Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Computing downward
(gravity) forces
After the water table level has
been identified, the design
engineer needs to look at
computing all the downward
forces that will be acting on the
structure. All vertical
downward forces are caused by
gravitational effects, which
need to be calculated in the
design of an underground
structure. Essentially, the
engineer determines if the total downward forces (gravitational, WT) are
greater than the upward force (buoyant, Fb). The total downward force
(WT) is calculated by the summation of all downward vertical forces
(W).
Depending on the design of the underground structure, the total vertical
downward forces (WT) may or may not be the same for all applications.
In a conservative approach, the design of underground structures
assumes that the water table at the specific site is at grade. In this case, it
is essential to account for all vertical downward forces (WT) to ensure
that the structure will not float (WT > Fb). For an underground
structure, designed for a worst-case scenario, the following vertical
downward forces (W) need to be considered:
Weight of all walls and slabs
Weight of soil on slabs
Weight of soil on shelf or shelves
Weight of equipment (permanent) inside structure
Weight of inverts inside structure
Friction of soil to soil
Fb = gf x nd
Fb = buoyant force (lb)
gf = density of water (62.4 lb/ft)
nd = displaced volume of the fluid (ft)
When analyzing buoyancy-related concrete applications, the structure is
typically below grade and stationary. Assuming the application is
stationary in a fluid, analysis uses the static equilibrium equation in the
vertical direction, S Fv = 0. Analyzing buoyancy related to underground
structures requires use of the same static equilibrium equation,
assuming the structure to be stationary and either submerged or
partially submerged in a fluid (in the latter case, the surrounding soil
/fill material and any associated groundwater).
meet the required safety factor, there are ways to fix the problem. Here
are some different methods used to overcome buoyancy, both before and
after shifting or flotation:
1. Base extension (cast-in-place or precast). Using the additional
weight of soil by adding shelves is a common method used to
counteract buoyancy. Extending the bottom slab horizontally
creates a shelf outside the walls of the structure and adds additional
resistance to the buoyant force. The additional vertical downward
force comes from the additional weight of the soil acting on the
shelves (Wshelf). The size of the shelf can be designed as large and
wide as needed so the buoyant force is resisted. However, limits in
shipping width must be considered. In many cases, this is the most
cost-effective method used to resist the buoyant force (Fb). When
pouring the shelf in place, mechanical connections must be
designed to resist the vertical shear forces. If possible, it is best to
have the shelf monolithically poured with the structure.
2. Anti-flotation slab. Another method that has been used in
construction is to anchor the structure to a large concrete mass
(shelf) poured on site or use precast concrete manufactured off site.
The structure sits directly on top of this large concrete mass that
has previously been poured in place or cast, cured and delivered by
an off-site manufacturer. This method can cause problems,
however, because both base slabs must sit flush on top of one other.
If base slabs are not aligned perfectly, cracking due to point loads
may result. Cast-in-place concrete can be expensive and cause
delays due to strength curing time. Precast concrete alleviates
alignment and delays for strength gain, but the sub-base must be
level and set flush. A mortar bed between the two surfaces is
recommended. To design the mechanical connection between the
anti-flotation slab and the structure, the net upward force must be
calculated. This calculation can be achieved by multiplying the
buoyant force by the FS, and subtracting the downward force.
Comments
emplyment elsewhere, but to this day I wonder if their thoughts about unopposed
hydrostatic forces had any merit.
Reply
ranga says
August 21, 2015 at 3:08 pm
Thanks Claude Goguen
Reply
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required Qelds are marked *
Name *
Email *
Website
Comment
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr
title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite>
<code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike>
<strong>
POST COMMENT
CATEGORIES
2015 September-October (11)
2015 July-August (11)
2015 May-June (11)
2015 March-April (13)
2015 January-February (14)
2014 November-December (12)
2014 September-October (11)
2014 July-August (12)
2014 May-June (12)
2014 March-April (10)
2014 January-February (12)
2013 November-December (10)
Sponsor Links
Products
CertiQcation Publications
Why Precast?
All Precast
Blog
Education
Products
Precast University
NPCA
Directory
Foundation
Newsletters
NPCA
Membership
Find Precast
Supplies
Technical Services
Marketing Toolkit
Political Action
Center
AfQnity Program
Shop
About
NPCA
Professional Staff
Meetings
Who We Are
Leadership
Committees
Annual
Industry
Convention
Representation
NPCA Committee
Careers
Week
Calendar
Sustainability
Magazines
Classes
Plant
Resources
Safety
AfQliate Members
Association
Leadership School
Log In
Contact