.0/59.949 X 14.0' = 14.47 ft., say 14.5 ft., and

E = 14.5/14 X 2.943 = 3.06 ft.

Step 4-Check assumed foundation weights:
= 10.87 kips
= 39.20 kips
= 38.40 kips
= 88.47 kips

E=~=306ft
323.47
.
.
"Adjusted" P
D=

=~
= 64.69 kips
5.0

~ 64.69/59.949 X

14.0' = 14.62 ft.

Since k = 0.25, it is immediately known that 25 percent of the diameter of the octagon is unloaded and 75
percent is loaded; the unit soil pressure varies from 0
on the windward side to 5,000 lbs. per sq. ft. on the leeward side over the loaded length.

52

+ 53.25 =

353.25 kips.

m=0.15.
p.

Step 2-Calculate eccentr icity and "adjusted" value

of P :

= 53.25 kips

Step 3-Enter Table 1 for 11'-0'' octagon with known

"E." Read P
59.102 kips.

= 235.0 + 85.0 = 320 .kips.

Pier:
5'-0" octagon 3'-6" high
Foundation: 14'-6" octagon 1'-6" thick
(174.1-20.7) x2.5xO.J
Backfill:
Total
P= 235.0 88.47 = 323.47 k,ips

= 19.88 kips

E = 3730 = 1.06 ft.

353.25

Step 1-Assume weight of fou ndation, pier, and earth

backfill as 85 kips.

D=

= 10.87 kips

= 22.50 kips

Step 2-Calculate total load and eccentricity:

for a given "k" or "m" value.

= actual

maximum unit soil pressure,

P1 = total vertical load,
P = Table 1 octagon load capacity based on 1.0
kips per square foot soil pressure.
When p 1

= 59.102
353.25 = 5.98 kips/sq. ft. (5,980 lbs. per sq. ft.),
on leeward edge.

M inimum soil pressure mp1 = 0.15 X 5980 = 897.0

lbs. per sq. ft. on windward edge. 100 percent of footing is under compression.
The method outlined herein has been limited to octagon foundations for brevity. Using appropriate formulas2, the same method may be applied to square
foundations with an overturning moment abou t both
the rectangular and diagonal axes.
LITERATURE CITED
Fork, Chas. A., "Graphical Methods Aid io Stack Foundation Design" Petroleum Rdiner SO, No. 3, p 81 (1951).
'Fork, Ch.... A., "Applying Graphical Methods to Square Footing
Design" Petroleum R~6ner 31, No. 11, p 145 (1952).
1

About the Author

David H. Kannapell is a senior
structural engineer with Girdler
Construction Corp., Louisville, Ky.
where he performs civil and structural design of gas processing and
chemical p lants. Holder of a B.S.
degree in civil engineering from
the University of Louisville ( 1936),
Kannapell has had structural design experience in many large
chemical plants, synthetic ammonia, hydrogen production, gas
purification and carbide manufac- D. H. KannapeiJ
turing plants. He is currently the president of the
Louisville chapter of the Kentucky Society of Professional Engineers.

Dowel Sizing For Tower Foundations

Tower pedestal dowel bar reinforcing

is usually oversized by a commonly used
formula with a high safety factor.
A more economical method is presented

THE SIZING OF THE DOWEL reinforcement is usually

the last part of tower foundation design. All combinations of loads and moments are requiied in computing
the base slab. The pedestal size is usually fixed by the
base ring and anchor bolt spacing. So, with these data,
the size and spacing of the bars can be assumed for
analysis. Some designers use a minimum percentage of
the area of concrete for the reinforcement similar to
concrete column design practice.
Example. As an example, the following design data of
an existing column will be used:

Andrew A. Brown, Union Carbide Chemicals Co.,

South Charleston, W. Va.

1.00
.95
.90
.85
I= I==
.80
I=
.75

~111111

f*

'i

lf.

It

"l

.
>-;-

:)::::.!: }!;

1-'-

:o
;:

[i
~

~ ;; r

r"

Itt

:t

1!.
I~
:~

'

IE ~~

:;:

ff

I~

..

.i
'.4i

,...._

:r.

1'-'

f
cv -

_;_

'

.30

.40

.60 .80 1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

.03

.04

.06 .08 .10

.20

.30

.40

lffipll{~

1cv

u.J ::.~ = t:l1tt

o<:

180
!
15409'
-i!J I ~
14308'
1: 11
134"26'
If-I
::1
12652'
l_ :.:_ i-''j_
120
:j ;
1 l1
' $ 113"35'
f'
.j:
~h,;
~ ill
107"28'
:
i':
'] l:!: I '~ IJ 101 32'
ci_
. Jtlt.:ii'=H 95"44'
Ak1 h
+
.t :11! lf ~ :Jll"f_ ~::J;E
90'
..
!ffilifrl!f
ru: IRE jffil Jl!, j,; g 8416'
78"28'
1,1; FEE IW:'I
7232'
iiE lim l[ : .rn; [
6625'
Ill
lf_
f-iT
so
IE
1:!
i+
53"08'
fl

'H

--:::.

20

, 11=
-~

"t

lli=

-+-'1
~

.70 I= I=

.65
t;; t
.60
.55
1::
50
.45
.40
.35
.30
.25
.20
.1 5
.10
CM- .10

tffil

1
1

I! h

lJE 1m

ffilll!,~

EEE:

= 7,000,000 inch-pounds, the maximum moment

-if

r'f;i

1z r
v.

t4j It 1:1 !i
~

; jj_J

6D 8.0 0.0
.60 80 1.0

lil

iEl[ffi E:

lt:t-t

Itil

20.0

30.0 40.0 - CM

2.0

3.0 4.0

6.0 8.0 10.

45"34'
36"52'

-cv

FIGURE !-Coefficient curves used to find unit stress.

53

DOWEL SIZING FOR TOWER FOUNDATIONS . . .

P = 80,000 pounds, the minimum load which includes

the weight of the concrete pedestal
r = 36 inches, the radius of the inscribed circle
R = 33 inches, the radius of the dowel bar circle
Reinforcement: 20 number 8 bars, NA8 = 20 (.79)
= 15.8 square inches
n = 10
With this information t.he~is computed, k values are
r
assumed and the various determinations made until the
neutral axis is located. Then, the ~f the internal
r
stresses equals that of the external forces.
As a convenience in recording the values, a table is
constructed .. This can be revised to suit the individual.
The analysis follows:
e

1)

2)

R)2
=
( r

SM = 24pn7T

3
p

7,000,000
80,000 (36)

n7T =

2.43

24(10)(20).797T ( 33 )2
= 2.45
7T(36} 2
36

3 (10) 7T (20) (.79) = .

366
7T (36) 2

Now try k = .26, from Figure 1, CM = 5.1 and

CV = .41 (see table below for complete investigation
which shows efr = 2.01 or too small.) The other k values
are tried until the e/ r approaches 2.43 ("k's" of .25 and
.245 brackets this e/r).
CM+SM
16(CV _ SV)

Note: SV = 37Tpn ( l-2k) and-;- =

CM

SM

6.10
.23 3.90
.24 4.30
4.77
.2/i
.245 4.1\7

2.45
2.45
2.45

CM+
SM (I-lk) 3wpn

-.26 - - - - - 2.4.~

2.46

7.65
6.35
6.75
7.22
7.02

.48
.54
.52
.50
.51

.366
.366
.366
.366
.366

sv
-.175
.198
.190
.183
.187

cv

16(CV-SV)

e/ r

.410
.310
.340
.380
.360

3.76
1.79
2.40
3.15
2.77

2.01 <2.4 3
3.5.5> 2.43
2.81> 2.43
2.29 <2.4 3
2.54> 2.43

The unit stress m the concrete can now be computed

.

for these two k's by usmg formulas fc = (C

concrete, and

r. =

96kM
M

+ SM)r

for

nf0 [R+ r(1-2k)]

kr

for the reinforcement. (Equations 5 and 7)

f c-

96 (.25) 7,000, 000 . 7.22 (36)8

- 497pst f.-

(497) 10[33 + 18]

= 14,100 psi

18
f =
c

502 psi

r. =

By comparison with the conventional method of

P

N , we get the force imposed on the maximum

stressed bar =

4 (7,000,000)
( )
20 66

Derivation of Equations
The subject of foundation design for tall stills and towers
has been accorded much thought during the past year as evidenced by numerous articles. Other equally important items
such as anchor bolts and dowels have been of less concern. Most
writers subscribed to the use of the approximate, inaccurate and
uneconomical formula of

54

.
IS

17,200

this purpose. As expressed

fc (cos</>-cosa) B y sub stttutmg

. .
. t h e a bove; t h e
t hese va Iues m
(1-cosa)
total force acting on the concrete, V 0

2f r2
c
(1- cosa)

)a(cos 4> 0

cos a) sin2 4> d </>.

80,000
---w= 21,200-4,000 =

obtain V e

f r2 [sinS a
T
- 3- + sin a cos

Q.79" =

21,700 psi.

a - a cos a]
, Equation I
2

Taking moments of the internal stress in the concrete about

axis Y - Y, it follows that dM 0 = xdVc The moment of the
force f.' on elemental area dA 0 about Y - Y becomes dM 0 =
f.' dA 0 rcos 4> as x = rcos </>. Substituting the values of dA0 and
fc' as before, the total moment becomes
M0 =

2{ r'l
e

(1 -

cos a)

jCI(cos 4>- cos a) sin2 4> cos 4> d 4>

17,200 pounds.

The umt stress

~~- ~ for

by many, it is safe. Actually it provides a factor of safety out

of proportion to the other designed elements and is merely an
expedient. One would not dare to oversize the other parts of
the structure proportionally as he would never be retained for
a repeat performance.
To stimulate and provoke thinking toward the development
of a more rational analysis for dowel bars, this method ts submitted. It is not presented as the final answer but with the hope
that it will influence others to produce something better for
our use.
For this presentation a cylindrical pedestal, or that formed
by the inscribed circle of the octagon or other regular polygon
is used. The working stress design method is employed with the
attendant assumptions. A section that is plane before bending
remains plane after flexure is imposed. Stress and strain vary as
a straight line and directly as the distance from the neutral axis.
The r einforcement takes all tensile stress due to flexure.
In the development of the formulas the reinforcement is replaced with an area of Es/ Ec times that of the steel. In constructing the transformed section, the holes in the concrete were
not removed from the compression area. This should have very
little influence on the end results and is partially neutralized by
the area outside of the inscribed circle. It does simplify the
derivations considerably.
The symbols used arc the same as those usually found in
concrete design manuals and text books employed for teaching
this subject.
Figure 2 shows a typical foundation with the forces acting
on it and gives the location of the dowels. A section is taken
through the pedestal just above the foundation slab and the
forces acting on this section are located in Figure 3.
The equations representing the total forces and moments imposed on the concrete and r einforcement are now derived.
Taking the summation of moments about axis Y-Y we have
M- M 0 - M 8 = 0 or M = M 0
M 8 By summation of the
forces in the Z direction we get P- ( V c
V 8 =0
P = V 0 +V.
The total vertical force acting on the concrete is the sum of
all the stress acting on the segment of the circle to the right
of the neutral axis.
If fc' represents the intensity of stress on the elemental area
dA 0 , then dV0 = f 0 'dA0 , dA 0 = 2ydx = 2rsin</> ( rsin</>d</> } fc' =

Integrating and substituting a for 4> and 2k for ( 1 - cosa) we

96 (.245) 7,000,000
7.02 (36)3

(502) 10 [33
(36) .51]
.
2 ( .245) 36
= 14,600 pst

4M
NO -

It is apparent that the latter solution is not very

economical, and contains a factor of safety out of proportion to the other elements of the foundation. Its use
should be discontinued.

= (

2 rs
[
c
) 1 -cos a

Y8 ( Y.

sin 44>)

cos a sins 4>

]
0

= {0 rs [a + cos a sin a - 2 coss a

k

cos a sinS a]
3
'

Equation 2.
The total force V 8 acting on the steel is found by converting
the dowel reinforcement into an annular ring of equivalent area
of concrete and of width t. The width is equal to the product
of n and total area of the dowels divided by 2 'iT R . Let f" equal
to the intensity of stress acting on an area dA 8 which is located
a distance of R cos<{> from axis Y - Y.
Then dV1 = f"dA 8 = f" t Rd </>
By similar triangles
f"

r; -

R cos</>-r cos a
r(l- cosa)

{" =

f0 (R cos</>- r cos a)
r ( l-cosa )

2ft
. .
0 R
( R cos</> By substitutiOn dV8 = ,,.,..,.--"- -7
r(l - cosa)

....

(
)o

2
then V =
f tR

r ( l - cosa )

(R cos</>

2f0 tR
[ R sin <{>- r
r(l-cos a)

2f0 tR
r (l-cos a)

-:-:----"-----.,.. ( - 'iT

r cos a) d

r cos a ) d

~ cos a

<{>

M.p =e
<f>

] " ""
0

cos a), since A 8 = pn 'iT r2

= 2 'iT Rt

2Rt = pnr2 and ( 1 - cos a)= 2k then

v. =

I
FOUNDATION

pnr2 'iT cos a

.
k
, Equation 3.
2

The moment of the forces acting on the dowel bars about axis
Y - Y can be obtained by getting the summation of the moments of the forces acting on all the small dA areas. dM 1 =
dV 8 ( R cos</>)

FIGURE 2- Typical tower foundation showing dowel locations.

2 f tR2
c
(R cos<{>-rcosa) cos<{>d</>
r(l-cosa)

2 f tR~
} '" ( R cos</> r(l - cosa) 0

00

M .=

2
2
. tR
r(l-cosa)

R <t>
2

Substituting the limits, Rt =

+R

rcosa)cos<{>d<f>
1100

sin</>

cos<{> -

r cos a sin</> ]
0

p~~ , and 2k =

( 1 - cos a) we get
X

M8

f 0 pnrR2 'iT

4k

Equa tion 4.

dAc= 2r 2 sin 2 d
{2 ydx)

About the Author

Andrew A. Brown is a structural
engineer with the Union Carbide
Chemicals Co., South Charleston,
W. Va. His work at Carbide includes the preparation of structural
designs, reports and analyses for all
types of frames and foundations
both new and existing. Mr. Brown's
profes~ional experience includes that
of a bridge consultant with 12 years
active duty in the U.S. Navy Civil
Engineering Corps as a public works
officer and 10 years in the Bridge
Brown
Dept., State Road Commission of
West Virginia. He holds a B.S. degree in civil engineering from the University of West
Virginia. H e is a member of the Society of American
Military Engineers and Tau Beta Pi.

r!cos- COS.c)

--f.-+o,__-++---t--

Mc+ Ms
--=e
Vc t V
5

r--.+f'-+....;R~c""'o,;:s - r c os...
X
c

-:n=

~~

II

2 kr

= r{ 1- cos.c}

SECTION X-X AXIS

FIGURE 3-Section A-A through Figure 1 pedestal just above

foundation slab.

55

DOWEL SIZING FOR TOWER FOUNDATIONS . .

TAILE 1--c:alcvlated values of

K

Now Equation 1 and 3 are added and multiplied by "r''

r (V., + V 0 ) =
f.,rS (sin' a + sin a cos2 a - a cos a
k
3
2

f. pnrS., cos
2k

= fr3 (2 sin* a+ 3 sin a cos 2 a - 3 a cos a 6k

.10...................
.15 ...... " .............. ..
.20... " ........... " . . . ..
.25 .............. . .........
.30.
. ......... . ........... .
.. .. " .............. ..
.35.
.40.
.. . . . . . . . . . . . ..
.45.
.. ... " ............. ..

a)

.50.
.55..
.60.

3 pn 'TT cos a)

f 0 rS [ 3(a +cos a sin a - 2 coss a sin a)- 8 cos a sin'

k
H

= -f 0- rS
96k

l2(a +cos a sin a - 2 coss a sin a) -

e
r

12 (a+ cos a sin a -

a)]

= 24 pn ( ~)'

and SV =

'TT,

2 cos a sin a)- 32 cos a sin' a+ 24 pn (

CV

= 2 sinS a +

3 sin a cos2 a -

96Mk
(CM +SM )rS

nf0 [R+r( l - 2k))

.
kr
, Equatlon 7
2
NOMENCLATURE

= number of dowel bars

= area of one bar in square inches

56

.22
.38
.59
.85

1.18

1.56
2.00

2.50

3.06
3.68

4.36
5.10
5.87
6.71
7.58
8.49
9.42

CM

.57
1.51
2.91
4.77
7.05
9.67
12.58
15.77
18.85
22.00
25.12
28.03
30.65
32.93
34.79
36.19
36.92
37.51
37.70

"

, Equation 5.

32cosasina+24pn

(~)'.,
r

~)'

71'

, Equation 6.
.
32 cos crams a,

3 a cos a

3 pn ., cos a

Then, the unit stress in the reinforcement is found as f,

N
A,
D=
P=

7ZO 32'
78" 25'
84 16'
000
95 44'
101 32'
107"
28'
11:!0 35'
120"
126 52'
134 26'
143" 08'
164 09'
180"

.0.
.11

fer' (2 sin' a + 3 sin a cosz a - 3 pn 'TT cos a - 3 a cos a)

6k

The observation is made that for any value of k or a, CM

and CV can be computed. Table 1 has been computed for the
values of k of .10 through 1.0 and the respective angles are
noted.
Using these values, the curves on Figure 1 were constructed
with k and a as ordinates and C M and CV as abscissas.
By the use of Equation 6, the neutral axis can be located.
This is done by assuming various values for k until one is obtained that approximates the~ of the external forces. Using
r
the curves, this determination is rather easy to obtain.
The unit stress in the concrete is found by Equation 5;
f =

2 coss a sin a) -

CM+SM
.
.
whereCM = 12 (a+ cos asm a-2 coss a am a) 16 (CV -SV)
SM

6()0

oo 25'

cv

(R)' J

16(2 sinS a+ 3 sin a cos2 a - 3 a cos a - 3 pn 'TT cos a

-

"

36 25'
45 34'
63 08'

CV and CM

fcpnrR' 'TT
Q

32 cos a sin' a+ 24pn -

fer' [12(a+cos asin a 96k

M 0 + M.
(V0
V 0 )r

. ...... . .............. .
.. ................. .
............. .

.65..
................... ..
.70.
.. ................. .
................... .
.75
.80.
. .
.85.
.. ................ ..
.90.
................... ..
.95.
.
.............. ..
1.00 .... ".
.
...... .

This is the product of r and the total streucs in the concrete

and reinforcement and equals the external load P x r. The total
moment of internal stresses is M 0 + M 8 =Equation 2 +4

numerl~al ~oefflclents

diameter of dowel bar circle in inches

minimum total of vertical loads in pounds at the
juncture of pedestal and concrete slab (section A-A)

M = maximum bending moment in inch pounds at the bottom of pedestal (section A-A)
p = ratio of area of steel to area of concrete
n = ratio of modulus of elasticity of steel to that of the
concrete
r = radius of concrete pedestal in inches
R = radius of dowel bar circle in inches
M = external moment at the section
V 0 = total vertical force in the concrete
V, = total vertical force in the reinforcement (dowels)
Me = resisting moment of the concrete
M0
resisting moment of the reinforcement
f0 = maximum unit stress in concrete in pounds per square
inch
d
diameter of circular pedestal
f, = maximum unit stress in the reinforcing steel in pounds
per square inch
2kr
the distance to the neutral axis measured along a
radius from the point of maximum stress in the concrete. (kd)
2a
the angle aubtended by radii drawn from each end of
the chord which forms the neutral axis
e = eccentricity in inches of M/P
##

=
=
=

2,000,000

1,000,000

...
c

:::;

....
.....

...
"g

500,000

o;

..

0..

o;

d-

en

......

..0

....,.
.c

...

...J.

::t:

...

1:

..
.....
...

c
.E""

20

..c

40

t2

...

1:

30

"'

~8

..
..
t2
::0

0
""'
Q:

5,000

en

0
lil

-::;

10

o.

""=>c

...

o;

c;
en

..

...

e
-=...

0
0

.....

40

100

20

...

-~

30-----:~

cr

"'
...J

.....
0

t:...

::t:

10

::t:

...
...

_;

.5

100
90

80
10
60
50

40

...J

c
~

.30

...

.:!
0:

1,000

20

FIGURE 1-This nomograph calculates the overturning moment and the unit soil loading in tower foundation design.

Short Cuts to Tower Foundation Design

Graphic solutions to unit soil loading and loading caused by the
overturning moment will speed up your foundation calculation time

J. F. Kuong
Atlos Powder Compony
Wilmington, Del.

"FOUNDATION DESIGN For Stacks and Towers"

by V. 0. Marshall was the subject of a special supplement published in the May 1958 issue of PETROLEUM
REFINER. This article, in turn, supplements Marshall's
article in that it presents two nomographs for short-cut
meti10ds to the analytical formula techniques requiring
trialanderror calculations.

In designing foundations for self.supporting towers,

with respect to the supporting soil, two main considera
tions are taken into account: a) the unit soil loading,
and b) the tower stability. These two factors must be
studied. The first so that the maximum load the soil
supports will not be exceeded and the second to prevent
overturning of the tower by external forces, such as
those caused by the wind pressure acting on the tower.
Calculations for this type of foundation requires a
trial-anderror procedure. The size of the foundation
is assumed. Then, the soil loading and stability are

51

Equation:

50

40

70000

Where :

60000

_i, Con Be Either

1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000

100000
90000
80000

30

S1 Or

s,..

And

50000

Is W Or Wr, Respectively.

G)
G)

600,000

u..

500,000

.!:

K, Is The Area Shape

20

_.

Foetor.

u..

d, Ia Tile Short

cT
en
..........

G)

400,000

"'0

Diameter Of The Sou

CD

"'
c:

.~

::J

C)

0...

-...

G)

"0

c:

....

Q)

200,000

-....
0

..<::

en

1-

"0

--_J

c:
0
"0
0

G)

60,000

.&;

50,000

0'1

~
G)

c:

..<::

en
0

Q)
(.)

....

....

1000 Square ~
;-:a;soclogon

~'" ....,;; j

G)

.7854 Circle

<t

Q)

G)

::.::

a::
a::

7000
6000

::J

E
c:

50 00

0'1

4000

c:

"0
0
0

_J

3000

'(5

en

'Q;

10000
9000
8000

Q)

70,000

0
...J

u..

c:

100,000
90,000
80,000

"0
0

en

....

(.)

"0
0
0

_J

_J

20000

en

10
9
8

30000

.d

300,000

40000

40,000

c:
::::>

20 0 0

en
30,000

20,000
No111ogroph No. 2

1000
900
800
700

Key : W-d -- R -K -s
10,000

600
500

FIGURE 2-Use this nomograph to find the minimum and dead soil loading for tower foundation design.

checked and used a'! a criteria to determine the suitability of the foundation size originally assumed.
In estimating the maximum soil loading, two kinds of
loading must be considered, namely: a) the unit soil
loading due to the dead load (which includes the weigh t

58

of the empty tower, appurtenances and foundatio1., as

well as the earth fill on top of the foundation base)
and, b) the unit soil loading caused by the overturning
moment produced by the wind or any other lateral
forces acting on the tower.

when it is erected and empty and does not include auxiliaries. As explained in more detail by Marshall, 1 in
calculating the stability of the tower, the maximum soil
loading must be used in equation (7) as defined in this
paragraph. Calling the minimum soil loading S1 m and
W T the minimum deadload, we have:

The total soil loading is, therefore,

S = S1

where:

+S

S
Total soil loading, psf.
S\ = Unit soil loading, dead load, psf.
S0 = Unit soil loading, moment, psf.

S1 and So are calculated as follows:

W
S 1 = -3

(2) and S0

T
M

stm- KWT
d2
<3 >

where:
a, is the area of the base of the foundation sq. ft.
M1, Overturning moment about the base of the foundation,
foot-pounas.
W, is the weight of the empty tower plus the weiftht of
the foundation itself, including the e:~rth fill on top of
the base (minimum dead load), plus the weight of
auxilinries to include the weight of the tower contents
and appurtenances, in pounds.
Z, is the Sl'Ction modulus of the base of the foundation
which varies with the geometric shape, cu. ft.
Now, since
and,

a= K (d} 2

(4)

z=

(5)

F (d) 3

where d is the short diameter of the foundation base

and K and F are proportionality constants for a given
geometrical shape of the foundation base (octagonal,
round, etc.), and since for cylindrical towers the overturning moment is given by
M1

= 0.0025(V)2 D

HL

(6)

equations (2) and (3) can be written as follows,

s1 =

S _ 0.0025(V)2 D 0
o
F ds

Here,
V,
D0 ,
H,
L,

(7)

K. d2

H L

(8)

wind velocity, mph.

diameter of tower including insulation, ft.
height of tower, ft.
lever arm of wmd load, in feet, calculated as follows:
L

= h, + H/2.

h 1, height of foundation, ft.

Furthermore, the condition of poorest stability occurs
when the tower is installed by itself. In other words,

About the Author

J.

F. Kuong is a process engineer for Atlas Powder Co., Wilmington, Del., where he works in
process improvement, trouble
shooting and cost reduction. He is
currently in charge of a technical
section doing technical-economic
studies, process improvement work
and technical support for line supervision. Holder of a B.S. degree
in chemical engineering from the
University of San Marcos, Peru,
and M.S. degree in chemical engineering from the
University of Pennsylvania, he has been with Atlas
since 1954. Kuong worked in the Technical Department, Atlas Point Plant until 1956, when he became
technical assistant to the production superintendent.
Kuong has been a process engineer since 1957.

(9)

and the condition of a perfectly balanced system, as explained in m:>re detail in the reference article, is

s,m =so

(10)

and for an actual system Stm should not be less than So.
Nomographs. Based on equations (7), (8} and (9),
two nomographs have been prepared which reduce the
time required in repeated trial-and-error calculations.
The first, based on equation (8), gives directly the
value of the unit soil loading due to the overturning
moment, Mr, when V, D 0 , Hand h 1 are known.
The second nomograph solves both equations (7) and
(9) when W, WT and d are known. The nomograph
is the same since ('quations (7) and (9) differ on ly in
the value of W which is required to calculate S1 or S1 m.
Example. Consider the same example given in the
Marshall article (to which reference is made for detailed calculations) and compare the solutions obtained
for S,, So and S 1 m using the nomographs presented
here, with those given in the original reference.
The following data arc given:
Tower diameter inc. insulation, Do = 4.5 ft.
Weight of empty tower ........................ 30,000 lbs.
Wtight of assumed concrete foundation volume
based on octagon-shaped base ................ 63,000 lbs.
Weight of earth fill ............ . .............. 32,700 lbs.
Minimum dead load, WT, (30,000
63,000
32,700) ... . ... . .......................... 125,700 lbs.
Weil{ht of auxiliaries, insulation, platforms, piping,
etc., plus liquid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,500 lbs.
Total h('ight, I I, 54 ft.
Height of foundation, hr, 6 ft.
Assumed short diameter of octagon-shaped based, d, 13.5 ft.
K, area proportionality constant for octagon base is 0.828.
F, section modulus proportionality constant for octagon-shaped
base is 0.1016.
To calculate So, multiply Do H = 4.5 54 = 243.8.
Calculate L
6
54/ 2
33. Enter 243.8 on DoH
scale (Figure 1) and align with L = 33 on L scale to
intersection with first reference line. With reference
line as a pivot, align pivot point with V
100 to
obtain M 1 = 200,000. Connect 200,000 on Mr scale
with reference point for octagon section modulus factor and second reference line. Finally, align pivot point
on second line with d
13.5 and read So
800 lbs./sq.
ft. on extreme left scale. The calculated value given in
the reference is 803.
To calculate S 1 (use Figure 2). Align W = 174,200
on left scale on nomograph No. 2 with d = 13.5 and
reference line. Connect pivot point on reference line
with octagon area factor and read S 1 = 1150 lbs.fsq. ft.
The reference article gives S 1 = 1155.
To calculate S,m (use Figure 2). Repeat procedure
outlined just above except use WT = 125,700 instead of
W
174,200, and read S1 m
830. This value compares with 830 as given in the reference.

= +

LITERATURE CITED
1

Manhall, V. 0., Foundation Design Handbook for Stocks and Towen,

PETROLEUM REPINEa,

37, No. 5, Supplement (1958).

59

FOUNDATIONS...
..
~

...

..
.

Foundation Design for 8-Legged Vessels

Using one general equation for

bending moment, the reinforcement
bars for the entire foundation
can be calculated
Andrew A. Brown, Olefins Division,
Union Carbide Corp., South Charleston, W. Va.
THE FOUNDATION for the 8-legged cylindrical vessel
shown in Figure 1 can be designed with one general
equation.
Because of the relatively low height of these vessels, the
unit stresses at full load are usually not influenced by
wind or seismic forces. That is, when the allowable unit
stresses are increased by one-third for loading consisting
of combined maximum vertical and horizontal forces the
elements of the foundation are not usually overstr~ssed
by such loading.

Base Slab. The base slab for the foundation is octagonal.

Formwork for this shape is less costly than for a circular
shape, and the distribution of stresses is more uniform
than for a square. The base slab is assumed to be divided
into four equal bands as shown in Figure 2. This is a
view looking up from underneath the footing. The outlines of the overlapping bands form soil pressure prisms.
One of them is included in all four bands, six are in
three, four in two, and two are in one band only.
Since all four bands are identically loaded, one will be
removed and treated as an independent simple beam
span. The reactions are the pier reactions. Section A-A
(Figure 2) is formed by a plane passing through the
center of the piers. The magnitude of the loads or soil
pressures have been drawn to a vertical scale to show
the fraction of the uniform load that is supported on the
span. If the load prism is in all four bands, the load intensity is one-fourth of w. If the load prism is in three
bands, the load intensity is one-third and so on.
If we let D equal the short diameter of the octagon, in
feet, and P the total load or soil pressure on it (excluding
the weight of the top fill and the concrete slab) the uniform load becomes PI A = P/0.828D 2 = w in pounds per
square foot when P is in pounds.
The reaction for the beam is P /8.
With these loads, the table of areas and moments is

Fig. 1-Elevation of typical vessel and foundation.

computed (Table I ) . The last column gives the moment

of the respective load prisms about the center of the span.
The values in the other columns are labeled and are selfexplanatory. The total moment is - 0.0328wD 2 for one
band. The bending moment on a width of beam of one
foot is
M

O.l035wD:
0.414D ( D/ 2 - x) -

= [.25 (D/2- x) -

0.0328wDa
0.414D

0.0795D]wD

where "x" is the distance from the outer edge of the octagon to the center of the pier or reaction.
Since two-way reinforcement is to be employed, the
influence of the two bands which cross this one at an
angle of 45 degrees will have to be taken into account. A
section of unity width is removed from the center of the
span and the value of moments imposed at the center by
these bands are shown in Figure 3.
Let m = moment on the main band acting on unit

61

FOUNDATION DESIGN FOR 8-LEGGED VESSELS

UNIT WIDTH

Fig. 3-Moments about section of unity width.

width. Then the width at a 45 angle is 0. 707 and the

moment is 0. 707m. The total moment for the two bands
is 2 (0.707m) = 1.4lm, but these are at 45 degrees to the
main band. Accordingly, the component to be added is
m(1.414 X 0.707) = m and the total moment is 2m.
For one foot width of beam, the bending moment at the
center becomes M = 2[.25(D/2-x)-0.0795D]wD
= [112(D/2-x) - 0.159D]wD
(GeneralEquation)
With this moment, the required reinforcement can be
computed. In sizing the bars one should keep in mind
that the steel is located near the top of the slab and the
permissible bond stress is 3.4 Vfc'/Bar Diameter but not
to exceed 350 psi.
The pier reinforcement is computed by the usual formula used for column design. The minimum steel requirement would normally govern. The maximum tensile stress
in the pier rebars is obtained when the vessel is empty and
maximum wind or seismic forces are imposed thereon.
The concrete is under maximum stress when the vessel
is full and all other loads are applied.
If the octagon is much larger than the outside to outside
distance of the piers, a section should be investigated at
the plane of the outside pier edge. Reinforcement would
then be required in the bottom of the slab. This projection beyond the pier reduces the bending moment at the
##
center of the span.

w:..f..: __P__
A
D2 X .828
f ----SHORT DIAMETER OF OCTAGON,D,FT.-----1
DISTANCES TO C. G.
t -- - - - - - -t-,43096 DI

r---D/2-x
r----D/2------1

t SPAN
SECTION A-A
SHOWS LOAD DISTRIBUTION ON THE SANDS

About the author

Fig. 2-Base slab plan looking up underneath the footi ng.

Captain, Civil Engineer Corps, U.S. Naval Reserve, is a

Senior Engineer, Ole fins Division, Union
Carbide Corp., So. Charleston, W. Va.
1- Mr. Brown's professional e:r:perience includes several years in the Bridge Departnumt, State Road Commission of
West Virginia, and he has served as a
bridge consultant for several cities.
During his 1! y ears of active duty in
the U.S. Navy some of his billets were:
Public Works Officer, Naval Air Station, Hampton Roads,
Va., Naval Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, and Naval
Station, San Juan, Puerto Rico; Design and Construction
Officer, Fifth Naval District, Maintenance and Operations
Officer, Eleventh Naval District, and Assistant Public Works
Officer and Maintenance Superintendent, Naval Air Training Basea, Pensacola, Fla. He is a member of International
Association for Bridge and Structural Engineers, SAME,
ASCE, and has BSCE and CE degrees from West Virginia
University.

,":.'1

TABLE 1-Table of Area a a nd Mome nts

Sec.

Area of
Prism Base

I. ....... .042893D
II .......

.07Hl67D

111-a ....

.007:J59D

III-b ....

.01471902

IV .....

.07Hl67D

Totals ....

.207!0402

Height
Soil
Bear.

Volume
Force

Dlst. to
Cent. Grav.

Mom.
About
Center
Spnn

.042893D2w

.43096D

.018485D'w

w/2

.0.155.11D2 w

.31904D

.01133G6D2w

w/3

.0024531D2w

.235700

.000578DJw

w/3

.0040063D2w

.1()667D

.000817D2w

w/4

.oJ7766D2 w

.09048D

.001607702w

"'

R-

.10355D>w

.O:l282.1603to

Use .032SD2w

Note: Th~ valu~s in this table were extended further than th~ ~tr~ngth of th~
materials of construction and soil bearing determinations warrant. This was done
to check the work. For Instance. the total area should equal .4142D X .6D, and
tb~ total fore~ or reaction shoul<l equal one-eighth area of an octagon.

62

ANDREW A. BROWN,

Pressure Vessel Foundation Design

For vertical pressure vessels, the old middle third rule
requires a safety factor of 3. These data show that a
factor of 1.5 is quite in order
J . A . A . Cummins

1.9

Hudson Engineering Corp.

Houston
l.S

IF THE FULLEST economy is

to be realized in the design of a
foundation, a complete understanding of its action under various loading is required. This is particularly
true when the wind loading resultant
falls outside the middle third of the
foundation cross section and uplift
occurs. In this case, the soil pressure, or pressure on the soil, varies
in a different manner than when
the resultant falls inside the middle
third. It is emphasized that a factor
of safety against overturning of 1.5
is quite in order, whereas the middle third rule gave a factor of safety
of 3. The use of this data will result
in a precise, and hence more economical design and will be consistent with the safety factors derived
from the American Standard Building Code Requirements A58.11955, and the ACI Building Code.

.;

Advantages of Square Base. For

vertical pressure vessel foundations,

a square base is preferable to an
octagonal or round base mainly because of the complications involved
in laying out the steel. An octagonal
base requires at least three layers of
steel, one on top of the other, and
consequently a greater depth of concrete.

ConJI

C!IHlll

0.8 L __ _....L.__ __.__ ____J._ _ _

1.5

2.0

2 .5

3.0

.,...,
/YY

.~.-.

3.5
B BW

c:t=J. .

_ _..J__ __.__ _---i

4.0

4.5

5.0

"2e" 2M

FIGURE l-In Case 1 the resultant is outside the middle third.

63

The base area is practically the same in both cases, but

the octagonal base uses considerably more steel. Furthermore, the form work for an octagonal base costs more
than a square one of the same area. A square base also
permits closer spacing of columns than the octagonal
base.
The base must be set below ground, the bottom being
below frost line and on undisturbed soil of known character. A pedestal is required to convey the load of the
vessel to the footing. Ideally it should be circular, but
an octagonal,pedestal is cheaper to construct. The minimum depth below grade of the top of the footing is
often governed by the depth required to accommodate
the various pipes which are necessary wherever this type
of vessel occurs.

M N
b

Overturning And Soli Pressure. In any design, the

factor of safety against overturning and the maximum

soil pressure must be computed first. The size of the base
is then determined by trial and error. Figure 1 shows the
relationship between the soil pressure p at the side of
the footing caused by wind normal to axis YY, and the
soil pressure p' at the corner caused by the wind normal to axis ZZ. The ratio~ varies with the eccentricity
p

and hence with the factor of safety

:e =

'1 T he curve

shows three conditions: Case I, when the resultant is

outside the middle third and uplift occurs for bending
about both axes; Case II, when e11 is less than
: , but there is still uplift at the corner when bending
about ZZ; and Case I II, when bending about both axes
produces no uplift.
I t can be seen that about '1 = 2.8, p = p'. Below this
value, p' is always less than p so that it is only necessary
to investigate p. When '1 is greater than 2.8, the pressure
on the corner is greater than that at the side. The curve
is useful here to determine p' from the easily calculated
value of p. It may be observed that the maximum ratio

of~ will

be 0.~ = 1.19. For cases where '1 is greate~

p
W
M X 6v2
than 3.6, it is easier to compute p' =B2 plus
B3
in the usual manner.
It is usual when computing soil pressure to test for
dead load plus test load with water and no wind, or dead
load plus operating load plus wind load. Some designers
still use dead load plus test load plus wind load together,
but this is not necessary since the vessel is usually filled
with water only once or twice in its life for testing purposes. However, some companies advocate the filling of
vessels with water when hurricane warnings are received, in which case the latter condition should be used
for design, but this practice is not very common.
For computing the minimum factor of safety against
overturning, the e1npty weight of the vessel should be
used together with the weight of the soil and footing.

64

M N

FIGURE 2-The octagonal pedestal is reduced to a square or

equivalent area.

Allowable Soli Pressure. Allowable soil pressures

quoted by most soil engineers are usually given as a
figure in pounds per square foot at a certain depth.
This is the allowable pressure in addition to the weight
of soil already there. Thus, allowance can be made for
the weight of original soil above foundation depth when
computing maximum soil pressure. This has a net effect of increasing the given allowable soil pressure by
the weight of soil above the given depth. If this figure
is used, allowance must be made for all backfill which
may lie above the foundation as well as the weight of
concrete and maximum weight of the vessel.
Wind Pressure. The American Standard Building

Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in

Buildings and Other Structures, A58.1-1955, is the
culmination of much study of wind pressures in the
United States and contains recommendations for design
pressures for different areas. It shows how wrong it is
to take an arbitrary wind pressure and apply it to all
localities and to any height above ground as it frequently done today. Specification writers often specify
a figure of pounds per square foot on a projected area
which in many cases is too high for the majority of vessels, but which for very tall vessels, is actually too low.
Also, they will sometimes specify a wind velocity and
omit stating the height at which the velocity is to be
taken. The Code gives design wind pressures recommended for any location in the U.S. and for any height
above ground level. In addition, minimum recommended seismic factors are given and a schedule for
recorded earthquakes in the U.S. with a map showing
the locations of their epicenters.

Concrete Design. The concrete base should be designed according to the latest ACI Building Code ( ACI
318-56) . In Figure 2, the bending moment on the footing is calculated on Section MM and the diagonal tension on NN ~ith bending about YY axis. The octagonal
pedestal is reduced to a square of equivalent area and
the length of the side C' = 0.91 X dia. of an octagon. It
can be shown that by turning the equivalent square
through 45 degrees and investigating bending about the
ZZ axis, the moment is never more than y2 X MMM.
Since the two-way footing will be designed for bending
'about YY, the components of the steel in the diagonal
direction will be 2 X

l-

y2

y2

99'-6"

H=IOG'O"

X the area of the steel

in the YY direction. Consequently, bending about ZZ

does not enter into the concrete design.
The ACI Code at present makes no difference for a
square and rectangular footing in the location of the
critical section for bending. It is suggested that a more
correct estimate of moment for square footings would
be obtained by taking moments of the loaded area beef
about Section MM and distributing the steel computed
over (ef plus 2d) where d is the effective depth of the
base. This is particularly true with a small pedestal on
a large base. The steel outside this critical section could
then be placed at wider spacings. At present, the ACI
Code specifies the moment to be taken and the steel to
be distributed evenly over the full breadth of the base
on Section MM. The diagonal tensile stress is to be
computed from area bcgh on Section NN of width gh.
The computation of bending moment and diagonal tension about these sections is best handled by use of
formulae. These must vary according to whether the
conditions are Case I or Case II (see Figure 1) . Case
III will be similar to Case II. The method of design is
probably best illustrated by the following examples:

FIGURE 3-Example Figure. A typical absorber is studied

with foundations located in Nevada, Oklahoma and Central
Texas.
M. = Earthquake moment bottom of footing, lb. ft.
C' =Side of square of equivalent area to octagon, ft.
s, = Soil pressure for mat design, PSF
S0 = Soil pressure due to total operating load, PSF
St = Soil pressure due to total test load, PSF
S,. = Soil pressure due to wind or earthquake, PSF
D = Depth of concrete, ft.
d = Depth of steel in concrete, inches
B =Side of square base, ft.
']min= Minjroum FOS against overturning
']o
Operating FOS against overturning
e0 =Operating eccentricity, ft.
V 0 = Shear at Section N, lbs.
V m = Shear at Section M, lb/ft
Mm = Moment in footing on Section M, lb ft/ft
Sa= Allowable stresses in accordance with ACI 'C ode, psi
Mu = Moment in footing due to uplift at Section M, lb
ft/ ft
~ 0 = Sum of bar perimeters in one foot width, inches
s. = Shear stress, psi
f = Depth of soil above base, ft.

EXAMPLES
A typical absorber is taken, for example, with foundations to be located in ( 1) Nevada, (2) Oklahoma, (3)
Central Texas (Figure 3) . The vessel is 84 inches ID X
99 feet-6 inches S-S. The allowable soil pressure is 4000
PSI at 5 feet below grade. The shell thickness is 3.5
inches. Using 4 inch insulation gives 99 inches or 8.25
feet OD.

Erected weight empty

409,620 lbs.
w.
Weight of water to fill
244,500 lbs. = w..
Maximum vessel weight 654,120 lbs. = wm
Operating liqujd load
=WI
Pedestal 9 feet-3 inches across flats;
weight = 70.84 X 4 .25 X 150
Operating design load for mat

409,620 Jbs.

28,800 Jbs.

45,100 lbs.
483,520 lbs.

The following abbreviations have been used:

M,.r = Wind moment about bottom of footing at center,
lb. ft.

W.plusW1 =
438,420

Notes. ( 1) Unit weight of soil in calculations has been

taken at 90 lbf cu ft, being the probable
minimum weight if unconsolidated.
( 2) For wind moment calculation allow 2 feet
width for ladders, pipe, platform, etc., i.e.

65

total OD vessel = 8.25 plus 2 = 10.25 feet.

This 2 feet is conservative and may be reduced by an analysis of all the extraneous
projections.

V0

2W
X"Y[

= B

~ (C' plus d/6) (2X- Y) plus Y/3 (3x- y)

2 X 483,520 X 4-.13
19.5X (16.2)2

[~ .(8.42 plus 2.83) (32.40- 4.13) plus 1.28 (48.60- 4.13)

Example (I)-Nevada. A58-1-1955 gives a 20 PSF

pressure zone.
Wind pressure 0 - SO feet= 15 X shape factor 0.6 = 9 PSF
en vert. proj.

= 780 ( 159.08 plus 56.92) =

SO- 50 feet= 20 X shape factor 0.6 = 12 PSF

50- 100 feet= 25 X shape factor 0.6
100 feet up

M,.r
10.25 ( 18 X 6 X 108 plus 15 X 50 X 80 plus
12 X 20 X 4-5 plus 9 X SO ,X 20)
= 10.25 ( 11,664 plus 60,000 plua 10,800 plus 5,400) =
900,6061b/ft
Let B = 19 feet-6 inches and
D= 1.75feet
Weight of base 19.5 2 X 1.75 X 150
Weight of soil above base
90X (280-71) 3.25
Operating load on soil
Operating liquid load -deduct
Minimum direct soil load
Water to fill
Max. test load on soil
Soil pressure under test load

W0 =

wb =

=
=

As Nevada is a region of recorded earthquakes, see

A58.1-1955, a seismic factor of 0.1 is taken.
M. = 0.1 (438,420 X 58.5 plus 144,920 X 2.5)
= 2,564,750 plus 362,300
= 2,927,050 lb. ft/ft.
This moment must be used since it is greater than M.,.r.
_ WmlnXB
'1mln2 M

'1o =
e

W0 X B
2M,

M
=-
wo

644,920 X 19.5 =
2 15
2 X 2,927,050
.

>

1.

= 673,720 X 19.5 = .
2 24
2 X 2,927,050
-

2,927,050
673,720

M 01 =

= 4.35 feet

Mm

483,520 lbs.
99,820 lbs.

90,380 lbs.
W1
673,720 lbs.
W0 W 1 -28,800 lbs.
W min= 644,920 lbs.
W,. = 244,500 lbs.
wt = 889,4-20 lbs.
2,341 PSF

168,480 lbs.

( 12"0' plus 2 d) jd

168,480
= 85 PSI < 100
( 101 plus 34) 0.867 X 17
u 2 W"
B-C'
B,Z ( 2X plus u) where u = - -3 2
2
~ (19.5-8.42) =5.54

wb +

(5.54 )2 483,520

= 58.5 X ( 16.2 ) 2 (32.40plus5.54) =36,700lb.ft/ft

WP = 45,100 lbs.
99,820 lbs.
WP 144,920 lbs.

Steel in bottom

= 1.12 in. 2

12 M 01 =
12 X 36,700
jd
26,667 X 0.867 X 17

s. X

Use No. 7 @ 6 inches on centers

KF = 260 X 12 X 172 = 75,300
12
check bond: V m

::;:

4-Mm
(B _ C')

vm -

bond stress- jd l:o -

>M -

no compression steel

4 X 36,700

13,250 lbs./ft

11.08

13,250
0.867 X 17 X S.S = 163 PSI < 267

The formula for uplift is approximate and applies only when

BplusC'

x>

)2

Mu= -B2 (90fplus 150D) ( - 3- -1

8
'~min
- 380 (90 X 3.25 plus 150 X 1.75)
8
(0.396)2
= 4,135 lb. ft/ft

From curve, '7o < 2.8 and ;,

> 1 i.e. max soil pressure at side

.
4,135 X 12
_
. 2
Steel 10 top 26,667 X 0.867 X 17 - 0 13 10

4- wo
Soil pressure =-=-=-':-:3B (B-2e)

4- X 673,720 = 4-,265 PSF

58.5 X 10.8

KF

Subtract wt. of original soil at

given depth 90 X 5 = 4-50
Max. soil pressure
3,815 PSF < 4,000

....,..,~-=--=-:-7-:~=-:-~=-

= 15 PSF

=SO X shape factor 0.6 = 18 PSF

vn

S = Shear Stress =

Use No.4@ 12 inches on centers

> M I no compression steel

Vu = (90 f plus 150 D) (B- x) = 555 X 3.3

bond stress

= 1,850 lbs./ft.

.
1 850
0.867 X 17 X 1.6 = 79 pslok

Concrete design for 2,500 psi at 28 days

f0 = 1,125 f, = 20,000
adding 33y; percent overstress for ACI 603(c)
f 0 = 1,500 f, = 26,667
.iFor D = 1.75; let d = 17 inches; C' = 0.91 X 9.25 = 8.42

Example (2)-0klahoma. A58-1-1955 gives a 40

PSF pressure zone.
Wind pressure 0 - 30 feet 30 X shape factor 0.6 = 18 PSF
on vert. proj.

;For '10 < 3, proceed as follows:

30- 50

40 X shape factor 0.6 = 24 PSF

X= 1.5 (B-2.) = l.5 X 10.8 = 16.2

50-100

50 .X 1hape factor 0.6 = 30 PSF

Y=

66

(B-C' -d/6)

= ~ (19.5-8.4-2 -2.83)=4.13

100up

60 X shape factor 0.6 = 36 PSF

M... r= 10.25 (36 X 6 X 108 plus 30 X 50 X 80 plus

24- X 20 X 45 plus 18 X 30 X 20)

Shear stress S,

156 265

= 99 9 PSI< 100
(101 plus 28) X 0.867 X 14

= 10.25 (23\328 plus 120,000 phu 21,600 phu 10,800)

=1,801,200 b. ft.
For 8 = 18 f~et; D = 1.5; f = 3.5 W, plus W 1 =
WP = 70.84 X 4.5 X 150 = 47,820 lbs.
..;- 82 = S1 = 1,501 PSF

438,420 lbs.

(2 BS- 3 BZC' plus C'S)

486,240 lbs.

Weight of base 182 X 1.5 X 150

Wb=

72,900 lbs.

Weight of soil above

90X3.5 (324-71)

W8 =

79,700 lbs.

Operating load on soil

638,840 lbs.

W 1 = -28,800 lbs.

deduct

W min= 610,040 lbs.

Minimum direct soil load

Water to fill

Ww =

244,500 lbs.

Max. test load on soil

Wt =

854,540 lbs.

Wt/82 =

Soil pressure under test load

610,010 X 18
'~miD= 2 X 1,801,200
638,840 X 18
2 X 1,801,200

2,637 PSF

;;;;:: 652,000 lb/ft < M,.r

Seismic factor 0.025 gives M.

1,801,200
,
= 2.82 feet
638 840

Consult curve for.-!:. for '10 = 3.19 and obtain.-!:.= 0.914

p'

.
Sot) pressure =

4W 0
( _ eo)
2
38 8

Note: if s... < Ys s., then letS,.= 0 and allowable bending

stress Sb = 20,000 PSI
if S,.. > Ys S1 , compute Mm as above and Sb = 26,667 PSI
1,853
1,501
Mm = --(18 - 8.42)2 plus
X
(11,6648
18
24
8,175 plus 595)
= 17,256 plus 17,518 = 34,774lb. ft/ft

p'

4 X 638,840
p;-- 54 (18-5.64)
P _

12
Mm "{'
Sb X .867 d

Steel in bottom =

4M
4 X 34,774.
V m+ B _ 10
C' =
_ _ :;;;;: 14,490 lbs./ft l:0 = 5.4 mches
18 8 41
260

12

Bond stress =

50,960 > M, i.e. no compression

12 steel

J..!.!L: =

vm

0.867 dl:0

Note: if s ... had been <

14,490
0.867 X 14 X 5.4
= 221 PSI< 267

Ys S1, allowable bond stress =

200 PSI

Uplift-Since 7JmtD > 3, there can be no uplift. It is

usual to provide nominal No. 4 @ 12 inch centers in
such cases in the top of the mat, both ways.

= 4,189 PSF
_
0 914

Subtract weight of original soil at given depth 90 X 5 = - 450

(at comer) Max. soil pressure
3,739
< 4,000PSF

Concrete design for 2,500 psi concrete @ 28 days

f0 = 1,125 f,
20,000
and adding 33 ~ percent overstress for ACI 603 (c)
fe = 1,500 f,
26,667

C' = 0.91 X 9.25 = 8.42 feet B = 18 D = 1.5 d = 14 inches

K = 1/B (C' plus d/6) = 1/18 (8.42 plus 2.33) = 0.6

Example (3)-Central Texas. A58-1-1955 gives a 25

PSF pressure zone.
Wind Pressure: 0 - 30

20 X shape factor 0.6 = 12 PSF

30- 50

25 X shape factor 0.6 = 15 PSF

30 X shape factor 0.6 = 18 PSF

50-100

40 X shape factor 0.6 = 24 PSF

100up

M,.r = 10.25 (24 X 6 X 108 + 18 X 50 X 80+

15 X 20 X 45
12 X 30 X 20)

= 10.25 (15,552 + 72,000 + 13,500 + 7,200)

= 1,109,580 lb. ft.
For B = 16 feet-6 inch

1,801,200 X 6 = 1,853 PSF

(18)a
B2
Max. shear V D=
c1 - K) [3 S1 (K plus 1) plus 2 s... (K 2
12
plus K plus 1)]
S = M ... r X 6
w
81

Note: if s ... < Ys S1 , then let S,. = 0 and allowable shear

stress S, = 75 PSI
if S,.

34 774 12

X
26,667 X 0.867 X 14
= 1.29 in2/ft.

Use No.8@ 7 inches on centers

KF =

3.05

3.19 and e0

~
(8- C')2 plus~
8
24-B

Design moment Mm =

W0 " =

Operating liquid load

(12 C' plus 2d) X 0.867 d

> Ys S1, compute Vn as above and S, =

100 PSI

182
Vn=12(0.4)
(3 X 1,501 ( 1.6) plus 2 X 1,853 (0.36 plus 0.6 plus 1)]
= 10.8 (7,~05 plus 7,264= 156,265lbs.

D= 1.5

f=3.5

W 0,. =486,240 ..;- B2 = S, = 1,786 PSF

Weight of base
16.52 X 1.5 X 150 wb = 61,260 lbs.
Weight of soil above
90X3.5(272-71) W,=63,320lbs.
Operating load on soil W0 = 610,820 + B2 = S0 = 2,244 PSF
Operating liquid loaddeduct
- 28,800 lbs.
Minimum direct soil load
WmiD= 582,020 lbs.
W., = 244,500 lbs.
Water to fill
Max. test load on soil

wt =

826,520 ..;- B2 =

st =

3,036 PSF

67

Seismic factor 0.025 gives M 8 = 651,960 < M,.t

Wmla X B
582.020 X 16.5
'~min= 2 M wt = 2 X 1' 109, 580 = 433
17 o =

A! '10

>

1.5

610,820 X 16.5
2 X 1,109,50 = 454

For example (1),

M" = 0.1 (438,420 X 56.75
2,600,470 lb. ft.
WR =

Soil pressure (on comer)

_ (48/104) X2,600,470 - 483,520_

716,700
26,667 X 32
- 26,667 X 32
= 0.84 in 2

1,109,580 X 6 = 1,482 PSF

(16.5)8

1.414 S,.
= S0
= 2,244 2,096 = 4,340 PSF

Subtract weight of original soil at given

depth 90 X 5
Max. soil pressure
Concrete design for

2,500 psi

- 450
3,890 PSF
< 4,000 PSF

concrete at 28 Days.

"'o > 3, procedure similar to example (2).

Dowels. These must be provided to transfer any tensile force from the pedestal into the base. This force is
transferred by bond from that part of the anchor bolts
actually embedded in the pedestal. However it is usual
to design dowels for the full tensile force whether the
bolts go into the mat or not.
Let N = number of dowels in a circle Dd inches in
diameter
Let M'' = the wind or earthquake moment at bottom of pedestal
Let A = area of each dowel; WR = minimum resisting weight
(48/Dd) M-WR
Then A=
SA X N

483,520

A-

> 3.6, proceed as follows:

M,.t X 6
S,.=
BS

cw. + Wp + WL) =

+ 45,100 X 2.25) =

i.e., provide 2 at No. 9 and 2 at No. 8 at each of 8 pedestal

faces.

++

L- D
56.5
(H/ 2)
(H/ 2 L
Mwt = 5s Mwt

For example (2), M" =

For cases where the depth of the base D is small

compared to overall height of tower, M'' can be taken
as Mwf
WR = (W.
A-

+ Wp ) = 457,440
373,890
26,667 X 32
= 0.44in

(48/104) 1,801,200 - 457,440

26,667 XN

).e., provide 4 at No. 6 at each pedestal face

For example (3),
. 2
_ (48/104X 1,to9,580 - 457,440 _
A26,667 :X 16
- 0.I 3 m
i.e., provide 2 at No. 4 at each pedestal face
Anchor Bolts. These may be computed as follows:
Let Db = diameter of bolt circle in inches.
N = number of bolts
M' = wind moment at base plate

W R = minimum resisting weight

Then Root Area A =

(48/Db) M' - Wa
f X N

WR is usually the empty weight W but when the earthquake moment is used, WR is the operating weight W WL
For example (1}, Using SAE 4140 bolts with allowable
stress 30,000 psi

About the Author

J. A. A. Cummins is a civil
engineer working in design and
construction for H\ldson Engineering Corp., Houston. He attended Nautical College, Pangbourne, Epgland, for four. years;then went to Royal College of
Science and Technology, Gla.~
gow, Scotland, for four years tl
study civil en'gineering. He started
his career with a consulting engineering firm in Scotland in 1947.
From 1951-54 he was a concrete
structural engineer in England,
and from 1954-56 was an engineer and superintendent on a
project to construct a dam in
Scotland. He joined Hudson 2~
years ago in Ontarior and has
been with the Houston office for
a year. A registered professional
engineer, Cummins is a member
of several technical societies.
68

M' = 438,420 X 52.5 = 2,301,700 lb. ft.

A_
-

623,900
.
600,000 = 1.04 m2

(48/104) 2,301 ,700-438,420

30,000 X 20

Use 20- 1%-inch dia. bolts SAE 4140

For example (2),
,
(H/ 2)
53
M ~ (H/2 ) LMwr =ssX 1,801,200 = 1,646,000 lb. ft.

(48/104) 1,646,000 - 409,620

30,000 X 16
350,070
0.73 inZ
480,000

Use 16@ 11,4-inch dia SAE 4140

For example (3) M' ~
A=

~; X 1,109,580 =

(48/104) 1,013,930-409,620
12,000 X 12

1,013,930

58,350
041. 2
144,000 = 10

Use 12 @ 1 inch dia. carbon steel.

( Ys" dia would do here, but normally less than
not be used)

inch would

##

NOTES

69

"

COMPUTER FOUNDATION :~.

....
OESIGN .
... .

How to Calculate Footing

Soil Bearing

by

Computer

Here's an effective method for

finding the maximum soil bearing
under eccentrically loaded
rectangular footings, programed
for a small computer

Eli Czerniak, The Fluor Corporation, Ltd.,

Los Angeles
MOST OF THE STRUCTURES used in hydrocarbon processing are, to some extent, affected by overturning forces
which, like the vertical loads, must ultimately be resisted
at the ground. The function of their footings, then, is to
provide that resistance; so that all the loads-vertical,
lateral, and overturning moments-can be adequately
supported, without exceeding the safe bearing capacity
of the soil.
The factors and causes contributing to the overturning effects arc varied. Gusty wind pressures on
exposed structures rising high above the ground is one;
the seismic forces for the plants and refineries which
are located within areas subject to earthquake shocks
is another. Impact, vibration, crane runway horizontal
forces, unbalanced pull of cables, sliding of pipes over
supports, thermal expansion (or partial restraint) of
horizontal vessels and heat exchangers, reactions from
anchors and directional guides, eccentric location of
equipment are some of the additional reasons for the
lateral force design.
The actual mechanics for determining the maximum
soil bearing under a footing are, of course, independent
of any of the causes for the separate force components
used in the various loading combinations met in design.
T he computations arc the same whether the resulting
overturning moment is from vertical loads which are
located off-center (load time!\ eccentricity); from lateral
forces that are applied at a given height above the footing (fo1 ce times distance to bottom of footing); or by
some combination thereof. Therefore, the techniques
for tlw computational analysis, described in this article

FIGURE !-Computer-designed footings for a refinery.

will simply be based on the three resultants P, H, and

M, for the vertical loads, horizontal forces and overturning moments, respectively; applied at the footing
centroid-without giving any special consideration as to
how this combination of forces and moments was obtained. It should be mentioned, however, that when proportioning footing sizes in the design engineering office,
the actual make-up of the critical load-moment combinations could be of economic significance. Figure 1
shows several computer-designed footings in a refinery
under construction. As with the other engineering materials, some increase is the allowable soil bearing is
certainly justified when designing the footings for dead,
live and operating loads, combined with the temporary
lateral forces and moments. And due care must be
exercised in establishing the proper design values. Obviously, no increase in allowable soil bearing would be
advisable when the moments, about the footing centerlines, are due to the eccentricities of long-duration
vertical loads. It should apply only to such loading

71

CALCULATE FOOTING SOIL BEARING . . .

FIGURE 2--Spread footing during construction.

combinations which are definitely known to include

overturning effects of a temporary nature. Building
codes, recognizing the improbability of the absolute
maximums occuring simultaneously, usually permit footings subjected to wind or earthquake combined with
other loads, to be proportioned for soil pressures 33 Y3
percent greater than those specified for dead, live and
operating loads only, provided that the area of footings thus obtained is not less than required to satisfy
the combination of dead load, live load, operating
weights, and impact (if any).

Design Practice. With the almost infinite variety of

soils encountered, the problem of determining the actual
soil pressure under footings could be, to say the least,
extremely complex. As foundation engineers well know,
the distribution of loads and moments-on the footing,
to the supporting earth beneath, is rather highly uncertain. Simplifying assumptions, however, come to the aid.
According to current structural engineering practice,
the soil bearing under the loaded footing is calculated
from static equilibrium, and on the basis of the simplifying assumption that the footing slab is absolutely rigid
and it is freely supported on elastically isotropic masses.
From this follows a linear distribution of soil pressure
against the footing bottom. For only concentric loads,
then, the upward pressure is considered to be uniformly
distributed over the full area of the footing, and hence
equal to ~ . When moment is also present, its contribution can be evaluated from the simple flexure formula

~e , provided that the resultant eccentricity e (computed from ~) falls within the kern of the footing
area. By superposition, the maximum and minimum
pressures are simply the algebraic additions of the direct
. components, A+
P
d P
Me
andbendmg
-Me
- an A - - - , respec1

tively. In order to obtain the net increase in pressures,

the weight (per tnit area) of the displaced earth and
backfill should be deducted from the gross values. In

72

designing the concrete and reinforcing steel in the footing, only the net pressures need be considered. When
the position of the resultant eccentric load is outside the
kern, straight forward superposition is not applicable
because the pressure reversal implied by the flexure
formula cannot occur in a footing on soil. When the
overturning effects exist about two axes, the analytical
confusion is further compounded. The technique described in this article, however, is completely general,
and hence effective for all cases, with resultant load
locations inside and outside of the kerns. A close-up of
a spread footing during construction is seen in Figure 2.
Under the superimposed loads, the upward soil pressure
tends to deflect the projecting portions of the footing,
until it would assume a slightly convex shape. The reader
need not have any qualms about the previously conjectured, absolute footing rigidity. As stated before, that
assumption of perfect rigidity was made only for the
purpose of facilitating soil pressure computations. This
purpose having been satisfactorily achieved, the engineer
must then tackle his next item on the agenda-the
structural design of the footing itself. To accomplish
that, he expediently relaxes the rigidity restriction, and
permits the soil pressure against footing bottom to
deflect upward (not too much though) the outer portions of the footing. To resist them, steel bars are added
to compensate for the inherent tension deficiency of
plain CuHClcL..:. L, isolated footings, the tensile reinforcement is placed in two directions, (as can be seen
in Figure 2) with the bars in one direction resting directly on top of those in the other direction.

Biaxial Eccentricity. When the overturning moments

are about two axes, the footing obviously, will bear most
heavily on one corner, and least on the corner diagonally
opposite. As long as the eccentricities from the resultant
load-moment combination are sufficiently small to remain
within the kern, the entire footing is under compression,
and corner pressure can be computed from the well
known formula
...:._ +

M.c.

A -

IX

Mye 1

-4

However, as the eccentricities increase and fal! outside

the kern, the computations become quite complex,
even with the simplifying assumption of the straightline
pressure distribution. Because tensile resistance of soil
sticking to the footing obviously cannot be depended
upon, common practice is to ignore from the analysis
that portion of the footing area over which the soil
pressure would have been negative. It is the difficulty
in determining the shape and size of the remaining
"effective" portion which constitutes the major stumbling
blocks in the efforts to achieve a mathematical solution.
Depending on the location of the resultant of the applied
loads, the effective portions of rectangular footings
could well vary from a triangle, through trapezoid, to
a full rectangle. The line of zero pressure (neutral-axis)
establishes the boundary of what is to be considered as
the effective footing area. From statics, the value of the
resultant of the applied loads P must equal the total

I:

:j

D
~

~I..-

-i

y
y

Q'

.a

o~ a

j_l
o~a ~

---1

~T'

.D

.a

ol-- a

-----J

j1v
ol- a

-----l

1-

FIGURE 3--Depending on the load location, the effective area can be one of five possible shapes.

reaction of all the soil pressure against the footing, and

the location of P must also coincide with the line of
action of that total soil reaction, which is at the center
of gravity of the soil pressure prism.
For any known or assumed position of the neutra laxis, the maximum soil pressure under the footing
corner equals the resultant load P divided by A -

~x

C!or a

where A is the effective footing area; Q 0 and Q 07

are the first moments of area A about the x- and
y- axes; a and b are the intercepts of the neutral-axis
line on the x- and y- axes, respectively. The origin
of the rectangular coordinates is taken at the footing
comer where the soil pressure is maximum. Depending
on the location of the resultant load P (in the quadrant
of the footing with the corner as origin) the effective
area can be one of five possible shapes. The load locations that correspond to these shapes (with matching
cross-hatch regions) are shown mapped in Figure 3.
,

Stability. For the resultant load P to be within the

kern, the sum of the eccentricity-ratios in the x- and
y- directions must be equal to or less than one-sixth,
.

E,.

t.e., 0

+ TE

6 The footing is then fully under

pressure, and hence the whole area of the rectangle is

deemed effective in the analysis. The intensity of the
maximum pressure (at the corner) varies from an average pressure ~ when the load is located right at
the footing centroid (zero moment), to twice the average,
when the load is at the edge of the kern. As the sum
of the eccentricity-ratios increase to more than a sixth,
part of the footing area becomes ineffective in the analysis: stability diminishes and the maximum soil pressure
increases to mere than twice the average. Theoretically,
the maximum soil pressure would approach infinity, and
the stability zero, when the location of the resultant load
P is placed along any of the footing sides. Though the
abutting power of the soil might offer additional resistance to prevent actual overturning, its value is rather
hard to ascertain. Common engineering practice is to
neglect this contribution of passive pressure (except for
very deep foundations) in the computations of either
maximum soil bearing or stability ratio. The footings
should be so proportioned, that there is an adequate
factor of safety against overturning without a dependence upon lateral soil resistance; with a value of 1.5
being the minimum recommended. The weight of earth
superimposed over the footing should be included in the
stability calculations. Regarding the resistance to sliding,

73

8
COMPUTE
GROSS AREA: 1 - - - - - - - ,
A6 = DXT
COMPUTE MAX.
SOIL BEARING:
GIVEN P
p0
A _ OoY _ Oox
a
b

= IXY- Y,.Ooy
k 2 = lxY- X.. Oox
k = lox- Y,.Oox
k4 = loy- X.. Oov
ks = Oox- YpA
k = Oov- X.. A
3

COMPUTE
p, =Po[ 1-

COMPUTE:

k,

~]

PRINTOUT:
PROPERTIES,
PARAMETERS,
% OF GROSS,
CYCLE

PRINT
HEADINGS
AND GIVEN
INPUT DATA

COMPUTE LOAD
COORDINATES:
X,. = D/ 2 - Ex
Y,. = T/ 2 - Ey
COMPUTE INITIAL
NEUTRAL-AXIS
PARAMETERS:
a = 2Dl 100%
b
2T \BEARING

r - coMPuTe me - I
I GEOMETRIC

PROPERTIES I

I OF EFFECTIVE* AREA:

L~:_~x~ov,~o~l~, ~Y J
COMPUTE PERCENT
FOOTING AREA
UNDER BEARING
ADD ONE
TO CYCLE 1 - - -- - - '
COUNTER

1-

PRINT:
SOIL BEARING
AT FOOTING
CORNERS

COMPARE
PARAMETER b
TO OLD b

STORE THE N.A.

PARAMETERS USED
IN COMPUTING THE
EFFECTIVE PROPERTIES:
OLD a = a
OLD b = b

See Fisur 5 of "Concrete Support Analysis by Computer," Hydrocarbon Processing & Petroleum Rrfiner, Vol. 42, No. 8, 1963.

FIGURE -4-Logic pattern for computer program.

74

SOIL BEARING ANALYSIS OF RECTANGULAR FOOTI NG

Exa mpl e 1

SIDE l

SIOL 0

15.000

AR.EA OF FOO T l NG

1 0 .500

CYCLE

ARt A

:ji

1!>7.500 SO.FT.

0)(

C!Y

fl26 . t!75
826 . 875

1181 .250
1181 . 25 0

Pf. 0
3129 . 14 6 PSF

SG IL

B EARI~G

AT CORNER

)(

250.000 KIPS

Ci

157 . 500 10 C.OCO

15 7.500 1CO . OCO

11/fCCENTRJC IT J ES
y

l.OOO FT.

1. 000

PROPER TIES 0 1' EFFECTlVE FOO TI NG ARE A

GROSS

GIVEN LOAO P

ox

5788. 125
5 788 .1 25

iil PT .

l
1317 . 310 PSF

PARAMfTE RS

OY

ll$12.500
11812.500

S TAitT WITH
620 1 .56 2
6201.562

A
30.000
36.964
36. 9 64

6
21. 000
111 .1 13
u . 1n

i PT . 3
l tl61.8H PSF

PT. 2
50. 066 PSF

Exa mp le 2
SIC E. C

1!>.00 0

C.YCl E
1
l

3
4
5
6
7

SIDE T

AREA Cf FOCT ING

1.0.500

157.soo

Ai~EA

'

BEARI~G

AT CORN ER

)(

100 . 000 KIPS

OY

())(

H26.615
501.779
298.221
202.0'o9
166.973
160.272

l6o . ooo

1181.250
11-6.501
486.357
357 . 855
309 . 317
300 . 345
300 . 000

PT . 0

SOIL

so.n.

WIECCENTRICI TIES

3.750

FT .

3. 250

PROPI:RTHS OF EFF ECTIVE FOOTING AREA

t GRGSS

157.500 100 . 000

118 . 23 1 75.067
86.690 , 5. 0 41
6&.718 't3.668
61 . ... 83 39.036
60 . (1 5.7 38. lJ 1
60 . 000 38.095

GIVEN LOAD

5000.000 PSF

ox

OV

'.5788.125
2999.846
1516.686
888.882
680 . 1"68
641.569
640.000

PT. 1

11812 . 500
6696.222
404"+.463
2788.659
2334.152
2253.038
2250 . 000

PT. 2

PSF

PARAMET ERS

PSF

XV

START WITH
6201.562
2688. 006
1289.866
191.004
630 . 075
601.140
600.000

30. 000
2 1. 786
17. 422

21.000
12.317
10.1"+8
8.798
8. 147
8 . 006

1 5~663

15.094
15 . 003
15.000
15 . 000

a.o oo

8.000

PT . J
. 000 PSf

FIGURE 6-Computer printout of Examples 1 and 2.

common practice is to assume that it would be provided
through the friction developed at the footing bottom.
Computer Pr ogram. The most difficult part of the

problem (in both manual design and in formulating the

procedures for sequential electronics computation) is
determining the position of the neutralaxis which is
taken as the boundary line cf the c!Tective footing area.
TllC basic computer routine developed for solving biaxial
eccentricity problems in reinforced-concrete, described
in a previous article/ can also be used to solve footing
soil bearing problems. T hat program was modified, so
that title headings and data in the printed results wou ld
comply with the usual nomenclature applicable to footings. The formula~ for the neutral-axis and the effective
section properties arc the same as given in the previous
article, and therefore will not be repeated here. For
background and development of the formulas and criteria
the reader is also referred to the writer's paper " Analytical Approach to Biaxial Ecc(:ntricity. " 2 T he logic
pattern used in formulating this program for the small
computer is shown flow-charted in Figure 4. From start
to finish, load ing of the program deck and data cards,
computations and the print-out of results for the two
examples cited, took less than one quarter of a minute.
Example 1. The plan of a footing used in a rigid

frame structure supporting several heat-exchangers is

shown in Figure 5. Determine the maximum soil-bearing

for a total vertical load of 250 kips (weight of concrete
foundation and earth backfill included) , located eccentrically with respect to the footing centerlines, at a
distance of 1'-0" from each centerline.

Solution.

= 250kips
E = 1'0"
E = 1'-0"

-0

'

(D

!Ey

1-~+

1o, ..

t....

Ex

.....-- - - -- 15 I - 0 II
FIGURE 5-Example L

75

CALCULATE FOOTING SOIL BEARING

--- --

,..._.,t.~--

1"1- ..;;;.;-

- --

footing dimensions, see Figure 4) , the correct location o{

the neutral-axis line is obtained within the first cycle.
Note: The test for convergence requires that the neutralaxis parameters remain the same throughout two consecutive cycles, and whence the extra cycle shown in
the computer printout (Figure 6) results.
Having determined the position of the neutral-axis,
the computer next calculates and prints the maximum
soil bearing (at corner used as origin), as well as the
bearing at the other corners. The soil bearing diagram
shown in Figure 7 helps visualize the results.
Example 2 . What is the maximum soil bearing, if

because of additional overturning effects on the structure,

the load specified for example 1 is reduced by 150 kips
of uplift, while the eccentricities are increased by 2'-9"
and 2'-3", in the x- and y- directions, respectively.
Draw separate diagrams of the soil bearing under the
footing for both examples.

= 100 kips
~Ex= 1.00 + 2.75 = 3.75 ft.
1Ey = 1.00 + 2.25 = 3.25 ft.

Solution. Resultant P = 250- 150

. ..

Eccentncttles

Stability t S.R. = 7.50/3.75 = 2.0

Ratios 5 S.Ry = 5.25/3.25 = 1.62 > 1.5

FI GURE ?- Distribution of soil bearing under footing.

For these eccentricities, the resultant load is obviously

within the footing kern. Hence, the full footing area is
under bearing, and the position of the neutral-axis line,
falling outside the footing, has no effect on the geometric
properties used in subsequent calculations. And since the
computer program was set up to start with the full rectangle (by using neutral-axis parameters equal to twice

About the Author

Eli Czerniak is a principal design engineer with The
Fluor Corp., Los Angeles. He coordinates computer
applications for the Design Engineering Dept., reviews manual techniques and develops new methods
and procedures better adaptable to
systems conversion in automating
the design and drafting of refinery
units. Mr. Czerniak received a B.S.
in engineering from Columbia University in 1949 and an M.S. in Civil
Engineering from Columbia in 1950.
He is a registered engineer in California and has published a number
of technical articles. He has had
field experience as a civil engineer
Czerniak
and worked in design and drafting
with Arthur G. McKee Co. in Union,
N. J., for two years before joining Fluor in 1953 as a
structural designer. He soon headed up the structural
design and drafting on various projects until assuming
his present position.

76

The load is now outside the kern, and with the large
eccentricities used in this example, stability against overturning could be critical and should be checked first. It
is conservative to investigate the stability for each of the
two directions separately, since in rectangular footings
stability in any diagonal direction lies in between the
two rectangular components. These two component values
are shown in the readers' interest. The overall stability
ratio for the diagonal direction was also computed, and
found to equal 1.84. Now, with the resultant load being
outside the kern, part of the footing area must therefore
be neglected. Noting that the eccentricity in the: xdirection equals ~ , it is apparent that the location
of the load is on the dividing line between types I and
III (see Figure 3). The limit of type I effective area
is reached when parameter a becomes equal to dimension
D, (and at which point type III begins). By observation,
then, parameter a is known to be equal to 15.0 feet
Such deduction would, of course, be helpful in reducing
the volume of computations when attempting manual
solutions. With a digital computer, however, the more
generalized the approach, the better. The results are
achieved by following the systematic procedure of successive substitutions of neutral-axis parameters to absolute convergence, which for this example was reached
in six cycles (see Note in Example 1). Computer printout results, including the geometric properties at each
cycle, are shown in Figure 6, and diagram of the distribution of the soil bearing under the footing in Figure 7.
LITERATURE CITED
Czerniak, E., "Concrete Support Analysis by Computer," HYDJ<OCAitBOI<
Paoc&SSJNC AND i'ETROLP.UM RF.YJNER, 42 No. 8, 117 (1963).
Czerniak. E .. "Analytical Approach to Biaxtal Eccentricity." Journal of
the Structural Oiv., Proceedings of ohe Amercan Society of Civil Engineers.
ST4 ( 1962), ST3 (1963).

Concrete Support Analysis by Computer

Axial loading plus two-directional

bending in reinforced concrete supports is an easy problem for a small
c~mputer using this simplified program

Ell Czemlak, The Fluor Corporation, Ltd.,

Los Angeles
HERE'S A GENERALIZED TECHNIQUE together with all
the formulas especially developed for the systematic solution by a digital computer of biaxial eccentricity problems
in reinforced concrete. The approach is unique because
in spite of the length and complexity of the equations, the
complete analysis program can be easily crammed into
the comparatively little memory space of the small computer with a core storage capacity of only 4,000 alphamerical characters. The program is completely general
and can be used for sections with symmetrical as well as
non-symmetric steel arrangements, multiple layers of steel,
sections reinforced with more than one bar size, unusual
modular ratios, rectangular base plates with or without
anchor bolts, and to find the maximum pressure under
an eccentrically loaded footing with uplift at one comer.
Many constructional components of structures used in
the hydrocarbon-processing industry for supporting heat
exchangers, accumulators, drums, compressors, piping,
etc., are subjected to various combinations of axial loads
and bending muments. Because precise analysis, except in
the very simple cases, was found to be rather difficult,
structural designers in the past had rationalized themselves into some remarkable oversimplified assumptions
that very conveniently bypassed the otherwise tedious
solution. Such attitude of "ignore it and maybe it will go
away" is both wasteful and dangerous. As a rule, functional and more economical, slender structures, built of
higher-strength materials, are now used in refineries to
support much heavier and larger processing equipment
than the massive wall supports of days past. Single column tee-supports and rigid frames, such as seen under
construction in Figure 1, when subjected to lateral loading
(e.g., from wind, earthquake, impact or vibration) in
addition to the equipment weights, often involve the loadmoment configurations requiring a stress analysis for axial
load combined with two-directional bending.

The Neutral Axis In Reinforced Concrete. The major

problem, in both manual designs and in formulating
procedures for sequential electronic computation is the
determining of the position of the neutral axis, the in-

FIGURE 1-Single column tee-supports and rigid frames.

termediary that is needed before achieving the final results. This computational complexity in reinforced-concrete stems essentially from the common assumption that
part of the section is considered ineffective for design
purposes (cracked-section design). Thus, even when the
shape of the cross-section of the reinforced-concrete member might be a simple rectangle, the shape of the concrete's effective portion (used in analysis) need not necessarily be one. Depending on the relative values of applied
bending moments to concentric loads, the shape of the
concrete section to be included in the analysis could very
well vary from a triangle or trapezoid to a full rectangle.
The fact that the effectiveness of the reinforcing steel is
not always considered constant tends further to complicate the analysis.

Stress in Concrete. In reinforced concrete design, the

concrete itself is generally not relied upon to withstand
much tensile stress. (The reinforced-concrete as a whole
though is quite capable of resisting significant amounts
of eccentric tension loads as will be shown in Example
2.) It is usually assumed that the tension stresses in the
flexural computation are taken by the reinforcing steel,
whereas the compression is primarily resisted by the concrete. According to Section 1109 (b) of the ACI Code*
* Building

Code Requirement.l for Reinforud Concrete (ACI S18-56}

77

CONCRETE SUPPORT ANAlYSIS

~--------------------~c

f
OR c

OOb
OS f 0

I~

FIGURE 3-The area under compression is a triangle.

FIGURE 2:-ln rectangular teetions, locate origin of coordi

nates in one corner.

some tension stress in the concrete is permitted when, in

addition to bending stresses, there also exists direct compression and the ratios of eccentricity to depth (eft)
is not greater than o/3 in either direction.
Assuming a straight line stress distribution the stress
at any point (x, y) in t he concrete may be written:
f,x, y =Io

[1-~_!.b._]
a

where f0 represents the intensity of stress at the chosen

point of origin, and the constants a, b designate the intercepts of the neutral-axis line on the x- and y-axP.S respectively.
In cracked section designs, where the tensile strength
of the concrete is completely neglected, the stresses in the
concrete must be assumed to exist only in the compression region. The part of the section, over which fx, 1
would be negative is said to have thus become ineffective
for purposes of analysis. I t is apparent from the stress
equation that the region over which fx, y is negative extends to all points for which the value :

~ is larger

than one. It is evident, therefore, that in cracked sections

the intercepts a and b can be also used to denote the
boundaty line of t he concrete's effective section. Convergence of the two lines until they almost coincide consti
tutes, for all practical purposes, the solution of the problem. For analytical purposes, the steel can be considered
as having been replaced by an appropriate amount of
concrete. T he area of this transformed concrete is assumed to be concentrated at a point which coincides with
the center of the replaced bar. T he amount of concrete
resulting from the exchange depends on the relative
effectivenes attributed to the materials. In the strictly
elastic analysis, the modular ratio n is the index to measuring the relative effectiveness of the steel over that of
concrete. The area of the concrete substituted for each
bar equals n times A 1 Of course, it presupposes that t he
bond between all tension and compression bars and concrete remains intact at all times, and they deform together under stress. In reality, this is not exactly true.
There is experimental evidence that the bars in the compression region are stressed more than would be indicated
by purely elastic considerations. Building codes, allowing
for this phenomena long ago, permitted an increase in
the stress of the compressive reinforcement. The allow-

78

able stress values are well above that which might have
resulted from a strictly elastic analysis. Section 706 (b)
of the AC I Building Code requires that: "To approximate the effect of creep, the stress in compression reinforcement resisting bending may be taken at twice the
value indicated by using the straight-line relation between stress and strain, and the modular ratio n." However, the use of the 2n is not unrestricted. The code states
that compressive stress in the reinforcing should be equal
to, or less than, the allowable steel stress in tension. Denoting the allowable tensile unit stress in reinforcement
by f 1 the equations governing the stresses in the reinforcing steel can be written as:
tensile

compressive ' 8

= nf
=

0 [

2nf0

1-

1-

J
~ J: ;

f1

The reader should note that in the case of the compressive reinforcement, the bar which is under compression is evidently located in the portion of the concrete
which has already been considered effective in the
analysis. Therefore, the area of the bar must be subtracted from the effective concrete area before computing
the necessary section properties. Since this might prove
rather awkward, an appropriate correction is made in
the transformed area of the steel bar instead. As a compensation, the force in the compression bar is reduced by
the amount which would have existed (in its place) in
the concrete. The reduction equals to the concrete stress
times the area of the bar, which is:
f0

--i-- ~ J

A,

With the transformed area concept, the correction is

accomplished by reducing the effectiveness index m by
one. T he area of concrete which is substituted for a bar
in compression would be equal to [ 2n - 1] or less, times
A1. Obviously, the or less applies to those bars whose
stress has already reached the limiting tensile stress value.
In transforming the tension bars into equivalent concrete,
no such reduction applies, since by assumption, they
would be located outside the effective portion. However,
in the limited cases when tension in the concrete is permitted, these bars also displace some effective concrete.
Hence. they too must have their areas subtracted or the

100/o
Compress eon

FIGURE 4-Variation of five shape& from triangle to rectangle.

modular ratio modified by using ( n - 1) instead of n.

Capacity of Loaded Section. The magnitude of the
largest load which can be sustained at a given location
( witJ:tin the prescribed stress or strain limits) constitutes
the measure for the capacity of the section. For any
known or assumed position of the neutral-axis it can be
determined with ease from the equation as follows:
Eccentric Load P = f 0 [A- Q..y -

Qox]
b

Where A denotes the over-all effective area of the crosssection and Qo,., Qor are the first moments of this area
about the x- andy-axis, respectively.
In most practical problems, however, the position of
the neutral-axis is neither known nor can it be reasonably
assumed. Given data usually include the magnitude and
the position of the imposed load, as well as the material
specifications. The problem then becomes one of determining the adequacy of the section to sustain a given design load, acting at a given point, and not exceeding a
given stress limitation. The location of the neutral-axis
may be, in itself, of very little interest to practicing engineers. Nevertheless, it must be determined first, before
proceeding with the more essential task of establishing
structural adequacy. The general equation* for the parameters of the neutral-axis are:
x-axis intercept a=
(lxy-Yp~;y) (l.y-XpQo,.)- (lox-Yp~x) (Ioy-XpQoy)
(~x- YpA) (I,.1 -

XPQ0 ,.)

(Q01 -

XPA) (101 -

YPQ0 ,.)

obtained. Furthermore, by choosing (as the origin) that

corner at which the concrete compressive stress is a maximum, the number of possible shapes of effective concrete
area is reduced to five.
In Figure 3 the corners of the given section are 0, B,
C, and D. Line QR designates the neutral-axis, and intersects the X and y-axi.s at a and b, respectively. When
tension in the concrete is not permitted, the neutral-axis
line is also taken to represent the boundary line of the
portion of the concrete section considered effective in the
analysis. When the neutral-axis intercepts are smaller
than the corresponding dimensions of the section (as
shown in Figure 3) the area of concrete under compression is a triangle.
As one or both of the intercepts are increased beyond
the section's dimensions, the effective area progresses
from that of a trapezoid to one of a rectangle. When the
neutral-axis falls completely outside the section, the
whole area is obviously under compression and therefore
fully effective. The variation of the five shapes, from triangle to rectangle, are shown shaded in Figure 4.

y
o~d
b~t

yaxis intercept b =

Where lox and loy are the. moments of inertia about the
x, y-axes, and I,.,. denotes the product of inertia of the
area about the origin. XP and YP are the coordinates of
the applied eccentric load.
In the above equations, all the section properties obviously pertain to the over-all effective section. The propertics of the effective portion of the concrete are added
with the transformed properties of the steel.

Rectangular Sections. In the case of rectangular sections, it is convenient to locate the origin of the coordinate system in one of the corners of the rectangle (see
Figure 2) and let the axes coincide with two sides. The
main advantage is the relative ease with which the various formulas for the required section properties can be

(11 y - Yp~y) (I,.,.- XP~")- (10 , . - YPQ0 ,.} (l0y-Xp~y)

(Q07 - X 11 A) (Ixy- YPQ07 ) - (Q.,,.- YpA) {I0 y- X,~,.)

The required properties of the effective portion of the

concrete for the five possible shapes can be obtained from
the formulas for shape IV. The geometric properties in
terms of the neutral-axis intercepts and the section dimensions are shown formulated below:

I [ ("-d):
- a - - (b-t), ]
1 [- (a-d)' (b-t)'-s (b-t)'
t]
Q..=s"'
I > 1>
1 [1- (a-d)'
(a-d)' d]
Q.,=r;a'b
-.,.- - (b-)'

AR.EA="f ab

1-

-b-

-a- -

-b-

- b - --3

-;

*For background and dcvdopment of th-.e and the other equations listed
in this article cc the author's "Analytical App<oach to Biaxial Eccentricity" Paper 3239 in the Journal of the Sttuetural Divialon, Proceedinso of
tho American Society of Civil Engineen, Vol. 88. No. ST4, Augwt 1962.

79

CONCRETE SUPPORT ANALYSIS

Moments of Inertia 10 x.

= .!:

m A 1 y 12

loy ==

Old poromlfM A and I

and section sides C and D

subtract
K from AREA

compute
.R T
A I

5ubtroet

let_ w ether \

v.t _,

A
I .
?
it potttive

y oot.
.
compresSion

J,

' no )

YG

l:~

out~.
e~ate to one:

zero

lov

move

to

multiply
AIIU by 0
Ol)d
store n AREA

subtract
4Cit from In

move 2T to
parameter 1

AR A,~Ooy

XY

MARK

K for

NE

mulliply
GA/3
a d
store in Ooy

no

subtract
2CII(2 Cl
from loy

move
parameter A
to AXIS L

multply
Oox by Gil!
and
store in OoK

~~'

subtract
ICR from 0 0 y

nro

QOY b~

move
parameter I
to L

move
side T
to w

test whlrfher \

Y"-i

L- W

Is nevative ? j

fS

mumr>Y 1
lox by G& t&
and

store in lox

no
~----

o.dd one
to MARK

test
MARK for
TWO

move
side D
toWIOTH W

loy

K from

---

/
EXIT t~ \
, error routtne 1
....
_.;

-----

..,

multiply a
Joy by GA i'l
store .a"\
n
v
multiply 1
1XY by (;/12
oM
store In 1xv

~-

KO
RO

EXIT
to steel

no

properties routin
compute

compute

~.e
L

f-

(J..-i_W)'

I(

compute

r.- (!-~w_)' "

FIGURE 5-Computer sequence for properties of effective

concrete section.

To compute the contribution of the steel is comparatively easy. The transformed properties of all the individual bars are added. Care must be exercised to assign
the proper effectiveness index to each bar. In order to
differentiate it from the modular ration, let the effectiveness index be designated by m. For tension bars, the
numerical value of m is made equal to n in cracked sections and to n - 1, when concrete tension is permitted.
For compressive reinforcement, its value is 2n- 1 when
the bar stress is less than ft. When the stress in the compressive bar reaches (the allowable steel tensile stress)
the value of m is reduced to
ft

f0

(~-~-:!__)
a
b

C::: 2n- l

where fo is the concrete stress at the origin.

Therefore, the required transformed properties for
steel reinforcement are:

r.
= r.
N

Area

A=

mA 1

i == 1

MoJllent Areas

Qox.

m Al Yl

i == 1

80

r.
N

Qoy =

i == 1

= .!:

m A1 x1 y 1

i == 1

compute

subtroetfox

ec:tlon
lox,

from

Product of Inertia lx.y

aubtroct
3Cft from OoK

2CR (2t C)

C1'f

move 20 to
parameter A

crocked'-:

sublroct

~ox

R from

xi2

i=l

i == l
enter with

2: m AI

m Ai xi

Convergence Technique. In the usual design problem_,

it is necessary to find the size of the reinforced-concrete
section which can adequately sustain a given system of
loading. Several loading combinations must frequently
be considered, and the trial sections must be incremented
until all conditions are satisfied. The most laborious part
of the computations (as design engineers well know) is
determining the parameters of the neutral-axis line. The
coordinates of the applied load are calculated from the
bending moments (usually given with respect to the centerlines of the section). Together with the properties of
the assumed section, they are used to determine the
neutral-axis parameters. There will be only one neutralaxis which will satisfy equilibrium conditions and stressstrain limitations. When the concrete is not permitted to
take any calculated tension, the neutral-axis line is assumed to be the boundary line of the effective portion of
the concrete. The problem, then, is to find that neutralaxis which almost coincides with the edge of the effective
section. The clifference betwen the two lines constitutes
the measure of the computational error, which, obviously,
should be kept as small as practicable.
The work of finding the required parameters may frequently be facilitated by following a systematic procedure
of successive substitutions until the desired results are
achieved. To begin with, the distances of the load from
the coordinate axes are determined. With them and the
properties for 100 percent compression (with neutral-axis
parameters equal to twice the section dimensions) the
first trial line is determined. If the neutral-axis line falls
within the section, it is subsequently used to define the
effective section, all the properties are recalculated, and

About the Author

Eli Czerniak is a principal design engineer with The
Fluor Corp., Los Angeles. He coordinates computer
applications for the Design Engineering Dept., reviews manual techniques and develops new methods
and procedures better adaptable to

systems conversiOn
1n
automating
the design and drafting of refinery
units. Mr. Czerniak received a B.S.
in engineering from Columbia University in 1949 and an M.S. in Civil
Engineering from Columbia in 1950.
He is a registered engineer in California and has published a number
of technical articles. He has had
field experience as a civil engineer
Czerniak
and worked in design and drafting
with Arthur G. McKee Co. in Union,
N. J., for two years before joining Fluor in 1953 as a
structural designer. He soon headed up the structural
design and drafting on various projects until assuming
his present position.

new parameters are determined. The process of substituting the calculated parameters of the neutral-axis for the
parameters of the effective section is repeated to any desired degree of approximation. The convergence routine
is quite fast, and only a small number of cycles will
usually be sufficient for most practical problems.
Computer Program. When setting up a computer program for solution of e1')gineering problems, heavy emphasis
should be placed on the simplicity of the input data and
clarity of the output. With the formulas and procedures
described before, the writer developed a program for
solving biaxial eccentricity problems, on the basis of elastic action, with a small computer, having a core storage
capacity of 4,000 alphamerical characters. Because of the
widespread availability of these small units it should interest engineers that even without Fortran capability they
can be used for numerous analytical applications. The
program was written in SPS (Symbolic Programing System) and punched into 529 cards, which were later condensed into a 104 card deck. The card reader has a rated
speed of 800 cards per minute, which means that it takes
approximately 8 second to load the whole program. Computations and printout average one-half second per cycle.
Absolute convergence, wherein the neutral-axis parameters {measured to three significant figures to the right
of the decimal point) remain the same through two consecutive cycles is usually achieved within eight cydes. In
most instances the results of the third iteration seemed to
have sufficed for all practical purposes. In the two examples cited, six cycles were required for the absolute
solution. From start to finish, loading of the program and
data cards, computations and printout of results for both
examples, took 15 seconds.
Now, after the input data has been entered and machine digested, the convergence routine starts with
neutral-axis parameters equal to twice the section dimensions and computes the necessary 'transformed' sec
tion properties from which, together with the load coordinates new parameters are calculated and subsequently
used. How formulas for the section properties for only
case IV are used in the program to determine all possible
effective-section properties is illustrated in the block diagram, shown in Figure 5.
At each iteration cycle the equilibrium load compatible with the section properties, load coordinates, limiting
stresses and the newly determined neutral-axis parameters, is computed and printed together with maximum
SlOE 0

u.ooo

SlOE T

14.000
AREA

STEEl
CNCR1'
TOTAL
CYCLE

STEEL
CNCRT
TOTAL
CYCLE 6

lOAD COORDINATES
)(

'(

- 9.000

- 7.000

NO. Of URS
06

r-t-~-

z"tlr

6-11

lTypl

<IJ

.s bars

1 e.

I.

B'i Co<>r!oles

2 375"
2.375"
2.375" 11.625"
2.375"
9.ooo''
9.000" 11.62!1"
15.625" 2.375"
15.625"

'18"

.I

II .62.5''

FIGURE 6--Comer colwnn in exchanger structure used iD

examples.

compressive stresses in concrete (at corner used for

origin} and steel, as well as the maximum stress in the
tensile reinforcement.
Numerical Examples. The reinforced-concrete section
shown in Figure 6 is a corner column in an exchanger
structure. The allowable unit stresses are: 1,350 psi in
concrete (for f/ = 3,000) and 20,000 for the reinforcing
.steel.

Example I. The column section shown in Figure 6 is

loaded with a compressive force of 15 kips, and with
bending moments about the centerlines of the section
equal to 22.5 ft. kips and 17.5 ft. kips, in the x and y
directions, respectively. Determine whether the section
can adequately sustain the above loading using effective
modular ratios of n equals 10 for the tensile and 2n- l
or 19 for compressive reinforcement.

-~ .

-(\J

12"

-.....

g'

2.640

WEIGHT

SUM 0

II

9.012

I
I
0
OK
OY
ox
UY
S530.6624
50.1&00
)51. uoo
lt!il.lt400
.l510. 79)6
252.0000
1764.0000
16464.0000
27216.0000
2268.0000
302.1600
2115.1200
2719.4400
l99<i4.1936
3271t6.6624
CNCRT FO 1350.000PSl STEH,COMPR l9S48 TENSION l60l
LOAD

34.3200
203.6100
61.2000
208.0800
411.6900
95.5200
CNCRT FO l350.000PSI

282.6450
1902.9860
:U53.91l7
244.8000
1061.2080
U68.8000
S27.41t50
2964.1940
4722.77l7
STEEl,tOMPR 15411 TENSION 19454
LOAD

PIOOULAR RATIOS
N

l't.Ut.
I

XY
3160.0798
15876.0000
19016.0798
323201

1770.1817
624.2400
2l9ft.4217
1Sl2U

10.0

"

19.0

PARAMETERS
A
II
28.000
36.000
19.200

l5.486NEW

12.000

10.200

12.000

10.200NfW

FIGURE 7-Computer solutioa to problem Example 1.

81

is an actual computer printout. For these eccentricities

the load coordinates listed with respect to one corner as
origin are:
xp = - 9 inches

CONCRETE SUPPORT ANALYSIS .

Solution. With P = 15 kips, the eccentricities are:

22.5 X 12

e. =
.
e1

15

18

mch~~

YP = - 7 inches

h
= I 7.515X 12 = 14 me
es

After convergen ce, the load capacity is shown as

15,128 lbs. which is slightly more than the given 15 kips
and hence O.K . The capacity of t he section to sustain
this eccentric load was evidently limited by the 1,350 psi
compression in the concrete. Maximum tensile stress was
19,454 psi which is close to the limiting 20,000 value
given; maximum compressive stress in the steel is 15,417
psi. The final neutral-axis parameten carne out to 12
inches for A and 10.2 inches for B, which means the
shape of the effective portion of t he concrete section was
a triangle (case I in Figure 4) .

The solution of this prqblem is shown in Figure 7, which

14.64

( te nsion)
~------------------~

::

Example 2. What is the maximum tension load which

can be supported by the section of Figure 6, if the eccen
tricities of Example 1 are halved?

J
SI DE 0

SJD E T

LOAD COORD I NATES

u .ooo

H.OOO

l8, 000

)(

AR EA

H, 000

30.3600
2 7.8109
58.1 109

STEfl

OY

TOTAL

CNCRT FO

CYCLE 6

760, 4'56PS I

WE IGHT

SUM 0
llooll6

OY

OX

~OOULAR

XY

1880.6491

2933. 2ll7
1685.5367
23J,ObS9
28':i . t 930
128.9077
J218,4047
18 14.'141,4
ZlLJ.11SO
5536 TtNSION 20000
LOAD - l 4636ll

24 7,0050
72.1162
319 .7 212
ST EElrCOMPR

RATIOS

'9,012

2.640

l9olj . 2050
65 . 7356
2 S9.9ft06

Ob

OX

CHCRT

NO . OF BARS

Solution. P
? With eccentricities equal to e,.
9
inches and e7 = 7 inches it is apparent that the load is
located at the corner of the section, and since it is tension,
must be opposite the corner used as origin.

10. 0

11

19 . 0

PARMIETE RS
A
a

7,844

7,0ql
7.091 NHI

FIGURE 8-- C~mputer solution to Example 2.

TU~SfORM ~ D

P&AJoot TE 8

UUIOEIIA A
U.OD-0

s
. ~40

.<40

"'0

""0
c

'"0
TOT.t.~~

MOO,

SUI< 0
14.Jl6

1.!600
4,4000
4.4000

11. n oo
Jn.oo

H . l?Oll

20l.-.oo

P~ O O f RTi t

.. ~~tO
-~o

,.ltttO
. 440
.4~0

.....0

IS.6H U . US
2. ns 2 . llS
lo )lS 11 , 0 2 1
9.000 z. ns
9.000 11625
IS.6H 2-375
~U C11T

lOTUS

0121

..oo.

uu

1o.o
19,0
10.0
1o. o
10.0
10. 0

000
)600

~000

10.1600

19<.7050

4."-000
~-ooo

ux

DY

IO .C.\0(,1
!~.1.00
l~ ...ooo

Sv~. 6lAl

1014.11~1
1.1 \~{.

H.&lll

u . , s.

~ 1~00

''"'~'

?Rl. ~ ~n

lfJI)l,

~ARS

KA 1105 N
10.0

')M~O

IZ J ,411
lli. M~O

;so , 4000
IOI. 21R7

"-bO. l)OU

.~)'d.? 1\1

161. 2~\l

ll/0. 1~

11

(for exompfe 2)

"

AKU
19.0

NU-~f ~

flf

0AA ~
0~

~ 'J4 . 6187

10h . H 8 7

H.ISS6
5?4. 6UJ
24. e t&r

4l.J ISL
14. &181
156,4000

or

DY

l9. ~U00

S'J4. 4 1ff1

316~ 00

b~.HOO

?4.8111

I014.21Kl

147. 0 050

18~ 0 . 6<~1

zH"' '

FIGURR 9-Properties of reinforcing bars for Rxamples l and 2.

82

XY

l99 .. JHil
41.l'> !(l

6 1 l. lb0b

0
OY
68. 1500
19. ~ ~50
10.4 500
39.6000

SUM 0
~"--11&

HUtl&f R Rf ft AAS
o.

4111. 1 'lioS'
S"'to\.,U/

140 0UL A~

S I. ISOO
l9.HSO
Sl.l500
10 . 4100
Sl .ISOO
IO. soo

,. ooo

~~.o

Sq~.b\*1

&8 . !SOP
I Q. &1SO

5 01 S I HL Mf 11<fO C I "~

!.091

1 .....

..

~ n

UY

'''
soo
&. 8SSO

u.oo

ooo

(for txomple I}

U<
~ l.J\00
J9.n~o

PARAOI!(k ;;

PA-HETlK .t.

oo. o

AIUA

......ooo

TA.t.I!SFDU0

8 A~S

..-:lO<Jl AA MU 101 11

10.200

IS, U~ llo6lS 10, 0

2. , , 2.)1~ }9.0
2, US 11.615 10.0
,.ooo 2.H S JQ,O
9.000 11.625 10.0
u . zs 1.ns 1o. o

WHGHI.
9, 0111

PRUP .. ~I lfS OF STEfl Kf !N Fn~ tJ NG

l1

199.1117
41.11 16
111.461 1

... osoo

O
HOO
J6),ZRI Z
Jt~ A 'l.~1nl

The computed tension load capacity

is 14,636 lbs., limited by tensile rein
forcing stress of 20,000 psi. (Figure
8) Maximum comer stress in the concrete (at th1 origin ) is 760.456 psi
a nd maximum stress in compressive
reinforcement is 5,536 psi, which as
expected is way below the allowables.
The main purpose of the second
example is to illustrate the often over~
looked fact that the reinforced concrete section, as a whole, is quite capable to resist significant amounts of
eccentric tension loads.
Finally, to show how the individual
bars contribute to the transformed
properties of the section, a short supplementary routine was written that
prints out all pertinent properties of
the reinforcement for the converged
parameters. The computer printed
properties of the steel reinforcing bars
for both Examples l and 2 are shown
##
in Figure 9.

NOTES

. .\ . ,'

FOUNDATIONS

t<

SOIL~

..
.. ..

...

Foundations on Weak Soils

Because today's plants are being constructed on filled sites not ideal for foundations, a careful check must be made on settling tolerance and soil preparation

John Makaretz, The Badger Co., Inc.

Boston, Mass.
ToDAv's PETROCHEMICAL plants are being constructed
in locations and under conditions that require more at
tention to foundation design than was customary in the
past. New plants are often close to water, on filled sites,
where the land is not ideal for foundations. In recent
years the trend has been to higher towers, often combined in groups; equipment has become heavier. Moreover riaid
reinforced concrete structures permit only
0
)
.
denegligible differential settlement. Tank foundatlons
serve particular attention.
New Design Techniques. These considerations suggest

the desirability of design innovations or nonconventional

design techniques. Foundations having negligible settlement can be designed, of course, but their cost is usually
prohibitive. If soil conditions permit uniform settlement
of two to three inches, however, it is often possible to
design foundations at a considerable saving, without
sacrificing safety.
It is important to keep in mind that it is easier to
predict the settlement of fills, placed over uniform de
posits of clay, than it is to predict deflections of pile
foundations loaded by a structure and subject to downdrag load from subsiding fills. An error in the prediction
of footing settlement in dense sand is not serious; an
error in predicting the behavior of piles in silt clays can
result in very serious damage indeed. Foundations on
sandy soil will settle quickly and will be stabilized, provided no considerable change in subsoil water level
occurs. Foundations on clay settle slowly and over a
longer period of time, the settlement also depending upon
water level variation, but not to such an extent a.~ it
does in the case of sandy soils.

Storage tank foundations appear to be unimportant

structures in petrochemical plants. However, considering
the large investment in tanks, substantial economy can
be realized if, by proper foundation design, long maintenance-free tank service life is achieved. In order to
effect substantial savings on tank foundations, the design
engineer and the owner must reach an understanding on

both the tolerable magnitude of settling and the time

available for foundation preparation.
Nearly every large tank which is supported on soil
will have, after years of service, about one or two feet
of differential settlement between the shell and the tank
center. The reason for this is the unit soil pressure at the
tank bottom. For a tank about 150 feet in diameter and
50 feet high there will be approximately 130 psi under
the shell and 23 psi in the middle of the tank.
A large differential settlement between the shell and
bottom may cause a tearing or shearing effect l;letween
the bottom plate and the shell. However, large tanks over
150 feet in diameter can be used if differential settlement

85

is as large as 24 inches, because of the flexibility of the

bottom and the roof plates. The effect of the relative
settlement between the tank and the connecting pipes
can be overcome by using flexible joints. Differentia l

It is easier to predict the

settlement of fills over clay than
loaded pile deflections subjed to
downdrag from subsiding fills
settlement for small tanks (up to about 30 feet in
diameter) should not exceed about 1f2 inch. If the differential settlements under the shell itself are closely
spaced, excessive stresses in the shell will occur and the
shell may buckle.
Edge Treatment. If the tank site is underlain by a
firm subsoil stratum, the following three . foundation
methods can be used after the topsoil and organic
material are removed:
Recompact the subgrade and put a pad of sand or
gravel directly on the subgrade.
Use a sand cushion as above with edge protection
consisting of a crushed rock ring wall.
Use a reinforced concrete ring wall, which supports
the tank edge, with a sand cushion of about 4 inches
inside the ring.
The necessity of using the edge treatment is a controversial subject. Some owners feel that "edge cutting"
is not detrime1~tal and that the cost of the edge treatment is, therefore, prohibitive. Others are of the opinion

86

that the concrete rings are desirable even for the best
soil conditions. As arguments for this reasoning, the
following points are used:
A surface level to within ~ inch around the perimeter is necessary for proper tank erection.
Even small localized deflection of the foundation
during operation may cause "hang-up" of the floating roof.
Edge cutting under the tank shell may cause rupture
of the weld between the tank bottom and the tank
shell.
Ring foundations prolong tank life because the edge
of the shell is a few inches above exterior grade; corrosion problems and maintenance costs will be minimized.
Some tanks need anchorage (aluminum tanks or tall
tanks having small diameters).

About the Author

John Makaretz is the chief structural engineer with
The Badger Co., Inc., Boston, Mass. He has had a
wide experience in structu ral design
in building dams, bridges and heavy
industrial construction . After receiving an M .S. degree in engineering
fro m Lwow I nstitute of T echnology
in Poland, he practiced structural
engineering in Europe for several
years. Before joining Ra dger, he was
c hief s tru c tural en g in ee r with
Thomas Worcester Co. in Roston.
Mr. Makaretz is a member of the
American Society of Civil Engineers,
the International A ssocia ti o n for
Makaretz
Bridge and Structural Engineering
and the American Con crete I nstitute. He is a registered _professional engineer in the State
of New York, New Jersey and several other statE's .

Weak, Compressible Soil. If the area on which the

storage tanks are to be constructed is underlain by weak
and compressible soil strata, not over approximately 20
feet thick, the following methods of foundation design
can be used:
If the thickness of weak deposits is relatively shallow
( 3 fo 5 feet), it is often advisable to remove the
weak materials and replace them with well-compacted granular fills. Note that it is necessary to
extend the compacted fill beyond the tank perimeter.

For deeper, weak soil deposits, it is entirely practical to surcharge the compressible strata before the
tank foundation is constructed, if time permits. The
purpose of such a surcharge is to increase the
st.rength of the subsoil and to reduce the tank settlement during operation.
The tank foundation may be put on a crust of very
strong fill and allowed to float on weak soil strata.
This is practical where the ground has to be filled
anyway. The crust must be thick enough and extend
far enough beyond the tank perimeter to prevent
lateral plastic flow of the weak subsoils. Steel sheet
pilings, concrete rings, or crushed stone rings may
be applied to prevent lateral flow of the weak subsoils which might cause tank foundation failure.

Sheet steel pilings, concrete

rings, or crushed stone rings may
be used to prevent latera/flow of
weak subsoils

1.6"4

g
::

.... 1.4

(.) 1.3

- ..

, ; - ; 1.2

:{!u
>

..5

:.o

=~

0
09
(1)0

~ o.e

ll)

I
I

0.7

C X Nc Y X d (assuming that the clay is saturated,

an angle of shearing resistance >f = 0)

The cohesion of the soil (C) for our purpose may

be assumed equal to 50 percent of the nonconfined compressive strength of the soil. The bearing capacity factor
N. varies from 5.2 for elongated footings to 6.2 for round
and square footings.
For rectangular footings,
.!\J,.

= 0.84 + 0.16 ~X ~c (for square or circular footings)

- .,...

~--~--~

1
1

I
I

I
I

t.O

25 o.4 Of The Total Plant

Cost In Million Dollars

FIGURE 2-Soil inv~tigation cost as a percent of founda
tion, structures and buildings cost.

Where B is the width and L is the length of the

rectangular foundation, in feet.
Although it is very important to establish the ultimate
bearing capacity of clays in which shear failure may
occur more frequently than in noncohesive soils, never
theless the settlement probability for the foundations on
clay should be considered and its expected magnitude
should be checked. This is especially important if a safety
factor of 2 or 3 against ultimate failure is projected.
Example. Applying the dimensions given in Figure I
to Skempton's formula,
Nc =coefficient 6.2 for round and &quare footings, 5.2 for strip
footings ( nondimensional)

quit

quit=

I'

0.5

N. (adjusted)= 5.2

Stability analysis of cohesive soils may be made using

either A. W. Skempton's method1 or the balancing
moments method between the imposed load and the
shearing stress resistance of the soil strata in question.
In order to calculate the stability of the tank foundation, properties of a clay stratum are required, such as:
undrained shear value (C) lbs.fsq. ft., density (y)
lbs.jcu. ft., the bearing capacity factor (nondimensional),
and the height of the surcharge (d) ft. According to
Skempton, ultimate bearing capacity of clays is expressed as:

' ......

1I
I

wO
~

SN
(.) ... 06

f=

~'

+ ...!!._
=
50

5.44

= 5.44 X 800 + 0.75 X 120 = 4442 lbs. per sq. ft.

Tank load =

65 lbs. per sq. ft.

Liquid load = 1900 lbs. per sq. ft.

Pad weight= 240 lbs. per sq. ft.

Total= 2205lbs. per sq. ft.

Factor of safety:

4442

2205

= 2.

2) Using the balancing moment method:

rz

quit

X-2

= C XL X r =-

Reduction factor p, =

qull --

2 XC XL
~'

5.44
6.20

- - = 0.88

2 X BOO X 12 X 3.14
T2

= 5024lbs. per sq. ft.

Reduced quit = 5024 X 0.88 = 4421lbs. per sq. ft.

(the result should be the same as in Case l, or 4442 lbs.
per sq. ft.)

Settlement for above conditions. Assumptions: Lw,

87

A pile foundation for tanks with a reinforced concrete slab

capping is best but the most expensive; or, a 4-loot capping of crushed
stone compacted between the piles transfers tanlc load to piles well

liquid limit of clay = 40 percent; eo, void ratio = 1.2;

Cc, compressibility factor = 0,009 (L,.- 10 ) = 0.27.

It is assumed that this strain is constant for the clay

stratum and the clay is normally consolidated (i.e. no
drying effect on the surface occurred) . The factors assumed above are usually obtained from laboratory tests.
In order to achieve better average conditions for the

Soil investigations are a

small part of total plant costs yet
some owners object to taking a
sufficient number of borings or
any at all

foundation pad was in place at least three months before

tank erection.
The above solution to tank support includes considerable risk in comparison with pile foundation design.
However, the necessity of releveling the tanks several
times during installation still may save money as compared with pile foundation construction. The conventional pile foundation for tanks, with reinforced concrete
slab capping, is the best, but the most expensive in
comparison with the tank cost. Alternatively, a capping
of crushed stone, about 4 feet deep, compacted between
the piles, may be used. The compacted crushed stone
creates arches between the piles and transfers tank load
to piles relatively uniformly.
The exact prediction of tank settlement is impossible,
except if supported on point-bearing piles, for the followin.g reasons:
The stress distribution in thin, weak soil layers under
the foundation cannot be accurately determined.
The magnitude of lateral plastic flow in highly
stressed soils is unknown.
Behavior of the crushed stone cap on the piles is
difficult to predict.

settlement calculation the 12-foot clay stratum is divided

into two 6-foot layers.
Approximate ae ttlement {in.) , tl.

c.

1+

eo

I
P+tt.p
ogto - p-

= 2' X 120 = 240 Jbs. per q. ft.

For part a, p

3' X 11 5 = 345lbs. per sq. ft.

585 lbs. per sq. ft.
tl.p

= 1900 lbt. per sq.

ft.+ 65 lbs. per sq. ft.= 1965 lbs.

per

sq. lt.

+ tl.p = 585 + 1965 = 2550 lbs. per tq. ft.

tl.a

6' X 12

.
22

X 0.27 X log1 0

2550

~=

5.7 in.

For pan b, p = 2 X 120 = 240 lbs. per sq. ft.

9 X 115

= 1035 lbs. per sq. ft .

1275lbs. per sq. ft.

p +tt.p

= 1275 + 1765

= 3040 lb1. per sq. ft.

(.O.p for the part b, decreased in accordance with Boussines q

formula)
~b -

6' X 12
.
22

The nature of the deflection of piles in soft soils is

unpredictable.

= H X 12

3040
X 0.27 X log10 ~

= 3.4 m.

Total deflection~ 9 in.

Relative Cost of Soli Investigation. Let us consider an

average size petrochemical plant, the total cost of which
is about six million dollars. The approximate cost of
foundations, structures and buildings would be about
25 percent of the total cost, or $1 !/:1 million. Soil investigation for such a plant would require about 10 borings,
which with laboratory analysis and a complete report
would amount to from $4,000 to $9,000, depending on
soil conditions.
Plotting soil investigation cost against 25 percent of
the total plant cost (foundation, structures and buildings)
we obtain a curve shown in Figure 2.
The cost of soil investigation is small if it is related
to foundations, structures and buildings only; in comparison with the total plant cost, it is almost negligible.
It is hard to understand why some clients strongly
object to taking a sufficient number of borings; some
object to taking any at all. A comprehensive soil report
enables an engineer to design with confidence, repays the
cost of the soil investigation, and saves money for the
owner.
LITERATURE CITED
1

SkemptoDJ A. W., ''The

ConJlreu, 19;>1.

It is assumed for the above investigation that the tank

88

BeariD~r

Capacity of Clap," Buildizla Reseazeh

Proceeding of the American Society of Civil Engineen, The Journal of

Soil Mechanics and Foundationa Div., Part l, Oct. 1961.

Graphs Speed Spread Footing Design

below the foundation must not exceed the maximum
allowable soil pressure. The most severe stability conditions are realized when the vertical load is minimum and
the lateral loads (winds or earthquake) are maximum.
Severest soil bearing conditions are realized when the
vertical and lateral loads are maximum.
Both graphs were scheduled for an allowable soil pressure of 1000 lbs. per sq. ft. However, these graphs can
be used for any allowable soil pressure if the vertical load
(including the weight of the footing and backfill) and
the overturning moment about the base of the footing
arc divided by the soil pressure coefficient N.

When designing square or octagonal

footings, these graphs will cut the
calculation time to a minimum.
No trial and error sizing is required

F. 8. van Hamme, Chief Structural Engineer,

Fluor-Schuytvlot N. V., Haarlem, Holland*
TRIALANI>-ERROR SIZING of spread footings can be supplanted by a better method. A graph can be used to size
footings with a minimum of calculations. Use Figure l,
to determine the size of square footings, Figure 2 for
octagonal footings.

1000 lbs. per sq. ft.

..

Stability and soil bearing are the main considerations

in designing spread footings. Equipment must be .supported by the foundation so it will not be overturned by
maximum forces acting upon it. The load on the soil

......
I
II
--~.,..

1.....

vv

.......

k
- -- - f- tl v ~!'
jf1:!---

0.
~

.-'

II..

IV

,,
,v
_j

Ia

1/-

v It

'f

1/)

It'

~ !-

Square Footings. When the footing can turn on the

A-A-a.xis only (Figure 1) (pipe-rack footings, for ex-

,..

><

il
~

.,,
/

/ ...... .<.. ./

<

,;"
,;" ;> ~ ~

...

.............

V1000

>

""......

.........-

-~

10

{KIPS)-----

v
~'--...

)<l5'
v

:><

,
/

'

... <

I'
/ ......
V'

~- ....

v
I"'

./

.::~

<.~ '"' '

......
......

'~,

~,

r-...

~~

["\

I'

I'-

......
......

.....

I"'
r..

....... r-...
I...._

'

r,
r--..

r....

r--. :_,
'41

15

lA

I'.

'.....

I~

i/

14 ,,
~

"

'~

..._.::

1'.

>...

v ,.
I' v

~.

......;

......

,;" IL

--~'-E -

><

,.., /

~~
/. .?' >C :;;... .....
...-.:; ~.
I/ ~ / ~
;;.>"
............
C>. I<:: ~ ~ ~ 1:::::

~ =~

/
~5'

"

/
D<

..... Y.. Or

/
~

.....

,... 1"-o

IL

....,
..... 1<. .....

'II'.

/
)

/
[i

~~

'/.A ~

_///.4

l/

1/

~ /, 'V)
>L~>j

(/)

= total vertical load in kips

.,..,

"

1/

1000

M[QQO =overturning moment in ft.-kips

N

*Subsidiary of The Fluor Corp., Lid., Los Angtl<s, Calif.

12

= allowable soil pressure in lbs. per sq. ft.

'

:::.. ~ ~
20

'

" "'
f-- f- -

.....
I'

r'

s~

~
25

NOTES
J. Dotted 0-lines ore to be used for stability conditions and the solid Dlines
for soil bearing conditions when footing con turn os well on AA-oxis osBB
2. When footing can turn on AAoxis only the dotted 0-lines ore to be used for
stability as well os soil bearing conditions.

FIGURE 1-Use this graph to design square footings.

89

oO
0

480

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I2

2!

0~

r-...1/

r-..

:Lt
I/

1~

400 1 II II II I II I L

il"'

IL
'

71/
I I I 1111 5,.1.51/ II/_

I
7,{)()

II

.L

i.;'

II

it

.O
..t_

._.

4.5

II

I I I I

,.. 7.,.;
4.555 I -1-f-+11
'(/
"
6.0
v. ~r/17"1J' ,..,
1
11f' ~
f7' . ~
I
IXliL ~[/t.,; r<:
D-7'6'
J' '(f~ t'\..7'
t-

s.L 5

I_ I ...

IO

J~li':~

~ ......... ~

""

"

1
~~ ~ '
""
'
r\ 5.0
~ OI
I '
""' I~
r--.11', 11~~ Ill\. VI ) 5.5
0
10
20
30
"""./1 60 r-rV1Q00(KIPS)
I'

.L

1
X

I"

II
1;11'./

i'.

!!::

~'I

rf

U>

3.5

r--..

20

2..~ ,~.-303.5

125

3.0

f....

1/

'L

J I Ll 11 l I l l I/ ' !1
........
II
v ~
'1.1
IL~ IL !t..._L '"
~ ~
l/Vl/1 JIIIT T7l II ~I Y I 1\lTlXTI/I'l VI I'J
I1l11 JLllll~ lll Llll I 111\.1 VI 'XL I lXI I L 1\
RlLJt'l.ZL I TI I T'KfT1 'KI:A I Vl I 1\1. I A 1\
VI/I YJ 1~ 1 I I A~ I y-r zx-VCI\l!V
UMYYIAIIIII IINJLLJ)[IIAILI'W~
111/lii/IA JA"Tl7"to...LIII I X: I V I'lL J' I X I 1/NA I 1-..1 I I"

40

----

r;
]'\
1\.

?00

MLYY UJrll-Nl

~P'Vr R

1 NIUN] N II'l 1 1'l"'.

~.,,

, , " ..

( /)

a..

100

:X::
...,:

LL
0
0
0

~~tmctl'tli'W\~~Itil
~Ei I~

50
V1000

100

150

200

(KIPS)_ _ __
FIGURE 2-Use this graph to design octagonal footings.

~ ~
250

300

320