,.

"

FOUNDATION DESIGN ....

:;~-~~~
HANDBOOK~ . ~ r - .-1'.1/J'-
~ ~ ,.,.,. _
_. . . . . ~ _ ,.
,-,.J.........-,.v--
. y ~ - ~ ~1"
/ ,..
. -~;


- ~-.."]C,;:, . .
~_. Ill .
~- _:_~ .
- _....,. . - _.....:l . . . IlL" . . _, ... -~ .... . - -, ..- . .:; _._. ~\.'-.

Reprinted from HYDROCARBON PROCESSING Gulf Publishing Company 1968 $1.25 ;i.
:V:"'::Ii~ . "j!l)' .. -- .. <r' . ~, ~~ .... ~ ;~ ~ - - - -.- - .... .n:.~-
. oi:ll?. ...::.~~. ~-. .i;s.: . ..-~~..-~.,.. ; - ~.- ..- --~!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 . ... . . . .. . .. .. . .... .. .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 4
Foundation Design For Stacks And Towers .. . . . .. ... . . .. ... ... . . .... . 5
Simplified Design For Tower Foundations .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 21
Calculation Form For Foundation Design . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . 27
Use Graph To Size Tower Footings . . . . .. ... . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . 35
Simplified Design Method For Intricate Concrete
Column Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ... . .... .. ... ... 39
Unusual Foundation Design For Tall Towers .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . . 44
Foundation Sizing Simplified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Dowel Sjzing For Tower Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Short Cuts To Tower Foundation Design . .. . .... . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. . . . . 57
VESSEL FOUNDATIONS . ... ..... ..... . .. ...... . 60
Foundation Design For 8-Legged Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Pressure Vessel Foundation Design . . ... . ... ... ... . .. .. .. .. . ... . . 63
COMPUTER FOUNDATION DESIGN . . . . . .. . . ... . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . 70
How To Calculate Footing Soil Bearing By Computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Concrete Support Analysis By Computer .. . ... .. .. . .. .. .... . .. 77
FOUNDATIONS ON WEAK SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Foundations On Weak Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..... .. 85
Graphs Speed Spread Footing Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . 89
Use Graph To Analyze Pile Supports . . . . .. .. . 93

3
 .... , ..

. ....

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) Self-
supporting, 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 re-
sisted by g uy wires. It is obvious that the con-
ditions affecting the design of foundations for
these two types will not be the same, an d that it
is necessary to treat them separately.
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 as-
sumed, and the soil loading and stability calcu-
lated. If the results are not satisfactory, another
assumption is made, and the calculations repeated.
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:
w
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-r-
lng 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
 5. Overturning Load
The overturning load S~ is the result of the over-
turning moment. Under ordinary conditions, the
only for ce tending to overturn the tower is the
wind pressure.
The magnitude of the wind pressure is obvi-
ously 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 pro-
posed 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
where
= 0.0025V' (6)
P< = wind pressure on the projected area o a cylin-
drical to wer (pounds per square foot) .
In most localities, a wind velocity of 100 miles
Wind Preaeure Pw per hour is considered the maximum. This gives
a pressure of 25 pounds per square foot on the
:r: 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 pres-
sure 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 con-

crete foundation. The wind pressure (P.,..) tends to

-..
c rotate the tower and foundation about point A at
CJ
the intersection of the vertical centerline and the
~ base of the foundation. This rotating effect pro-
a:: duces an overturnin g moment which can be cal-
culated as follows:
Foundation Db Mr= P. L (7)
Top where
Gra~e I Me= overturning moment about the base of the
foundation (foot pounds)
~~'V P .. =total wind load (pounds) to be calculated as
follows:
Foundation ~ P .. = p. D.H (8)
Base L =lever arm of wind load (feet) to be calculated
as follows:
H
L= hr+ 2 (9)
Do= diameter of tower measured over insulation
F f"A
-- d
(feet)
H = heiJ;rht of tower ( feet)
h, =height of foundation (feet)

It should be noted that all dimensions are stated

FIGURE l in feet, giving the overturning moment (Mt) in
Foundotion for self-supporting tower. foot pounds. This avoids the use of the excessively
large numbers encountered with the usual inch
pound units. Care should be taken, however, to
6
 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 calcu-
lated 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 founda-
ti?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 compres-
sion 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 pos-
sible, 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 fre-
quently 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, plat-
forms 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 mini-
mum 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 shear-
ing 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,
7
the effective diameter of the tower exposed to the This loading is satisfactory, as the soil will
action of the wind is 4.5 ft. A wind velocity of 100 safely support 2000 lbs.jsq. ft.
miles per hour is equal to 25 pounds per sq. ft. of From equation (2-a)
projected area.
125,700 lbs.
Therefore: s.... = lSI = 830 lbs./sq. ft.
P = 25 lbs./sq. ft.
D.= 4.5 ft. This is the dead load under the worst stability
H =54 ft. condition, and since it is greater than the over-
P ... = 25 X 4.5 X 54= 6080 lbs. (equation 8) turning stress (S~ = 803), the soil below the foun-
hr= 6ft.
54 dation will always be under compression at all
L = 6 + 2=33 ft. (equation 9) points, thus indicating that the foundation is
Mr = 6080 X 33 = 200,000 foot pounds (equation 7) stable.
Z = 0.1016 d' = 0.1016 X 13.5' = 248.5 Usually it is found that the first assumption as
From equation (10) to foundation size is not correct, in which case, an-
other assumption is made, and the calculations
_ 200,000 ft. pounds b repeated.
S2 - 248.5 = 803 I s./sq. ft.= maxi- It is interesting to note that the soil loading of
mum soil load due to overturning moment. 2000 lbs.jsq. ft. allowed in this problem is rather
The total maximum soil load (toe pressure) can low, as good clay soil will usually support about
be calculated from equation (1) as follows: 4000 lbs.jsq. ft. Care should always be taken, to
ascertain the actual load carrying value of the soil
S = 1155 + 803 = 1958 lbs./sq. ft. at the site of construction.

8. Eccentricity
JAILI 1 It will be noted that there are two forces acting
llomeftts of o~togonal .... on foundations of the type under consideration ;
(a) The dead load, acting in a vertical direction;
Short IA!n~h Neutral Alii Radluaof (b) the wind load, acting in a horizontal direction.
Diam. Area a of a e to.!ztreme Sec:tloD Gyration r The combined action of these two forces, that is,
(Feet) (Sq. Ft.) (ll'eet) Fiber c:(Feet) Modulu Z (Feet)
7.46 1.62
their resultant, has thE:. same effect as an eccentric
3 1.242 2.74 0.772
3.5 10.6 1.449 1.89 4.37 0.900 vertical load. As explained previously, it is not
4 13.2 1.666 2.16 6.110 1.029 necessary to calculate the eccentricity in order to
4.6
6
18.8
20.7
1.863
2.070
2.43
2.70
9.23
12.68
1.168 determine the stability of the foundation. Several
1.286
6.6 26.0 2.277 2.98 16.46 1.415 methods have been proposed, however, which
6 29.8 2.484 3.26 21.90 1.542 make use of the eccentricity, and since there are
6.6 34.8 2.891 3.61 27.90 1.67
7
'1.6
40.6
46.6
2.898
3.105
3. 78
4.06
34.90
42.80
1.8()
1.93
definite relationships between eccentricity and sta-
8 62.8 3.312 4.33 52.00 2.06 bility, they will be explained as a matter of in-
8.6 59.5 3.519 4.59 82.70 2.17
9 66.8 3. 726 4.87 74.10 2.31 terest.
9.6
10
74.6
82.8
3.933
4.140
6.13
5.41
87.30
101.60
2.44
2.57
The eccentricity can be calculated as follows:
10.6 91.2 4.347 6.67 117.60 2.70
11 100.0 4.554 5.94 136.00 2.83
11.5 109.8 4.761 6.22 164.10 2.00 e= Me
12 119.5 4.968 6.48 174.50 3.09
12.5 140.0 5.382 7.03 221.00 3.34 where Wt (12)
13 129.2 6.176 6.76 198.00 3.22 e= eccentricity (feet)
13.6 151.0 5.589 7.30 248.50 3.47
14 162.0 6.796 7.57 277.00 3.60
14.5 174 6.003 7.83 309.20 3.73
15 186 6.210 8.11 342.00 3.86
111.5 199 6.417 8.38 375.00 3.99
16 212 6.624 8.65 416.00 4.12 Note: The value of (e) calculated by equation
16.5 226 6.831 9.02 455.00 4.24
17 240 7.038 9.19 497.00 4.37 (12) is the maximum value, as the dead load (Wt)
17.6 203 7.245 9.46 543.00 4.00 is minimum. The eccentricity for other conditions
18 268 7.462 9.72 690.00 4.63
18.5 283 7.659 10.00 624.00 4.76 of dead loading may be obtained by substituting
19 299 7.866 10.25 652.00 4.89
19.5 315 8.073 10.55 731.00 5.02 the proper weight in place of (W 1).
20
20.5
332
348
8.280
8. 41!7
10.81
11.08
811.00
873.00
6.14
5.27 It has been shown by previous discussion that
21 365 8.694 11.36 933.00 5.40 the following relationships exist:
21.6 383 8.901 11.62 1005.00 5.63
22 401 9.108 11.90 1085.00 566
22.5 420 9.316 12.17 ll45.00 5.78
23 438 9.522 12.43 1240.00 5.92
Wt
2.'!.5
24
458
477
9.729
9 936
12.71
12.98
1320.00
1400.00
6.04
6.17 s... =-a- (2-a)
24.5 497 10.143 13.26 1490.00 6.29
Mt
25
25.6
26
618
639
ti60
10.350
10.667
10.784
13.52
13.79
14.07
1585.00
1685.00
1787.00
6.43
6.56
6.68
s.=z (10)
26.6 582 10.971 14.33 1900.00 6.82 I
27 603 11. 178 14.61 2010.00 6.94 Z=c (11)
27.5 526 11.386 14.88 2110.00 7.07
28 6110 11.592 15.15 2220.00 7.20 combining equations (10) and (11)
28.5 6'72 11.799 15.42 2360.00 7.33
29
29.6
30
31
32
696
720
746
796
848
12.006
12.213
12.420
12.834
13 248
15.68
15.96
16.23
16.77
17.31
2470.00
2600.00
2740.00
3021.00
3330.00
7.46
7.58
7.71
7.97
8.23
S
=-.-
:M,c

rearranging equation (12)

(13)

33 902 13.662 17.86 3660.00 8.48

34 958 14.078 18.38 3980.00 8.75 (12a)
35 1015 14.~ 18.92 4370.00 9.00 Mr= Wte
36 1075 14. 19.47 4730.00 9.26
37 1134 16.318 20.01 6130.00 9.51 combining equations (12a) and 13)
38 1196 15.732 20.55 5580.00 9.77
39 1260 16.146 21.09 6020.00 10.04 _ Wtec
40 1325 16.560 21.65 6500.00 10.28
S2 - l (14)

8
 It was shown by equation (1-a) that in order OCTAGOJJ
to avoid tensile stress at E (which would make a = o.a2842.
the foundation unstable), the maximum value of
(S 2 ) is as follows: c: 0.54ld
I : O.OStid+
So= S,., (15)
Z : O.l016ds
thus making the value of (Smln) equal to zero, as
shown by equation (1-d). r : o.&5'14
Substitutipg the values obtained by equations
(2-a) and (14) in equation (15)
w~ec w.
I =-a- (16) HEXAGOH
The value of I can be expressed as follows: a = o.se84'
I= ar (17)
where c : o.s7'7ct
r =radius of gyration of base (feet)
substituting in equation (16) I : 0.064
w.ec w. z : o.104cts
ar' - a (18)
Hence, the maximum value of (e) for stable r = o.ae44
conditions is
r
e..... =c (19)
In the case of a circular foundation
d
c=y (20) a: o.707<l
ct
Substituting in equation (19) I :"'"D'
2r'
e.... = d (21) z : o.u8cl,
Substituting the value of (r2 ) in equation (21), r: o.. aaM
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 c:..f-
tower foundations, the maximum allowable eccen- 1 : o.ot9ct
tricity becomes
z : o.oe8cl'
e..... = 0.122d
The area surrounding the center of the base,
(22)
r=+
within which the resultant causes a compressive
stress over the entire base, is known as the kernel FIGURE 2
or kern. Eltmectta of foundotion bases
It follows, then, that the resultant must always (Axis A-A)
fall within the kern of the base in order to assure
stability.
In example No. 1 (Section 7), it was shown that than the maximum permissible eccentricity (1.64)
the foundation is stable, since the overturning the foundation is stable, thus confirming the con-
stress (S 2 ) is less than the minimum dead load clusion reached in Section 7.
stress (Smlo).
The stability of this foundation will now be cal-
culated (as example No. 2) on the basis of the
eccentricity for the purpose of comparing the two 9. Method of Calculating SoU Load From
methods. Eccentricity
From equation (12) the eccentricity is It is possible to calculate the soil loading (toe
Mt 200,000 foot pounds pressure) as a function of the eccentricity. This
e = W, = 125,700 lbs. t.S9 ft. method will be explained in order that it may be
compared with the method described in Sections
From equation (22), the maximum permissible 3, 4 and 5.
eccentricity is
Let (k) be a factor by which the dead load pres-
=
e...u = O.t22d 0.122 X 13.5 = 1.64 ft. sure must be multiplied to equal the soil loading
due to overturning as follows:
Inasmuch as the actual eccentricity (1.59) is less (57)
9
 TOW~It

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

FIGUU l fiGVRI Ja FIGUU lb

Substituting in equation (1)

S= S;+kS. (58)
or
s = s. (1 + k) (59) Since the term ( ~) occurs m both equations
(65) and (66), it follows that
kZ
From equation (2) e=-
a (67)
and
w
s.=a- (2) k --~
z (68}
From equation (10) Substituting t his value of (k) in equation (59)
Mr S= St (t+ C:) (69)
s.=z- (10)
In the case of an octagonal base,
therefore
Mr= S.Z (60) a= 0.828 d' (70)
z = 0.01016 <l' (71)
Substituting the value of (S 2 ) from equation
(57) Substituting these values in equation (68)
M, = S, kZ (61)
8.15e
therefore KochJ=-d-
Mr (72)
s.=w (62) Therefore, for an octagonal base, equation (69)
m~ be written:
From equations (2) and (62)
W M,
s....... = s. ( 1 + -8.15e)
d- (73)
S,=-a- = kZ (63)
and For comparison, the maximum soil loading in
WkZ example No. 1 will be calculated (as example No.
M, =-a- 3) on the basis of eccentricity. From previous cal-
(64)
culations, it was found that:
From equation (12) Mt = 200,000 foot pounds
M, W = 174,200 pounds
e= Wt (12)
Therefore by equation (65)
The value of (e) calculated from equation (12)
is maximum for any particular foundation, which 200,000 s
is the value governing stability. At the present e= 174,200 = 1.1
moment we are concerned with the maximum soil
loading (toe press ure) which occurs when the The maximum soil loading due to the dead load
dead load is maximum. It is therefore necessary (S 1 ) was found to be 1155 pounds per square foot,
to substitute (W) in place of (Wt) as follows: and (do) is equal to 13.5 feet.
Substituting in equation (13)
Mr
e= W (65) 8.15 X 1.15 )
s= 1155 ( 1 + 13.5
Equation (64) can be written S = 1155 X 1.693 = 1955 pounds per square foot.
M, kZ
This checks the value of 1958 pounds per square
w =--;- (66) foot calculated (by slide rule) in Section 7, thus
10
 ....

I&

... .\;_ ./ i
v. . .I '
. '
J
-~ ~--L!L. -- d
-----L-~~--- .
J k
I
lq
-- - 1---
...-1c.
~~:_j.
......
'I q, ___ _
1-- -_.- ...,.......~ :_jI
I
............... c
0
_,...... _,....-
________
_]
.I"
0
.......- . "
m t- lm. ~-;
_...... w t f- - - f!.'l&.. .-::
_, . w1--,: C:::..:.... - . - . - . __j t
_
---~,

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

;t:?'.,......... p
' r,

FIGUU 3c fiGUU 3d FIGUU le

indicating that either method yields the same obvious for this purpose that the same value of the
result. dead load should be used in the calculation of the
eccentricity (e), by means of equation (12).
10. Soil Loading at Any Point 11. Stresses in Tower Shell
Having calculated the eccentricity, it is a simple The steel shell is required to withstand the
matter to determine t he unit stress on the soil at stresses resulting from , (a) the internal pressure;
any point whose distance from the centroidal axis (b) the dead load ; (c) the overturning mumenl
is ( c'). due to the wind pressure. This discussion will be
The unit stress on the soil, from equation (1), confined to the stress resulting from the wind
is as follows : pressure.
It may be assumed, in determining the stress
S=S.+S (1)
due to the wind press ure, that the tower is a
Since the value of (5 2 ) for points to the right of vertical beam, and that the wind produces a bend-
the axis is negative, the value of (S) will be: ing moment. The ordinary formulas for determin-
ing bending moment and stress may therefore be
S = S, - s. (see equation 1-a) ( 1-b)
applied, asfollows:
Equations (1) and (1-b) can be combined as
follows: M 1 = P .. ( ~) (26)

S=S,S, (1-c) where

M, = bending moment about base of tower (foot
pounds).
From equation (2) also
_ M,c
w S' - I (27)
s.=-
a (2) where
The value of (5 2 ) can be written: S, = unit stress in tower shell due to bending
moment (Mt). (lbs./sq. ft.)
\Vee'
S, = ar' (see equations 14 and 17) (23) Note: The unit stress in the tower shell (St) is
calculated in pounds per square foot in order to be
Thereiore, consistent with the other calculations which are
S- W +Wee' in foot-pound unts. Steel stresses, however, are
- a - ar' ordinarily given in pounds per square inch. In
Simplifying: order to convert the stress from (pounds/sq. ft.)
as calculated, to (pounds/ sq. in.) it is necessary
S= ~ (I~~') (24) to divide (S,) by 144.
T he shell is a hollow cylinder, in which case:
This value of (S) is the total unit stress at any
D
point whose distance (in feet) from the centroidal c=-y (28)
axis is ( c'). and
It is important to note that equations (1-a), (14) '71'
and (17) referred to above were used to deter- I = 64 (D- D\) (29)
mine t he stability and the eccentricity under the where
poorest condition, which obviously occurs when D = outside diameter of tower (feet)
D, = inside diameter of tower (feet)
the dead load is at its minimum. Equation (24) when
can be used to determine the stress under any t = thickness of shell (feet)
dead load, therefore, equation (24) may be based and
on either (W) or (Wt) depending on the dead D -D,=2t (30)
D,=D -2t (31)
load for which the stress is to be determined. It is
11
 Substituting in equation (29) The maximum tensile stress per foot of circum-
'1r ference to be resisted by anchor bolts is
I= 64 [D'- (D -2t)'] (31)
4M, W.
Substituting the values of I and c in equation <rrD' - ?TDo (37)
(27)
D As5uming that the number of bolts is repre-
s. = ___M,__;
2 ___ 32M,D sented by (N) , each bolt will be required to carry
'11' <rr [0'- (D -2t)'] the stress over a portion of the circumference rep-
&f[D'- ( D-2~)' ] resented as follows:
32M,D 71'D.
- <rr [D'- D' + 8ntt -24D't' + 32Dt'-l6t')
32M,D
---w- (38)

- <rr [8D't -24D't'+ 32Dt' - 16t') (32) The load to be carried by each bolt can be
expressed
S.. _ 'lTD .( 4Mt W. )
The values of t 2, t and t 4 are quite small and - N <rrD'- <rrD!,
the three terms in the denominator containing 4M, W.
t hem may be neglected without introducing ap-
preciable error. For practical purposes, therefore,
= NDb - --w- (39)

equation (32) may be written as follows: where

S.. =maximum load on each bolt (pounds).
32M,D
5 = 8?TDt (32-a)
This equation may be reduced to: The nut should always be tight, placing some
initial tension on the bolt. Of course due allow-
4Mt
Sa= 71'D't (32-b)

T he thickness of shell plate required to resist

the bending moment only, is therefore
4Mt
t= <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-sup-
porting tower are required to resist the overturn-
ing moment (Mr) resulting from the wind pres-
sure, after allowance has been made for the resist-
ance 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 act-
ing. The anchor bolts should therefore be calcu-
lated 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, how-
ever, at the present moment it is desired to deter-
mine the bolt stress making it necessary to sub-
stitute (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 circumfer-
ence due to the weight of the tower is
w.
11'Db (36) fiGURE 4
12
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 an-
chor.ing the bolt in the concrete (see Figure 7).
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 founda-
tion. Although it is not uncommon to find two
or even three sets of guy wires on one stack, tow-
ers 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 (40)
or
=
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 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:
R, X cos fl (42)
R. X cos 8
Sin 8 (43)
R. X cot 8 (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 func-
tion of the total pull on the guy wire, which is
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:
R.=
p,. ( 1f)
h, (47)
or
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.)
The value of (S,) can be determined as follows:
S-R.
r- a (SO)
From equation (2)
S.= w (2)
a
Substituting in equation (49)
S= W+R.
a (51)
16. Foundation Bolts for Guyed Towers
The foundation bolts for guyed towers are re-
quired 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 has been widely published. There are really two
be expressed as foll ows: formulas; one for piles driven with a drop ham-
mer, and another for piles driven with a steam
L=~-L (~)
where hammer, as follows:
R- = horizontal wind reaction, or shear, at the base
of the tower. (pounds) For drop hamme1
p- 2W.. f
17. Stress in Shelf of Guyed Tower - P + 1.0 (55)
The wind pressure acting on a guyed tower pro- For steam hammer
duces a negative bending moment at the collar, 2W.,.f
P= P+O.I (56)
where
'1 ... P = safe load which each pile will support.
(pounds)
_ _ ._ ........ _.a."-'- :or -t ~-- .. w.. = weight of hammer. (pounds)
' T .__ ;!_-' f =height of hammer fall. (feet)
--""*"
-It'-.:-. b p .. = penetration o r sinking under the last blow, on
sound wood. (inches)
-lr- .....
.1 t4
r-~-1
,r--,. 1 Care should be exercised in driving piles, to
~---
I
-H--r
T--- I
1
1I
tl.::~
----- ------- 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 break-
~--------i--=- t--- - - - - - - - - - - - - ing, and greatly reduces the load carrying capacity.
I
I I 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
FIGURE 5 3' 0''. Closer spacing disturbs the ground suffi-
and a positive bending moment between the base Ciently to greatly reduce or destroy the frictional
and the collar. The maximum values of these two resistance.
moments can be calculated as follows : The top of the piles should always be cut off
belqw the water level, otherwise they will decay
rapidly.
M.=- ;i (H - h,)' (53) The reinforced concrete cap is constructed on
top of the piles in such a mann~r that the piles
P,.H (
.M, = - 2 - 1 -
H )'
2h, (54) extend about 6" into the concrete (see Figure 6) .
where
Me= negative bending moment at collar. (foot
pounds) 19. Stresses in Foundation
=
MP maximum positive bending moment between
collar and ba~e. (foot pounds).
After having selected a foundation of such size
and shape as to fulfill the requirements of the
Having determined the bending moments, the problem from the standpoint of stability and soil
stress in a given shell, or the shell thickness re- loading, it becomes necessary to calculate the
quired to resist the bending moment may be cal- stresses in th~ foundation itself, to see that they
culated by substituting the value of (M.) or (Mp) do not exceed the allowable limits.
in place of (Mt) in equations (32-b) and (33). The first step in this procedure is to determine

18. Piling
In cases where the safe soil loading is very low,
it is sometimes found difficult to design an ordi-
nary 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 FIGUR 6
varies greatly in different localities. Building laws
sometimes govern the pile loading, and in such the loading, which consists primarily of the up-
cases, the load is usualy about 20 tons per pile, ward reaction of the soil. Figure 3 represents the
although occasionally 25 tons is permissible. plan view of a typical (octagonal) foundation, and
When conditions are not definitely known, how- Figure 3a shows the loading diagram. In this dia-
ever, the only safe procedure is to drive a few gram the dead load (S 1 ) is represented by the
piles for test purposes. The common method of rectangle (jklm). The wind load (52 ) , which is
calculating the safe load is by means of what is positive on one side of the centerline, is indicated
known as the "Engineering News Formula," which by the triangle (mpw). On the opposite side of

14
the centerline the wind load is negative, thereby 162
counteracting a portion of the dead load (wlc). Line {mw) = z - =81"
The actual soil loading will therefore be repre-
sented by the area (jkcp). However, the. weight of d,=72". d,=2lw. d.=I62"
the base, and of the earth fill above the base (area d.=7221 21 = 114"
Line (gf) =67.1" (see Table 1).
jkno Figure 3b) do not exert any upward force on 114
the foundation, and may therefore be deducted Line (m, w) =z-= 57".
from the total load, for the present purpose. The . 67.1 X 57 _ , _ (b')
effective upward reaction will then be the area Lsne (a, b,) = 81
- 47.2 - .
( oc1 p) in Figure. 3b. .
Ltne (gt,) = 67.1 - 2 47.2 -- 995"
.
, 162- 114
19a. Diagonal Tension Ltne (a, t,) = 2 = 24
11

The vertical shear, resulting from the upward

reaction of the soil, produces diagonal tension Factor j = .87 (see Table 2).
stresses in the foundation. The critical section lies 803 X 57
Load (m, r) = 81 = 5651bs./sq. ft.
at a distance from the face of the pedestal equal Load (qr) = 565 522 = 1,087lbs./sq. ft.
to the effective depth of the base, as indicated
by pt>int (Z,) in Figure 3c. In other words, the Calculate shear load (V, )
foundation tends to break along line (ZZ 1 ). The
" w X 1,087 lbs./sq. ft.
vertical shear to be resisted is equal to the net soil 472 X 24 - 8,550 lbs.
144 SQ. in.
pressure on the part of the foundation outside the 7
critical section. 9.95" X 24" X ~~~ 1,805
For design purposes, therefore, the load will be 238
the area (oqrp), (Figure 3c) applied over the 47.2 X 24 X 2 X 144 = 935
area (a, b 1 fg), (Figure 3). Because of the irregu- 9.95 X 238 X 24 X 2
3 X 144 263
lar shape of the load diagram, its magnitude can
be more conveniently calculated by breaking it up Total (V,) = 11,558 lbs.
into its component parts, the total load (V ,) being Calculate unit stress m concrete (equation 80)
the sum of the individual loads, as follows:
11,558 lb I .
fo = 47.2 X .87 X 21 = 13.4 s. sq. tn.
Outline hi plan Outline In el nat loo
Shape of ~rt (FII'. 3) (Fl... 3e)
Rectangular Prism a, b, u, t, oqrv This stress is satisfactory, as 40 lbs.jsq. in.
Wedge a, t, g oqrv would be allowed (see Table 2).
Wedge b, fu, O<lrv
Wedge a, b, u, t, rvp
Pyramid a, t, g rvp 19b. Depth of Slab Required for Punching Shear
Pyramid b, fu, rvp 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)
The unit stress (diagonal tension) resulting at the edge of the pedestal. This shearing load may
from this vertical shear load can be determined be determined as follows:
as follows:
v. S.= s.t s. (81)
fo= b'jd, (80) The stresses in this case are not distributed over
where . the foundation area, but are concentrated at the
f =unit stress in concrete (in diagonal tenston)
due to vertical shear load. (pounds/sq. in.) edge of the pedestal.
V = vertical shear load, outside the critical section Then
(see Figures 3 and Jc). (pounds)
b' = width of critical section which serves to resist S, = lineal
total maximum unit shearing load,
foot of pedestal perimeter).
(lbs. per
diagonal tension stresses (line a, b, Figure 3).
(inches) S, = unit shearing load due to dead load. (lbs. per
j = ratio of lever arm o resisting couple to depth lineal foot of pedestal perimeter).
(dr) (see Table 2). S, = maximum unit shearing load due to overturn-
dr = effective dept h of base measured from top of ing moment. {lbs. per lineal foot of pedestal
base to centerline of reinforcing steel. (inches) perimeter).
The value of (S.) can be determined by adding
the weight supported by the pedestal to the
Example No. 4. Check diagonal tension stresses weight of the pedestal itself, subtracting the load
in the foundation considered in example No. 1 : carrying value of the soil directly under the
Figure unit soil loading due to weight of base pedestal, and dividing the difference by the pe
and earth (see Section 7) : rimeter of the pedestal base as follows :
Concrete base 63,000 lbs.
Earth till 32,700 lbs. W, W, WP- (a, S. u)
Total 95,700 lbs. S, = L, (82)
95,700 lbs. 633 lb I f where
Unit soil loading = 151 SQ. f t. = S. SQ. t . W, =weight of foundation pedestal (top course).
(pounds)
a, = plan area of foundation pedestal. (sq. ft.)
Total unit dead load ( S,) (jm, figure Jc) = 1,1551bsJsq. ft. S at> = maximum allowable unit soil loading.
Unit dead load due to weight of base (pounds/sq. ft .)
and earth fill (jo) = ~ L, = perimeter of foundation pedestal. (feet)
Net soil load (om) = 5221bs./sQ. ft.
Maximum unit wind load (S.}, (mp) = 803
Maximum effective unit shear load (op) 1,3251bs./sq. ft. 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
This stress is satisfactory, as 120 pounds/sq. in.
is permissible. (See T able 2.)
to (S-6). In the case of guyed towers, or stacks, the shear
The value of (S 6 ) can be determined in a man- load due to overturning moment (S~) does not
ner somewhat similar to that proposed in Sec- apply, but is replaced by
tion 12. In that section the overturning load was
calculated as a function of the periphery of the ( R;/L,)
foundation bolt circle, by means of equations (27) which is the load due to the pull on the guy wires,
and (35). T~e bolt circle was assumed to be a as f~ lows:
hollow cylinder, the wall thickness being infinitely
R:r
small, as compared with the diameter. Sl(n,t() = S. + -y:;-
In the determination of. the shear at the edge (81a)
of the foundation pedestal, a similar procedure
may be followed, substituting (Mr) in place of 19c. Reinforcement of Base for Upward Bending
(M1 ), and appropriate values of (I) and (c) in Reaction of Soil
equation (27), depending on the shape of the In designing the base of the foundation to resist
pedestal. the bending moment due to the upward reaction of
Reduced to their simplest forms, the equations the soil, the critical section is located at line (ab),
for the ordinary foundation shapes are as follows: (Figure 3d) along one face of the pedestal (top
course). The moments are therefore figured about
Octagon line ( ab), on the basis of the load on the trapezoid
Mr (abfg). The load which serves to produce the
5'= .814dp1 (83)
bending moment in the base is the "unbalanced"
Hexagon upward reaction. Since the weight of the base,
Mr
s. = .832d.' (83a) and the weight of the earth fill above the base do
Square not contribute to the bending moment, they may
Mr be deducted from the total load when calculating
s.= .943d: (83b) the bending moment. The effective loading will
Circle therefore be represented by the area (o q 1 r 1 p)
Mr Figure 3e.
s.=TBW (83c) The load is assumed to be applied at its center
of gravity, and the moment figured about line
I n these equations (d11 ) is the short diameter of (ab). Due to the irregular shape of t he load dia-
gram, it is difficul t to locate the center of gravity,
the pedestal (feet) . and it is therefore more convenient to break it up
Once the shearing load (S,) per foot of pedestal into its component parts (prisms, wedges, pyra-
perimeter is known, i~ is a simple matter .t'! ~al mids, etc.), and figure the moment of each part
culate the unit stress m the concrete, by dtvtdtng separately. Obviously, the total moment (Mb) will
(S,) by tpe effective depth of the base, as follows: be the sum of the individual moments.
s. In the case of the rectangular prism, the lever
f,= 12dr (84) arm used in figuring its moment will be one half
where . of the distance from point (a) to point (t), {Figure
f, = unit stress in concrete base due to punchtng 3d). In the case of the wedges and pyramids, the
shear. (pounds/sq. in.) lever arm will be two-thirds of the distance from
Note: The factor 12 is introduced for the pur- point (a) to point (t).
pose of convertin~ (51 ) from (pounds/lin. foot) to The individual components and their respective
(pounds/lin. inch) as unit stress (fr>) is in terms lever arms are as follows:
of (pounds/sq. in.).
OatllDe m,t-a
Fl...
OatlJDe In eleva-
tloa, FQ-. 3e Lever Ann
Example No. 5. To illustrate the procedure, the Rectangular Distance (at)
punching shear will be calculated for the founda- Prism abut q,r,v,o
2
tion considered in example No. 1. Distance (at) X2
Wedge atg q, r,v,o
Calculate dead load shear (S) by equation (82) 3
Distance (at) X2
W. = 30,000 lbs. w. = 48,500 lbs. Wedge bfu q,r,v, o
3
W.= 119.2cu. ft. X 150lbs. = I7,850lbs. Distance (at) X2
a.= 29.8 sq. ft. s.w= 2,000 lbs./sq. ft. Wedge abut r,v, p
3
L. = 2.484 X 8 = 19.87 ft.
+
3(),000 48,500 17,850- (29.8 X 2,000) Pyramid atg r sVs P
Distance (at)
3
X2
S.= 19.87
= 1.850 lbs.llin. foot. Pyramid bfu r,v, p
Distance (at)
3
X2

Calculate shearing stress due to overturning In calculating the amount of re~nforcement re-
moment (S1 ) by equation (83) !}Uired, it is assumed that the portiOn of the. base
M. = 200,000 foot pounds (see section 7). designated (abut), (Figure 3d) acts as~ canttl7ver
d."= fl=36.. beam (of rectangular cross-section) havmg a wtdth
Sa= ::~~ = 6,820 pounds/lin. foot
6 equal to one face of the pedestal (a b), a depth
equal to the effective depth of the base ( d r) and
S, = 1,850 6,820 = 8,670 pounds/lin. foot. (81)
d.= 21" a length equal to (at).
Having calculated the bf'nding moment as pro-
f, = 8,670 44 dI .
12 X 21 :....: 3 . poun s sq. an. (84) posed above, the next step is to check the depth

16
of the base, and determine the amount of reinforc- should therefore be placed within the limits of
ing steel required. These calculations are based the beam width (ab). However, additional re-
on the commonly accepted formulas for reinforced inforcement should be installed to reinforce the
concrete. (It should be noted that for this purpose base between the points (gt), and also at (uf),
it is more convenient to figure the moments in using the same type and spacing of bars as deter-
terms of inch-pounds, as the stresses in concrete mined for the beam section ( ab). This additional
and steel are usually given as pounds per square reinforcement insures that the entire area of the
inch, whereas in figuring soil loading foot-pound base is reinforced and weak spots eliminated.
units are used, as soil loading is usually stated Obviously, the reinforcing bars should extend
as pounds per square foot.) entirely across the base. Also, there should be a
For balanced design, that is, conditions in which set of reinforcing bars parallel to each of the axes,
both concrete and steel are stressed to their full i.e., four sets of bars for an octagonal base, three
allowable capacity, the required depth (de) of the sets for a hexagon, etc., thus providing strength
base may be determined as follows: in all directions.
There should be at least 3 inches of concrete .
below the reinforcing bars at the bottom of the
_/ Mb base. Reinforcement in other parts of the founda-
dr = "' f P J'b (85) tion should be covered with not less than 2 inches
where of concrete.
dr = depth of base, measured from top of concrete
to centerline of reinforcing steel: (inches)
Mb =bending moment in base. (inch-pounds) Example No. 6. Determine bottom reinforcement
f. = safe working stress, reinforcing steel in ten- for the foundation referred to in example No.1.
sion. (pounds per sq. in.)
P = ( A0 dr ) = ratio of effective area of rein-
Figure bending loads
Line (m2 w)
72"
=-2- = 36"
forcing steel to effective area of concrete.
j = ratio of lever arm of resisting couple to depth 803 X 36
(dr). Load (m. r,) = 357 pounds/sq. ft.
b.= width of beam (line ab, Figure 3d). (inches) 81
A.= effective cross sectional area of steel reinforce- Load (q, r,) = +
357 522 = 879 pounds/sq. ft.
ment in tension. (square inches) Load ( v, p) = 803 - 357 = 446 pounds/sq. ft.
If the design is balanced, that is, the actual Figure moment (Mb)
depth of the base ( dr) is that calculated by equa- Line (ab) =29.8"
tion (85), the value of (A,) may be determined Line (ta) = 45"
as follows: Line (gt) = 18.65"
29.8" X 45" 45" .
A.= b. dr P (86) 144 sq. m.
X 879 pounds/sq. ft. X - 2- = 184,000 m.-lbs
If the depth ( dr) is greater than required by 18.65 X 45 45 X 2
equation (85), in which case the steel is stressed 144 X 879 X 3 = 153,000
to its full capacity but the concrete is under- 29.8 X 45 446 X 45 X 2
stressed, the value of (A.) becomes: 144 X -l- --3- = 62,300
Mo 18.65 X 446 X 45 45 X 2
A.=~d 144X3 X 2 x-3- = 51,900
Io' t
(87)
Total (Mb) = 451,200 in.-lbs.
If the depth ( dr) is less than required by equa-
tion (85), it is recommended that the dimensions Check depth of base for balanced design ( equa-
of the base be changed to give the required depth. tion (85)
In case circumstances make it impossible to in-
crease ( dt) to the required dimension, it will be f.= 18,000
p.= .0089
necessary to increase the amount of reinforcement j = .87
used. The determination of the amount of rein- b.= 29.8"
forcement required for such special cases is be- f. p. j = 138.7
yond the scope of this article, and reference is
made to the various publications dealing speci-
d
f(baloa. .l
_/
="' 451,200
138.7 X 29.8
-- 10.5"

fically with concrete design for further details.
Having calculated the cross sectional area of
steel required, a selection is made as to the dia-
meter, 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 di-
mension 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 re-
quired for that portion of the foundation having
a width equal to ( ab), Figure 3d, which was as-
sumed to be the cantilever beam carrying the en-
tire bending load. This amount of reinforcement
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).
Number required ~i J = 5.5. Use 6 bars within
3
the width of beam (ab).
Spacing
29
t'
= 4.96''. Use 5-inch spacing en-
tirely across side (gf). which will require
67
t'
= 13 bars per set. Four sets of bottom reinforcing
bars will be required for the octagonal foundation.

17
 19d. Reinforcement to Resist Stresses Moment
Due to Uplift 29.8 X 45 .~
As explained previously, the wind moment cre- 144 X 570 X 2 = 119,000 in.-lbs.
ates a positive soil load on one side of the center-
line, and a negative load on the opposite side. In
18.6:: 45 X 570 X 45 ~ Z = 99,500
other words, the action of the wind tends to lift Total (M~) ;:::: 218,500in.-lbs.
the foundation on the negative side. This upward
force, or "uplift" effect, is resisted by the weight From equation (87a)
of the concrete base itself, and by the weight of A _ 218,500 inch lbs.
the earth fill on top of the base. It therefore be- - 18,000 X .87 X 22 .636 sq. in. within beam
comes necessary to reinforce the top of the base, width (29.8")
to resist the resulting negative bending moment. Use 0-inch deformed square bars, at to-inch
The procedure is quite similar to that described centers.
for the upward soil reaction (Seetion 19c). The
load acts on the area (abfg), and the outline of the 19e. Bond
theoretical beam carrying the load ig (abut) as in In order for the reinforcement to be effective,
Section 19c. However, in this case the load is th~ the strength of the bond between concrete and
weight per square foot of concrete base, plus the steel must be sufficient to permit the reinforce-
weight per square foot of the earth fill, and is uni- ment to develop its full strength. The bond stress
formly distributed, thus simplifying the calcula- may be calculated by means of the following
tions. After figuring the moments, the reinforce- formula:
ment is determined in exactly the same manner as
explained in Section 19c, using the equation v.
u = :t. jdt- (88)
M.. where
A.= u = bond stress per unit of area of surface of bar.
o1-
'dtf (87a) (pounds)
In this case, ( dr) is the depth of the base fron: ::t. = sum of perimeters of bars within the limits or
the beam width (ab). (inches)
the centerline of the upper layer of reinforcement
to the bottom of the base, and (Mu) is the bending Example No. 8. Check bond stresses in example
moment due to the uplift forces (inch-pounds). No.1.
Example No. 7. Determine top reinforcement to Bottom reinforcement
resist uplift in the foundation referred to in ex-
ample No.1. v. = 11,578 lbs. (See example No. 4)
:t.= 6X .5 X 4= 12"'
Weight of concrete By equation (88)
1SO lbs./cu. ft. X 2 ft. = 300lbs./sq. ft.
Weight of earth 11,578
90 lbs./cu. ft. X 3 ft. = 270 lbs./sq. ft. u = -t'""z'"'x...,..;.:.8:::7_,.X....,...,..2t=- =53 lbs.
Total = 5701bs./sq. ft.
Bond stress for bottom reinforcement is satis-
factory, as 75 pounds is permissible (see Table 2).
Top reinforcement
TAILI 2 Figure shear
Conttcaftta Applying to foundation DNI8" 47.2" X 24"
144 X 570 lbs. =4,480Jbs.
Mt.ture: Cement .............................. I 1
Sand ................................. l l 9.95 X 24 X
Coane Aallftaate ..................... 4 5 570 = 947
fb Safe bcvlna load on concrete (lbs./IIQ. in.). 500
---376
144
Total (V.) = 5,4271bs.
f~ Ultimate compreuive etrength (lbt./IIQ. in.) 2,000
---
1.500 ::t. = 3 X .5 X 4 = 6
fo Safe unit atress In extn:me fibl!t' of concrete
--- 5427
(88)
(in comprcsaion)~(Jba./sq. ln.) ........ 800 600 u = 6 X .87 X 22 =48tbs.
f4 Safe unit strass In concrete due to vertical
---
shear (diaronal tenaion} (lbs./~q. in,) 40 30 The bond stress in top reinforcement is satis-
Safe unit stresa in concrete baae due to
- - - factory, as 75 pounds would be atlowed.
f.
punchina shear. (lb&./IIQ. in.) ........ 120 90
f. Safe workinll, atreu. steel reinforcement in
---
tet~tion. (I e./tq. in.) .................. 18.000 18.000
(f. j) (.l.bch-pounds) .......................... 16.600
---
16.000
19f. Bearing Stresses
The bearing stresses (where the steel tower
(1. Jp.) (l11ch-pounde) .......................... 138.7 88.9 rests on the concrete pedestal) seldom cause any
I Ratio. lever arm of rnlatlng couple to
--- difficulty, but should be checked as a safety pre-
depth (dr) ......... .87 .89
--- caution. The bearing stresses consist of the stress
[ n .. Efu.. I Ratio, modulue o( elatticity of steel to that
of concrete .......................... 16 IS due to wind pressure, plus the stress due to the
--- dead load as follows :
{p.Ao/ I Ratio. effeetlve area of tenalon reinforce-
rnent to elf ~tive area of concrete ...... .0089 .0056
u
/b.dr
Safe bond ttrea.t (concrete to steel rein
--- Bearing stress= 4M,/rrD,2 + (W. + W.)/17'0, (37a)
forcemeDt} per "Ualt of area of ~urface
of ~:in(f:~~~! ................... 60 45
(See Sections 11 and 12.)
Deformed bart ..................... 76 56 Equation (37a) gives the bearing stress in
pounds per lineal foot of shell circumference.
Theae tiguree may be allihtly lno:r~ by makin& "U"-beoda on thf' These stresses are spread over the area of the base
ende of tbe relnfordnl ban.
Note:-The 1:2:4 mixture Ia te>mmfJlded u moet satiafactory for founda- ring, therfore for practical purposes the unit bear-
tloru of the type. The conetanta for tha 1:2:5 mixture are preaented aa a matter
of latereet. ing stress can be determined as follows:

18
 4M. + w.+w. this case are given for illustration only, the design
'IT D.' 71' D, has not been changed to take maximum advantage
f. = 12r... (37b) of the allowable stresses.
in which The stresses in foundations of this type should
r., = width of the tower base ring. (inches)
fb = unit compre~sion stress on concrete. not exceed those commonly accepted as good engi-
(pound s/sq. 1n.) neering practice in reinforced-concrete design, for
the particular mixture of concrete used. As a mat-
Equation (37b) may be modified slightly, de- ter of convenience Table 2 is presented to show
pending on the exact shape and arrangement of allowable stresses and miscellaneous constants ap-
the base ring ( ~r base plate) , but in the majority plying 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 primar-
ily 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, how-
ever, 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 de-
signer must use his own judgment as to the num-
ber 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, consider-
able concrete and weight may be saved by con-
structing 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 protec-
tion and bond for the reinforcing bars.
Foundations supported on piles should be so
FIGURE 7 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
of cases it mav be used in the above form with piles. (See Figure 6.)
reasonable accuracy. Considerable inconvenience is sometimes en-
For guyed towers, equation (37b) becomes: countered in setting the tower in place, due to the
difficulty of lowering the heavy vessel over the
4M, + R.+w.+w. foundation bolts without bending some of them
'iT n, 71' n,
or damaging the threads. Figure 7 illustrates a
fb = -- 12r., (37c)
method of overcoming this difficulty. A sleeve
19g. Allowable Stresses in Foundation nut is welded to the top of the bolt, and so placed
lt is to be noted that in actual practice the depth that the top of the nut lies slightly below the
of the base in the examples given above could be surface of the concrete, with a sheet metal sleeve
reduced, if desired. All of the 5tresses for diagonal around it. The tower may then be placed in posi-
tension, punching shear, bending (upward and tion without interference from the bolts. Stud
downward) and bond in the reinforcement are well bolts are next inserted through the lugs on the
below the allowable values. As the examples in tower, and screwed into sleeve nuts from the top.

Nomenclature
Ao - effective cross sectional ~rca of steel reinlorce~t iu Len b' ~ width of critical aection which serves t o resist th e diagonal
sion (sq~arc inchu) tension stres ses. ( line &1 bs, Figure 3.) (inches)
F or balanced dul rn c - distance from neutral axi s of foundation b"<e to point of
Ao - bo dr Pr (86) maximum st rus. (feet)
If depth (dr) is anater than required by cq,ua1ion (85) c' = di5tance from centro idal ais of foundation base to any point
under conoidcration. ( feet}
Mb
A o - T.J(jj (87) D ,.. outside diameter of tow er. (lett)
I'or top reinfo rcement o f slab to resist uplift struses: D, = inside diameter of tower. (feet)
M. 8' ) Do= tower diameter measured over insulation. (feet)
Ao "" f,jdr (ta
Db- diameter o f foundation bolt circle. (feel)
a~ area of base of foundation (sq. ft.) do ~ short dial1) oter of foundation bue. (feet)
&v = plan area of foundation pcdcatal (sq. ft.)
d. = shol'l diameter of critical section Cor diagonal tension
B = barometric prcuure (inches Ha) stresses (sec: Fiaurea 3 and Jc). (inclu:&)
bo = width of the critical section (equal to the width of tbe lace dt = eUective depth of base of foundation, measured from top of
of the pedestal) anumed to act as a cantilever beam resist base 10 centerline of reinforcin&' steel. (inche&)
inr the bending streuu (line ab, Fi1urc 3d) (inches)

19
d, = short diameter of found ation pedestal. (feet) P .. - total wind load (pounda) to be calculated aa follows :
Ec ... modulus of elasticity of concrete. Pw- P Do H (8)
Eo - modulua of elasticity of reinforcinr steeL p ,.. wind prusure on a flat surface. (pounds per oq. lt.)
e = ecctntricity. (feet) Pc - wind pressure on projected uea of a cylindrical tower.
This factor i1 the distance from the centroidal axit of the (pounds per sq. ft.)
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 :
P- penetration or sinking of pile under the last hammer blow,
on sound wood. (inclies)
Mr P = ratio, cflective area of reinforcin steel to effective area of
e = l jj;- (12) concrete.

Equation (12) .rives the eccentricity at tbt condition of P = ( A.of ba dr)

poorest atability, that is1 with the minimum dud load. This
11 the value which ordmarily is used for design purposes, Ro - hori..ontal wind reaction or 1hur at base of tower. (pounds)
however, it ia obvious that the eccentricity for maximum Ro- horizontal wind ruction at collar. (pounds)
dead lo11d c~nditions can be .calculated by substituting the
value of (W) in equation (12) in place of (Wo). The R = pull on JUY wire due to wind pressure. (pounds)
m4.n"mm value which it is pos&iblt for (e) to han and still Re
maintain tbe stability of the foundation is R - Sin I or, (40)

'- ' or
e .... - - c (19) R 1 =esc I (41)
R.- vertical component of pull on rur wire. (pounds)
ema.:- -
z- (19a) R.- ( Rr +
Ro) cos I (4S)
a Rt - initial tension on guy wire. (pounds)
Values of (emu) for various foundation shapes are as r - radius of gyration of the base of tlte foundation (feet). Its
follows: relation to the moment of inertia can be expre&led u followa:
Ocl&Jon,: e .... - O.l22d (22)
Hexagon: e .... - 0.121d (22a)
I ~ ar1 (1 7)
Square: e , - O. ll8d (22b)
rear ran;inr:
d (22c)
r-~!
Circle: emaa---
8 (25)
The value of (e) u calculated by equation ( 12), and bas~d
on the minimum dead load (W ) should 11cvcr oxcoed the rw ~
width of tower base rinJ. (Inches)
value calculated by equations (19) or (19a). S = totalunit soil loadinr. (pounds/sq. ft.)
S- s, +
Ss also, (I)
F - barometric prusu.re. (inchu H 1) S -St (I+ lc) (59)
I - height of hammer fall. (feet) s, =unit soil loAdinr due to dead load. (pounds/sq. ft.)
1, = unit bearing stress on concrete. (pounds/sq. in.). (See equa s,,. ~ unit soil loading due to minimum dead load (r>ounds/sq. h.)
tions 37b and 37c) to inclu~e the weirht of the empty tower, the foundation and
fe - 1;8.ff! unh streu in ~xtreme fiber of concrete (In compres the ~anh fill only. It does not include insulation, platforms,
sion). (pounds/sq. in.) piring, liquid, uc.
f'- ultimate compteuive ttrength of concrete. (pounds/sq. ~n.) So .,. unit soil loadinr due to overturning moment . (poundJ/tq. ft.)
r.- unit stress in concrete (in diaronal tension) due to vertocal So= total maximum unit shurin&" load. (pounds per lineal foot

1-- shur load. (pounds/sq. in.)

unit streaa in concrete base due to punching shear. (pounds/
sq. in.)
of ped~ s tal peri meter)
So - S. +
S. (II)
So ~unit shearin&' load due to dead load. (pound per lineal foot
s. o I ped est a I perimeter)
fv - i2dt (M)
S ' ...
w. + w. + w,- <a, so~ (82)
fo- safe workin1 strtss, ateel reinforcement in tension. (rounds/ J.,p
sq. in.) So- maximum unit sheaoing load due to onrtu rnio.r moment.
H - height of tower. (feet) (pounds/linn\ foot of Pedestal perimeter).
h r - keigbl of foundation. (feet) For pedestals of various ohapes, the value of (S.) are as
hs = heilht of collar (to which the guy wires are attached) above follows:
foundation. (fed)
r ... moment of inertia of the base of the foundation. (b~sed on Octaron ;
dimensions in feet)
j - ratio of lner arm of resisting couple to det>lh dt. (Sec Ilexason:
table 2)
lc - factor by which the soil loadi111 due to dead load m.usl be Square' (83b)
multiplied to equal tbe soil loading due to overturnn.r, as
follows:
Cucle: (83c)

JcS,- S., also (S7)

(68) Sou = maximum allowable unit soil loadin&'.(pounds/oq. ft.)
Valuea of k for variou foundation shapes a1e as follows:
s~ -
load on each foundation bolt. (pounds)
S, - unit soil loadi"i due to pull on guy wires. (pounds/aq. ft.)
Octaron: k- --d-
8.15e
(72) s.,.- total unit soil loadift&' under minimum dead load couidtioou.
(pounds/sq. ft.)
8.32e So ""'unit ttreu in tower shell due to bendin~r moment (Yt).
IIe:ucon : k = -(1 - (72a) (poundo/oq. ft.)
t = h~JI thickness. (feet)
Square: k = ..!:!~ (72b) u ~ bond atress (between concrete and reinforcln~r steel) per
d
unit of aoea of urface of bar. (pounds)
Circle: k = S.Ole
d
(72c) V - velocity of wind. (miles per hour)
L- lner arm of wind load (feet) t o be calculated as follows:
V =
vertical shear load outside the criti~al xction (ne F igures 3"
and Jc:). (pound5)
II W = total .weia-ht on soil (poundo) calculated by' the followin~r
L~hr+-- (9) equation;
2 w-W+W (3)
Lo -perimeter of foundation pedestal. (feet) W - weight of auxiliary material and equipment supported by the
foundation (pounds), includin liquid in the tower, insula
'M ~ bending moment in base. (inch-pounch) lion, platforms, piptng, etc. (Does not include weight of
Mo - negative bending moment at collar. (foot-pound s) (see equa tower.)
tion 53) W - we!ll'ht oC hammer. <voundl!)
Mt- overturning moment about base of foundation. (footJ)Oundo) w, = weiaht of foundation pedestal (top course). (pounds)
Mr = Pw L (7J W, =weight of empty tower. (pounds)
Mo - maximum positive bendinr moment between collar and base. W ~ n1inimum dead load .(pou11ds) which is the weiJilt of the
(foot pounds) (see equation H) empty tower plus the weirllt of the foundation, including the
M ~ bending moment about bast of tower. (fooloj>OUtl<h) earth fill on top of the base.
Z- uction modulus o{ the bate of the foundation (to b~ based
Mt = Pw ( ~) (26) on foundltion dimensions in feet) as follows :

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

z - -1c (It)

N = number of foundation bolu rr~ 3.1416

n"" (Eo/Eo) - ratio, n.;~dulut of eluticity of ateel to that of I ~ angle which ruy wil'e maku with the vertical. ( derrees)
concrete. l:o- sum of perimeters of noinforcin&' bars withi11 the limits of
P = safe load which each pile will support, (pounds) the beam width (ab). (inchea).

20
Simplified Design for
Tower Foundations
0
Curves reduce design time for octagonal ...o..,
t-- -t--+--+--'k;.::0_--1 ~ ~
+t
reinforced concrete tower foundations by 0
I

quick selection of base size, thickness, re- ~"g

...,_
::oCJ

inforcement area and unit bond stresses --=

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.
Equivalent
Since agreement on these important phases is not com- Square
plete, this presentation uses The American Concrete ACI 1208
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
~
Section tor Bond
on the inscribed circles of the octagonal base. This does ond Moment
not influence the accuracy of the final results. The foun- ACI 1204 (o),l205(c)
dation engineer is ever mindful of the fact that a sub-
structure design based on inexact soil bearing determina- FIGURE 1-The resultant of all forces is within the kern.
tions, 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 radius equal to Ys of the diameter of the circular founda-
more important than carrying out computations to more tion) the maximum soil pressure P is equal to the total
significant places than the information and assumptions height of the right circular cylinder and ungula drawn
warrant. to graphically represent forces acting on the base.
For this condition the maximum soil bearing
Foundation Size. As the size of the foundation is the
first design requirement after the permissible soil bearing P= -
?TR2
W(
1+-
D
8e)
has been established, the formulas used for this determi-
nation will be derived in that order. and the minimum soil bearing equals
When the resultant of all forces acting on the founda- the height of the soil pressure cylinder or
tion strike the base within the kern, the forces acting on
the soil can be represented graphically by a right regular h =~(1
?TR -~)
D
2
cylinder resting on an ungula of a right regular cylinder.
If it is on the edge of the kern the soil reaction forces Let V equal volume of cylinder and ungala which
form an ungula whose base is a circle; when it is outside equals W, the total vertical load.
the kern, the ungula has a base in the form of a circular To get the general formula, let the maximum soil bear-
segment (Figure 1). The volumes of these solids are ing equal unity and h equal minimum soil bearing, then
equal to the total weight supported by the soil, and their the total load
moments about the center of the base are equal to the
moments of the external forces acting on the foundation ?TR2 (1- h} ?TRI (h+ 1)
W = ?TR 2h +
2
-
-
----=--
2
about the same place. Then the eccentricity "e" meas-
ured from the center of the foundation equals
For a value of ~ less than Ys, the maximum soil bear-
external moment of all forces (M)
Total vertical load (W) ing (unity) can be computed in terms W and D. As an
which is equal to the moment of the forces acting on the example, for
bottom of the foundation divided by the total forces w
acting on the base. e/D= .10, P 1 =A(1 + .8) and Pmln. =
Resultant Within the Kern. For the condition where W .2W
the resultant is within the kern (the area inscribed by a TC1-.8) =-x-
21
SIMPLIFIED DESIGN FOR TOWER FOUNDATIONS . R esultant Outside the Kern. For the development of
the equations for moments and total forces acting on
1
If 1.8 is reduced to unity or P, then Pm 1n . = - - the the base when the resultant force is outside the kern,
9
refer to Figures 1 and 2, which show this condition.
height of the right cylinder and the height of the ungala To get the volume of the ungula of height P, whose
becomes%
base is bounded by the angle a as measured from the
Then X axis, we have dV = d A P'. dV is a volume whose
r.R2(
W=- I
- --g+LO
2
) = -5r.R2
- o r C R~
9 v
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
Where Cv is a coefficient which when multiplied by P 1 (Cos</> Cos a)
the product of the maximum soil pressure and radius P' _.:....:__ _ _ _.:...; dA=2R Sin</> dx and dx=R Sin</>d</>.
(I -Cos a)
squared will give W, or the total volume of the cylinder
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 ( ~) 2

TABLE 1-coeftlclents for Various e / d Values

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
--- - - -- - v
-- -M
- e/D c
---v
---
I( CvR C.,Ra 2 M/2V V/ 4(o/ d) /D CvR V/ 41e/ d)2
--
.10
1" - - - -- - -
u 62' .0660 .0603 .467 .079 .12 1.602
---
27.82
.15 45 34' .1198 .1045 .436 .167 .II 1.671 34.52
.20 sa 08' .1823 .1516 .416 .264 .10 1.745 43."3
.25 60. .2618 .1088 .396 .403 .09 1.826 56.34
.30 66 66 25' .3269 .2448 .374 .583 .08 1.916 74.84
.35 72 6 32' .4068 .2879 .36 1 .811 .07 2.013 102.7
.40 78 28' .4904 .3276 .333 1.099 .06 2.121 147.3
.45 84 16' .5773 .3626 .314 1.463 .05 2.244 224.4
.50
.65
9006
96 44'
.6666
.7679
.3927
.4172
.291
.276
1.921 .04 2.380 371.8 p' :
2.605 .036 2.464 600.8
.60 101 32' .8604 .4354 .256 3.235 .03 2.533 i03.i
.65 1076 28' .9440 .4493 .238 4.170 1 - - - - -
.70 tta 35' 1.038 ..4667 .220 6.370 Rcoultant inside korn
.75 120 1.128 .4557 .202 6.97
.80 12666 52' 1.226 .4537 .165 8.94
.85 134 26' 1.312 .4408 .168 11.65
.90 u3 08' 1.404 .4297 .153 14.99
.95 154" 09' 1.488 .4107 .138 19.60
1.00 1800 1.671 .3927 . 126
.-
26.13
-- -
Re~ultant outside or on edge of kern
--
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
c 14.75
FIGURE 3-Curve used to determine soil bearing or diameter of foundation base.
22
 k' O 10
a..
7S
.70
a:
.65 .65
~
60 .60
.55 .55

50 .50 I

.45 .45
....
2
ACII205~a) 4 5 far Shear
ACI 1205 (b)
.40 .40 .c
(/)

t
. 35

.30
.35

. .30
k -....
0

".a

Equivalent Square
.25 .25
ACI 1208

.20

.175

. 15
FIGURE 5-The soil reaction is the sum of the forces in the
shaded area.
.125 .125
2
or M = CRSP 1 where C =
(1 - Cosa)

., 0
[
a + Cos a Sin a - 2Coss a Sin a _
8
Cos a SinS
3
a] . . . (2)
FIGURE 4-Curve plot of Columns 1 and 5, Table 1.
By use of equations 1 and 2, Columns 3, 4, 5 and 6
Jy substitution, of Table 1 were computed for values of K or angle alpha.
2R2P1 M e V
dV = (Cos</> - Cos a )Sin 2 </>d</>
(1 - Cosa) Column 5 = 2V =0 andColumn6 = (~ ) 2

and V = 2R P12

( 1 - Cosa)
)a (Cos</>-Cosa) Sin2</>d</>
4

0 The curves on Figure 3 were plotted by using Columns

5, 6, 7 and 9. From these curves the size of the founda-
= 2R2P1 [Sins</> -Cos a ( !_- _I_ Sin</> Cos</> )] " tion can be obtained for a permissible soil bearing or
( I -Cos a ) 3 2 2 0
conversely, the soil bearing can be computed for a known
-_ (1 -2R2P 1
Cosa)
[Sin Sa
3
+ Sin a Cos2 -a- a Cos a
-----::-- 2
-- J foundation. The formula for soil bearing is
w
Pl = Ce2
Or V (W) = CR2P 1 where C =

2
(1-Cosa)
[ Sin3a +Sin a Cos 2 a -
3 2
a Cos a] . . . (1)
where W = weight of foundation and equipment and
e = eccentricity caused by wind moment, seismic
forces, etc. and
T he moment of any ungula which represents the forces C = a numerical coefficient for the respective e/ D
applil'd on the base of the foundation about the Y-Y value.
axis is the summation of the product of the differential With the maximum soil bea1;ng given
volumes, dV and R Cos q,. w
C=-
2R3P1 Plc2
So dM = ( 1 - Cosa)
[(Cos</>- Cos a ) Cos</> Sin2 </>d</>]
e e
which locates 0 = C and D = c
and M ( 2RSP1 } "'(Cos2 </> Sin2 </>-Cos a Cos SinZ </> ) d
1-Cos a) 0 e
The relation between K and D is shown by the curve
8
2R P 1
( 1-Cosa)
[ - ..:_
8
( -1 Sin 4-cf> -
4
cf>) _ Cos a Sin~
3
"']It
0
on Figure 4 which was formed by using Columns 1 and 5
of Table 1.
2R3P 1
( I - Cos a) Foundation Thickness. After getting the SIZe of the
[ a + Cos a Sin a -
8
2Cos3 a Sin a _ Cos a :inS a J 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 0 Voluont of Slrtll Prls (!) Voluou of Slrtu Pris
Shttt C 1 R (Stt Ttblt 2 Col13l Whose But il Tropuoid ond Wedge +Seclioo of Unouto
c ~~ R (Set Ttblt 2 Cot. s a 6 I.
Segment of Circle CPsR2(su Tobie 2
2 Col.3).

.40

.35

.30

.25 .25

.15
. l 0 - 2 0.15

.to .1s .20 .2e .30 .35 .40 .45.50.s6Sl .70 .80.90 to 1.5 25 3.0 3.5 4.04.550 tlrul~tf::E 10
c
FIGURE ~urves for computing shear for diagonal tension.

ally the controlling factor. In many designs this limits By integrating and substituting the values of the trigo-
the strength of the concrete to 2,500 psi for the most nometric functions for the45 degree angle, the force V =
P.eonomical foundation. The soil reaction considered in 2R'P
computing diagonal tension is the sum of the forces acting ( _cO:) [.11785- .1427 Cos]
1
between 90 degree radial lines drawn from the center of This formula provided the value in Column 4 Table 2
the base through the two corners of the equivalent square for the various values of K (a).
and bounded by section B-B. This section is parallel to
the side of the square at a distance "d," (depth of con- The volume of the wedge is =
crete) from it. One can see by Figure 5 that these forces R2P4 (.707 -Cosa)2(2 Cos .a+ 2.828)
can be represented by a section of an ungula whose 6(1-Cosa)
height is P,, a wedge whose base is a trapezoid abed and
. h (.707-Cosa)P,
and for the respective K and a values the volumes are
heJg t of ( 1 _Cos) and a force solid whose area recorded under Column 5, Table 2.
These two columns are added (See Col. 6) and the
of base is the area of the trapezoid abed and the segment
results are plotted producing Curve 3 of Figure 6.
of the circle whose chord is cd and of height P 5 This
T he width of the footing "b" for diagonal tension is
latterareais [ : -(1-2K') 2 JR The force is R P
2 2
6
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
[ : -( 1 - 2K')2 J and is Column 3 of Table 2. (See in Table 2, Column 13.

curve 2, Figure 6.) Bond-lending Moment. The slab is now investigated

When K is .1465 or less, this area is a segemnt of a to determine the area of reinforcement and unit bond
circle. T he volume of the section of the ungula can be stresses. T he moment of all forces to the right of Section
solved by application of limits of 45 degrees for in A-A, Figure 1, determines the area of steel, and the sum
computing the volume. of these forces is the shear used in computing the bond.
Section A-A is located by passing a vertical plane through
2R' P C5
V= ( 1 _ Co: a) ) (Sin2 t/1 Cos t/1- Cos a Sin2 t/l)dt/1
the foundation along the side of the equivalent square.
0 The external forces acting on the base can be conceived

TABLE 2-Values to Calculate Diagonal Tension, lond, Moment and Beam width
1 l 3 4 5 6 '1 8 9 10 1l ll 13

K
v
CPR'
Sec. Unit.
C'PR'
weclr
cp,
Col .
4+5
CPR
Ungula
CPoR
~.Cy1.
PaR 1
Mom.
Un l
CPt
M.
SeQ. Cyl.
lRaln
CR
Octaton
CR
..b ..
CR
.10 a& 52' .1635
.2954
.0660 ..... .0660 .0668 .1635 .0076 .0132
.0361
1.20 1.28
1.43
1.20
1.40
.15 411 84' .1198 .1198 .1198 .29115 .0203 1.40
.20
.24
63 08'
60"
.4264
.53M
.1611
.1860
:oio3
.0547
.1804
.2407
.1823
.2518
.4473
.6142
.0422
.0729
.0729
.12119
1.60
1.73
1.63
1.83
1.20
1.00
.30 66 25' .62M .2029 .0951 .2980 .3269 .79?:1 .1140 .1961 1.83 2.00 .80
.35 7-;;- 32 .6954 .2144 .1353 .3497 .4068 .9780 .1658 .2829 1.91 2.00 .60
.40 78" 28 .7(54 .2232 .1726 .3958 .4904 1.173 .2294 .3924 1.96 2.00 .40
.45 84 16' .17M .2302 .2067 .4369 .5773 1.389 .30t9 .5195 1.99 2.00 .20
.50 90" .7854 .2~7 .2~7 .47M .6666 1.671 .39?:1 .6666 2.00 2.00 .00
Dlneooal Tension Bond Bendin& Mom. Width Beam

24
 volume of Strtn Priam Whou Bou it Segment of (!) Moment of Sinn Priam (Ungula) About Section
_ . _ CP3 R3
Circle , uud in Computing Shear C p 3 R 2' A A , Fog. I - IO

(!)Volume of Siren Prism Which is on Ungula , ustd (!) Moment of Strtu Prism , Section of Crlindtr
CPgR2 CP R3
in Computing Shear About Section A-A ~

@ 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 By substituting in this equation the trigonometric val-
segment of a right circular cylinder of height P3 The ues for the respective angles corresponding to the K",
sum of the two volumes is the shear force, and the sum Column 9, was obtained and CurveD plotted on Figure 7.
of their moments about A-A is the bending moment that The moment on the forces whose configuration is a
determines the reinforcement. The weights of the con- segment of a cylinder (see Figures 1 and 2) is derived
crete slab and earthen fill are deducted from the vertical as follows:
forces. This is easily accomplished by reducing the inten-
sity of the uniform bearing load acting ~n the bottom of dM = 2RSP8 ~~Cos- Cos a) Sin2 d
the base.
The volumes for the ungula have been computed
earlier for obtaining soil bearing and those values for K [
SinS -
3
1
Cos a( - -- Sin 2 )
4
]a
0

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.) = 2R3P3
[
Sins a
3
+ Sin a Cos2a -
2
a Cos a J
The volume of the segment of the cylinder is equal to
the product of the area of the segment and P8 The area The values obtained for the angles a (K) are noted in
is easily computed by making use of the fact that the Column 10 and form Curve E, Figure 7.
middle ordinate is KD. Values for the respective K" are The widths of the foundation at the sections are equal
shown in Column 8, Table 2 and plotted as Curve A, to 2R Sin a and are shown in Column 11, Table 2, and
Figure 7. Curve C, Figure 7. Column 12 and the dotted curve
The bending moment equation is derived by substitut- (Figure 8) indicate the width of beams for any octagon.
ing R (Cos 4> - Cos a) for R Cos 4> in the development
of the formula for moment about the center of the foun- Use of Curves. As an illustration of application of the
dation. curves, the following information is given: height of ves-
sel, 112 feet; diameter, 8 feet; the anchor bolt circle
. giVes
T hIS . M = 2R3Pl ~a (Cos - d
Cos a) 2Sm 2 requires a 10-foot octagonal pier; top of pier is one foot
(1- Cos a) 0
above grade and 6 feet, 6 inches above the bottom of the
_ 2RBP 1 [ 1 ( 1 . ) 2 Cos a Sins foundation; permissible soil bearing 3,000 psf (P 1 ) at 5
- (1-Cosa) - 8 T 5 m 4- - 3 feet, 6 inches below grade; wind pressure, 30 psf of hori-

2
- Cos a ( : - + J: Sin 2)
zontal projection of the vessel.
Operating weight of vessel, 200 kips; vessel empty, 100
kips; and test weight, 300 kips.
2 8 1 The diameter of the base required under operating
M= R P [.::_(1+4Cos2a) -2-SinaCos3 a -
(l-Cosa) 8 4 conditions will be determined first.
- 2 C osa smsa + Sin a Cos a] The moment of wind force about the bottom of the
3 8 foundation is 112 x .03 x 8 x 62.5 = 1680 iap-feet.
25
SIMPLIFIED DESIGN FOR TOWER FOUNDATIONS .. center of equipment to the point where the diagonal
9.1
Estimate the weight of the foundation using a 22 foot,
tension is computed is-2-+ 1.17 or 5.72. Then K'D =
6 inch octagon, two feet thick. 5.28 )
11.0-5.72 = 5.28 and P. = ( - - 2,900 = 790 psf,
19.35 .
Pier= (82.8) (6.5) (.15) = 81 kips
Slab= (419-82.8) (.3) = 101 and P5 = 2,900 - (790 + 625) = 1,475 psf. K' =
Fill = 336.2 ( .35) = 118 5.28
22.0 = 24
Total = 300
Weight of vessel (operating) = 200 By referring to the curves for computing shear for
diagonal tension (Figure 6) and using K = .24, the
w =500
width of the footing resisting shear is 1.04 ( 11.0) =
. . 1680 11.45 feet. The shearing force is= ( .515 ) (1,475) (1P)
EccentnCity e = 500
-- = 3.36 feet' c2 = 11 .3
+ (. 23) (790) ( 1 F) = 92,000 + 22,000 = 114,000
c= 500,000 114,000 . .
( 11. 3 ) ~,OOO = 14.75. With this value of C, ejD pounds. V = ( 11. 45 ) ( 14 ) ( 12 ) (.88 ) = 68 pst < 75 pst
is obtained from the curve on Figure 3 as .153. Then maximum allowed.
3.36 The section for computing bond and reinforcement is
D = - = 21.9ft.
. 153 taken along the side of the equivalent square, A-A Figure
Next try a 22 foot, 0 inch octagon with a thickness of
1 foot, 6 inches. 1. Then K'D = 11.0- ( -9.1- ) = 6.45 and K' = .293
2
The weight of concrete and fill becomes 280 kips and 6.45 ) 2,900 = 965 psf
W = 480 kips. To compute the maximum unit bearing P 2 = ( 19.35
1680
e =
480 = 3.5 feet e = 3.5 = .159.
0 22
P 3 = 2,900- (965 + 625 ) = 1,310 psf
By use of the curves on Figure 7, the shear for bond,
From the curve used above, C = 13.5 and
the bending moment and width of beam are computed
480,000 . . .
P,= _ ( . ) 2 = 2,900psf<3,000. Thts IS cons1dered to for K' = .293.
13 5 3 5 Width of beam = ( 1.82 ) ( 11) = 20.0 ft. (circle): ( 1.96)
be near enough to the allowable soil bearing. To strive ( 11) 0 = 21.55 ft. (octagon )
for closer agreement is believed to be inconsistent with (3.15) (965) (112)
the accuracy of the established bearing value of the soils +
Shear for bond = (.76) (1,310) ( 112) '---'---~--'--
10
and therefore would be a waste of time.
The unit bearing 1.mder the foundation for test condi-
+
= 120,600 36,800 = 157,400 lbs.
tions and one-half of maximum wind load is found to '8 d' (1.08) (965) (113)
en mg moment - O
be 2,370 psf. 1
To investigate the 1 foot, 6 inch slab for diagonal + (1.83) (1,310) (1 JS)
tension, the area of the 10-foot octagonal pier is used 10
to compute the side of the equivalent square of 9.1 feet. = 139,000 + 319,000 = 458,000 ft.-lbs.
With the e/D of .159, K is found to be .88, by use of 458
Figure 4 and KD = 19.35 feet. The distance from the 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
About the Author area becomes (. 75) ( 1.14) = .85 sq. in. A six-inch spac-
Andrew A. Brown, Captain, Civil Engineer Corps, ing each way of No. 6 bars = .88 sq. in. ~0 = 4. 7 inchcE
United States Naval Reserve, is Public Works Offi- . 157,400
cer, Naval Training Center, South and bond stress 1s = (20) ( l 4 ) (. 88 ) ( 4. 7) 137 psi.
Charleston, W. Va. and an engineer
in Design and Construction, Union Some foundation engineers prefer to base the steel and
Carbide Chemicals Company, South
Charleston. Mr. Brown's professional bond requirements on the middle one foot wide strip.
experience includes several years in Under this condition the force for bond is = ( 1,3 10 )
the Bridge Department, State Road (6.45) -J (Y2) (6.45) (965 ) = 8,450 + 3,110 = 11,560
Commission of West Virginia. He pounds.
has been a consultant on bridges for The bending moment is = (6.45 2) (Y2) (1,310) +
several cities. During his 12 years of
active duty in the United States ( Y3) (6.45 2 ) (965 ) = 27,300 + 13,400 = 40,700 ft.-lbs.
Navy some of his billets were: De- (.75) (40.7) . . .
sign and Construction Officer, Fifth As = (14 ) ( 1.44 ) = 1.51 sq. m., a five-mch spacmg each
Naval District, RO in CC, Naval Brown
Missile Test Center, Point Mugu, California, and Public way of number 7 bars = 1.44 sq. in., ~0 = 6.6 inches.
Works Officer, Naval Station, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 11,560 .
and Naval Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. He is a u = (6.6) (.88) (14) = 14 2 pst.
member of International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineers and has BSCE and CE degrees The design for the top of the slab reinforcement, "top
from West Virginia University. bars," which arc required by certain combinations of
loading, is left for the reader. ##
26
 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 frame-
work 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 appro-
priation 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 founda-
tions for towers and stacks was devised with this idea in
mind.
We have used the prototype of this form quite success-
fully 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 reinforce-
ment 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 de-
sign stresses in steel but very little confidence in the al-
lowable 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 re-
quired to make a detailed and accurate design for octag-
onal 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 un-
economical design or both. This method provides suf-
ficient 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 pur-
poses.
This form is intended for the complete design of foun-
dations 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. Di- DIAGONAL
TENSION
mension 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 Do- Dlo. outelcle

for vapor lines. loddert lntuL, ft
p lotformt~t_!ltc~.==::::_- !=~;:;:;:~I P..P4(T4)(q,tl) e
lb

- ..
..:
...

..:
lnsul. 0 u

! ... DIAGONAL
'a
.! FLEXURE
... 80 0 TENSIO

..
0

FIGURE 1-Record dimensional data on this figure. FIGURE 2-Stresses due to flexure, bond and diagonal ten
sion are computed along these sections.
Step 1. Record dimensional data on Figure 1. Depth
below grade, h 5, should be determined by a reliable R efer in the ASA bulletin to Figure 1 and Table 3
soil survey for the site. The pier diameter, D 2, is usually and list wind pressures for each height zone for the plant
about 1'-6" larger than the tower skirt diameter. The pad site as follows:
diameter, D 1 , and pad thickness, ht, must be assumed and
solved for by trial and error. For height zone, T 1,
P1 = 0.6 ( ) = _ _ __ _lbs./sq. ft.
For selecting an initial trial pad size, the following
Value from Table 3
method is suggested.1
Where wind load is likely to govern: 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. For height zone, T 4 ,
Mr =Total moment about base (See Step 2), ft.-lbs. P4 = 0.6 ( )= _ _ ___lbs/ sq. ft.
S =Allowable soil stress, lbs/ ft.2
(Suggest using 1,800 lbs ft2 for first trial.) 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
Wind load computations are based on the A.S.A. bul-
used.
letin "Minimum De~gn Loads in Buildings And other
Structures," A58.1-1955. WR = Weight of reboiler, full of water = lbs.
28
 Sten 2. Compute total overturning moment, Me.
Mw = Moment due to wind:
Lt (Pt) = X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ft.lbs.
L2 (P2) = X - - - - - - - - - - - -- ft.lbs.
L 8 (P8 ) = X ------------- ft.lbs.
L, (P,) = X - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - ft. lbs.
Tot. Mw
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 ( )= . sq. ft.
A 8 = Area of fill
= At-A2 - - -- - - - - - - - - _ sq. ft.
WB = Wt. of base =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:
Wa = Reboiler wt. ._ _ _ _ _ lbs.
Ww = Hydro. test water - - - - - - - lbs.
Insulation - - - - - - - lb$.
Piping lbs.
Platform and ladders _ __ _ __ _ lbs.
Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ lbs.
WA, Total = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ lbs.
W = Max.wt. on soil= WF+wc +WT+WA ,_ _ _ _ _ lbs.
Subtract Ww - - - - - - lbs.
W8 = Wt. of finished tower, empty - _ _ _ _ _ _ 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 _ ___, _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ lbs./ft.2
S2 = Soil stress due to wind= Mc/Z - _ _ _! _ _ _ = --- lbs./ft.t
S = Maximum stress = sl + s2 = _ _ _,/ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ 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

See "Anchor Bolu Detailing Dimensioru"

Projection JThreada on Ia$! page of thiJ article
____________ jn, __~r~l:=t in. Slze Thd. Net Hook Mln. Total
d Serte1 Area A J D Y L Len~th
Sleeve 1 ---
0 1 ~ 0.120 o-1 o.4 o-a 0'2 o-1

"."'.
-dla.x_ln. 0.202 0'-9 0'-s 0'-4' o-a 0'-9
o.302 0'-10 o'-6' 0'-5' o-a 1'-o-
---
~ 0.419 1'-0 0'-7' 0'~ 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

t}( 0.929 1'-8' 1'-1 0'-10' 0'-5' 2'-0'

I
1"'. - - - - - - 1 -- - t - - - 1 1 - - - 1- - -
1.155 t- u t'-2 o-u 0'-6' 2'-4'
~~ 1.405 2'-1' 1'-3 1'-0' 0'-6' 2'-7'
I
II
LJ
'".
2'
t.980
2.652
2'-s
2'-Q
1'-s
l'-8"
1'-2
1'-4'
0'-7
0'-8.
3'-a
3'-10'

D= 6d . 1/2 11
for bolts 1/2" to 7/8"
2" 3.42:1 3'-t 1'-ll' 1'-6. 0'-9" 4'6

D= 8d 1/2" for bolts 1" to 2 1/2"

2~ 4.292 3'-5" 2'- l" 1'-8" 0'-10" 5'-2"

Step 5. Check stability. The most unstable period is accessories. Should the designer so desire, the moment can be
usually just after mounting the tower on its foundation, reduced for this check by substituting the tower djameter for
prior to adding the weight of accessories. (D0 + I) in Figure 1, eliminating rcboilcr moment and recom-
puting moment on tower in a stripped condition as it nonnally
Erection smln. = (W- wA)/Al -S2 = (__ - __) would be during erection. If this jg done, stability under operat-
! ___ - ___ =___
lbs./ft. 2 ing conditions should also be checked as follows: (See Case 1
above)
Smto. (Soil stress on windward side) must be~ 0
This computation will give a resultant minimum soil stress S1 = lbs./ft.
which is on the safe side for stability because the vertical load Subtract S = _________ Jbs./ft.
is computed with the tower stripped of accessories and the over- 2
turning moment used in computing S2 includes moment due to Operating Smin. = lbs./ft. and must be~ 0

Step 6. Compute dimensions and loads for computa-

tions of stresses in foundation pad. Compute size of
square pedestal with equi'"alent area of octagonal pedes-
tal, A 2 (See Figure 2.)
--( ___ ) ______ lbsft 2

(ACI-318-PAR 1208 (a)) ~a+d(S)

~D.
a="VA; = V ft.2 = - - - - - ----ft.
b= .414 (D 1 ) = .414 (- - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ft.
+ __ ___ ( ) = ______ Jbs ft2

S7 = Sa - SG = - - - _ _ _ Jbs/ft2
c = .707 (b) = .707 <- - -)
- -- - -----ft. S8=S4 - S0 = _ __ ---- _ _ _ lbs/ft2

- - - = - - - - - --ft.
S9 = ~!/:2 +D dz(S ) (d ~ .
4
1
IS
. f
m t.)

+
= - _______ ft. - --- _ (____) = _____ Jbs ft2
m =a+ 2 d 2 (d 2 is in ft., here)

=- -+-------- ft.
y=b+c + +
- ------- _ __ ) = _ _ _ _ Lbs/ft 2
---+---- ------ - - f t .

S.=
~ WaA+lwr =----- ------ lbs./ft.2 - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ lbs/ft2

S4 = S 1 + S2 - S3
= ___ + _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ lbs./ft.2 _____ _lbs/ft2
- -----
30
 TABLE 2-Type 2 Bolts with 90 Hook

See "Anchor Bolu Detailing Dimensions"

Projec tion on last page of this article
_____ in.
------~n. S ize T h d. Net Hook Min. Total

Sleeve 0
d SHiea
--- Area
- - --
0.126 0'-9'
--
A

-
J
0'-8'
-
- D
--
0'-4'
- -- -
--
0'-6'
--
0'-7'
-
y
Len a th

-
-
L ..

-dia. x_in. 0.202 0'-11 0'-11' o-a o-:9

o-~
-0.302
-- --1'-0'- -0'-5'- -
1'-1'
--
0'-9'
- --
1'-0"
J 1 -- -- - - - - -! - - -
0.19 1'-3 1'-2' 0'-6' 0'-11' 1'-2'
t - - - -- - - -I - - - - -
1' O.Ml 1'.& 1'- ~
0'-7' 1'-0" 1'-~

I
---
1}i' 0.728 1'-8' 1'-6' 0'-8' 1'-2' '-s
/ --- 1~ .~~
-0.929
- 1'-10' 1'-9' 0'-9' 1'-3'
1
2'-0'
Jj~
~~ l.lM 2'-0'
0'-10' 1'-5' 1'-11'
2'-
y
~~
-1.405
--
~;;;
-<
-- - - - - -1
2'-2" 2'-1" 0'-11' 1 -6
-- - 1 1

12d min. --- -- -

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

Step 7. Compute total moment in pad along a section Computations are made according to "Building Code
at the edge of the equivalent square pedestal: See Figure Requirements For Reinforced Concrete," ACI 318-56.
2, Section R-S.

AREA IN SQ. FT. X LOAD ,Ibs. = (SHEAR, lbs.) X ARM, ft = MOMENT, ft. lbs.
( 1) = (c X b) X 56 X ( l4c + d )
- -- _x ____ x - X ( _ _ + _ _ )=
( 1) = (c X b ) X l4S8 X ( 7'!Jc+ d )
- .X X - X ( _ _ _+ _ _ )=
(2 ) = ( c )2 X 56 X ( Ysc + d)
= (_ __ )2 X - X(_ .+ _ _ )=
(2) = (c)2 X Y3S 8 X {Y2C -t d)
= (_ _ _ )2X .+ _ _ )-
X( _
(3) = (d X D 1 ) X S;; X l4d
= ___ X X X_
(3) = (d X D 1 ) X l4S7 X 31d
= ___ x X - X -
Totals V= lbs. Mu = ft. lbs.

Step 8. Compute depth of pad required for flexure.

= fc/ 2 kj =_
'\J/ ~
K --..J 2 X _ _ _ _ _ X _ _ __
d 2 req'd =
KD 1 - _ _ _ _ lbs/ in 2

d2 req' d = ~ -~x-=-- fc = 0.45 ftc = 0.45 X _ _ __

-------
=v k - - - - - - - ---
in. --~-
{$
t + _ __ _ _ __
- - - --
ftc = 28 day compressive strength of concrete = _ __lbs/in 2
I + -nfc
fs = Allowable tensile stress in steel. - _ _ _ _ lbs/in2 j = 1- Ysk = 1

D 1 is in feet in formula, see Fig. 1; MB is in ft. lbs. d 2 + bar diameter + 3 in. must be = or < assumed h 1
The following factors may be obtained from tables in Concrete _ ___ + + 3 in. = in. Actual d 2 used
Design Handbooks or computrd as follows: - -- - - -- - 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) =Number of ban across D1 X bar perimeter.

_ 12 M _ 12 ( )
----- -X. - - - - - - - -- --in.
A - 0.85 c-(
') 8 -
J d2
0.85 --'7--:---:-:---'-
_ x _ x_ - - - - in.2 p. = Computed bond stress, lbs./in.z
v
M 8 is in ft. lbs. See Step 7
= l;Ojd2 - - - X --- X - -
d 2 is in inches. Sec Figure I. - _ _ _ _ _ _ lbs./in.:
*Allowable p. - - - - - - - - lbs./in.2
Use _ _ _ No. _ _ _ ban at _ _ _ in. o.c. (distribute
V =Total Shear, lbs. See Step 7.
uniformly) both ways across D 1
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 Volume of area-stress. Shear for
Area on plan. stress diagram. Geometrical shape diagonal tension

(4) + (5) 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 - (_ + __ ) ( _ ) = lbs

s
(4) Su =~(e)(m)
2

= - 2- (_ _ ) ( __ l= lbs
-
(5) = 2 S 11 (e)2
Su
3
=~ (_ H= lbs

(6) + (7) s1o = s1o ( b-; Y) (T)

=-
4 - ( _ + __ )(_ )= lbs

(6) sl2 = s~2 ( T) (b)

= - - ( _ _ ) ( _ _ )= _ _ _ lbs
4

( 7)
s
=....!!. (c)2
12

--12- (_ )'= _ _ _ lbs

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

Compute diagonal tension shear unit stress, v:

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

v
v=--- m = Length of Section f.g (See FIG. 2) = _____ inches
mj d2
d 2 is in inches, See FIG. 1.
v=
___ ___ ___
- - ---:--- -- - --
) ( ) (
= _ _ _ lbs/in.,2
)

Allowable v = _ ___lbs/in2

Ref. ACI-318, Sec. 305.

32
 Step 12. Compute ftexure in top of pad due to uplift. W' = - - - ( 150) +- - - (100) = _ _ _ lbs/ft2
Figure 2, Section R-S.
W' =Uniform downward load on areas ( 1), (2) and (3), See Figure 1, and using an average weight of reinforced
Figure 2. concrete = 150 lbsj cu. ft. and an average weight for
= h 1 (150) +h 3 (100) earth fill of 100 lbsjcu. ft.

AREA IN SQ. FT. X LOAD, lba ft2 X ARM, ft. = MOMENT, ft. 11>4.
(1) bXc XW'

- - X _ _ X _ _ __
x(-2 +-)= - -
(2) XW'

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

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

Step 13. Compute steel required for flexure in top of d 1 is in inches. See Figure 1.
pad. Use No. bars at _ _ _ _ inches on center.
(Distribute uniformly across D 1 both ways)
12 Mu 12 X
A's = 0.85 fs j d = 0.85 -..,..x..,----..,...X..,--- - _ _ _ _ in.2
1
Steel supplied = Number of ban X Area each bar.
Mu = Moment due to uplift across Section R-S, Figure 1. - ____ x ____ = _____ 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 = < - - - - - -- - - - - ft. lbs.

(L2-h,) P2 = (--- ft,,lbs.

(L3-h4) Pa = ( - - -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ft . lbs.

(L,-h,) P4 = ( - -- - - -- ft. lbs.

Mnw = _______ ft. lbs.

M 8 = Moment due to reboiler from Step 2 - - - - - - = ft. lbs.

MT = Total moment at base= Mnw + Mn - - - - - - - = ft. lbs.
N =Number of bolts = ("N" should never be less
then 8 and preferably 12 or more)
Db= Diameter of bolt circle - _ __ _ ft.
Fb =Tensile force, due to MT, per bolt= * (~ MT/NDb) -
(W-r/N)
= (4X _ _; _ _ X _ _J-( _ _; _ _)= _ _ _ _ _ Ibs.
FT =initial tensile force due to tightening nut. - - - - - - - = _ _ _ _ lbs.
(5,000 lbs. is suggested for "FT")
F=Total maximum tensile force= Fb +
F-r- --- - - - - -- - - lbs.
Net Area (At root of thread)= F/Allowable stress
2
- -------~------- - - - - - 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: i
( 1) A8 =Net area of anchor bolts.
--------- in.~

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

- - - - - - - - - in,2
Use No. bars distributed uni-
formly 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 PLAN

allowable stress of 26,600 psi. Allow 10,000 psi for the hook
FIGURE 3-Foundation details.

and develop the remainder of the bar strength in bond over

About the Author length, L.

Bernard H. Shield is an engineering group leader L = fs an - fsliag

with Celanese Chemical Company, Pampa, Texas. He
supervises a departmental group
handling mechanical design phases
of plant alterations and expansions
including project engineering, me-
chanical, electrical, and instrumen-
tation. Mr. Shield holds a B.S. de-
gree 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 Uni-
versity 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.
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," PETROLEUM RutNI!.R,
34, No. 6, 127 (1955).

34
 Use Graph to Size Tower Footings
Dimensionless numbers, computer
calculated and plotted on graphs, sim-
plify 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-
FIGURE 1-Typical footing arrangement for tall towers.
gible compared with the dead weight (W), the soil bear-
ing 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.
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. How-
ever, 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 character-
istic dimension L.
For any such case the dimensionless groups, which may
be formed from these variables-
WL W3 W
""M' M2P ' PL2' etc.-
have fixed values.
The graphs of Figures 3 and 4 show the relationship
between two of these groups,
w /w w
M'\JP 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 cor-
respond with cases where only about one tenth of the
base area is under load. Actual designs will rarely ap-
proach 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 orien-
tation is the axis passing through two vertices.
The curves for the octagonal footing have been calcu-
35
 (a) (b)
FIGURE 2-Changes in soil pressure for tall towers.
lated on this basis. Similarly, for a completely unre-
strained 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 calcu-
lation 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 rec-
tangular 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 - This is done auto-
matically by using the groups,
marked on the graphs.
a
M*a Wa
-
W
--and--
P 2
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 w M p
ft. lb. lb. ft. lb./ft.2
ft. kips ft. kips kips/ft.2
ft. tons ft. ton ton/ft2
When the size of the footing base has been calculated
it is necessary to calculate the thickness and reinforce-
ment necessary to resist the shears and bending moments
in the footing itself. For convenience in these calcula-
u : ~:;- 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
(c) (d) (e)
tions, values of the parameters n and p have been added
to the graphs, where in Figure 3,
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 distri-
bution over the lower face of the footing and the re-
quired thickness and reinforcement may then be calcu-
lated 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 re-
action 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 esti-
mating footing size, the calculation must be a trial and
error process. The known data are usually:
Structure deadweight (empty, working and under hy-
drostatic test conditions, if required) ;
PL
as
Wind and other eccentric loads;
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.
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 esti-
mated, 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 1 T .. ,-:,
;I: 0..
0.2

0.15

1
p
---..__ p
0. 10 l+++l+.<l.'tM,;'
---f-.........._1 0.09

~
0.08
0.07
~ 0.06
0.05
W = Weight of structure, footing and overburden
M = Moment of wind load and any other eccentric 0.04
0.5 0.6 0.8 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
loads about the center line of the base of the
footing ~f-f
P = Maximum allowable soil be:~ ring pressure FIGURE 4-Relationship between two dimensionless numbers
L = Characteristic length: square-length of side for eases where pressure acts on only part of lower base face.
octagon-width across flats (i.e. Fig. 2d).
rectangle-length perpendicular
to the axis of rotation
(See Figure 5) test, no such allowance is possible for min. wt. and max.
a = Plan aspect ratio of rectangle wind effect.
_ Length perpendicular to axis of rotation The procedure to be followed is illustrated in the fol-
Length parallel with axis of rotation lowing examples.
(See Figure 5)
For other cases, a= 1 Example--Octagonal Tower Footing. A footing is to
n (Figure 3 ) = Mini.mum pressure be designed to carry a tower 54 feet high and 4 feet in
Maxtmum pressure diameter to be placed on soil for which the maximum
p (Figure 4) = Proportion of the width of the footing allowable bearing pressure is 2,000 lb/ft. 2
The frost line is 4 feet below grade and the pedestal
which is under lo:~d.
top is to be 1 foot above grade. The footing base is made

37
 SIZING TOWER FOOTINGS ... 25
Lt = 0.318 = 78.6 ft.2
5 feet below grade, i.e., I foot belo\11 the frost line.
L = 8.86 ft.
The design ma.ximum wind velocity is 100 mph.
The maximum wind moment ahout the base of the Restrained so that rotation about only one axis is
footing is calculated to be 200,000 ft. lb. (M) .3 possible.
Tower weights are as follows: w
Empty Tower 30,000 lb. PL 2 = 0.380 (from graphs)
Appurtenances and working contents 9,000 lb. 25
Water fill for hydrostatic test 40,000 lb. L~=--=658 ft2
0.380 . .
For a pad estimated to be 13.5 feet across Oats and
foot thick with an octagonal pedestal 6 feet across flats L = 8.1 ft.
and 4 feet deep and clay fill of density 90 lb. / ft. 8, esti-
mated weights are:
Concrete 63,000 lb.
Fill 33,000 lb.
Then calculations for the three critical conditions arc:
Empty Working Test
w (lb.)
M (lb. ft. )
126,000
200,000
135,000
200,000
166,000
100,000 -0 a
p (lb./ft.2 )

:~;
2,000

o.63 v63 0.675

2,000

v 67.5 t.66
2,000

v83
-o::,
0

Ul
-
_j
)(
= 5.00 = 5.54 =15.11 <{
w
PL2 (from graph) 0.405 0.423 0.585

63 67.5 83
L2 FIGURE 5-For rectangular foot ings, "a" is usually greater
0.405 0.423 0.585 than one.
L (ft. ) 12.47 12.61 11.9
Thus the assumed size is too large and could be re- Example-Rectangular Footing. For the loads as in
duced. The next trial would assume a 12-foot octagon,
and the minimum size would probably be somewhere
the square footing example above, assume a 3 (short =
side parallel with axis):
near this figure.
w '\j~
M P -= 0.5 , ,-----
3 X 25 = 4.34
Example-Square Tower Footing. A square footing
is to be designed to carry a total estimated deadweight
Wa
of 50,000 pounds and a maximum overturning moment PL~ = 0.505 (from graphs)
of 100,000 lb. ft. on soil having a maximum allowable
bearing pressure of 2,000 Jb./ ft2
75
L2 = -- = 148.5 ft 2
w~
- p =0.5 v- 25=2.5
-M
L
0.505
= 12.2ft.
Unrestrained. Diagonal axis L
- = 4.1 ft.
a
w
PL 2 = 0.318 (from graph) 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
About the Author will be equal to the allowable, and the pressure distribu-
tion may be immediately sketched after finding the value
J ohn Buchanan is a lecturer in
chemical engineering design at New- of the parameter p or n from the appropriate graph.
castle University College of the Uni- Considering the essentially rare and transitory occur-
versity of New South Wales, Tighe's rence of the maximum moment load, the basic assumption
Hill, N.S.W., Australia. He holds stated at the beginning are sufficient for most applica-
B.E. (Chern.) and M.E. (Chern.) de- tions. The assumption of perfectly elastic soil, however, is
grees from the University of Sydney. not entirely sound and in critical cases the advice of a soil
Mr. Buchanan held positions as a mechanics expert should be sought.
design e ngineer with Monsanto
Chemicals Ltd. and Union Carbide LITERATURE ClTJo:D
Ltd. in Sydney prior to accepting 1 Brown, A. A. liVDROCARBON PROCI!.IISINO & PTROLEUa.l lU.PINEil 42, No. 3,
141 (1963).
his present position. Brownell, L. E. and Young, E. H. in "Process Equipment Design"
Buchanan Chapter 9, New York, John Wiley and Sons (1959).
Marshall, V. 0. Puaou:uM lU.PtNu 37, No. 5 Dcoign Suppl. (1958).

38
 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 con-
crete column problems consisting of an axial load com-
bined 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 consider-
ably simplifies the stress analysis of many structural com-
ponents used in Hydrocarbon Processing Plants, e.g., pipe
supports and rigid frame structures for supporting ex-
changers, 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 equi-
librium 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 visualiz-
ing the problem. All given data must, therefore, be ex-
pressed 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 con-
crete 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, ..._ M,c1
A - -~-.- - -~-r-
such a process is rather laborious because all the values
must be related to the principal axes through the cen-
troid of the acting section. Thus, for each assumed neutral
axis, one must repeat the numerous and tedious compu-
tations of: the centroid of the acting section; the orienta-
tion 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 prob-
lem 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 accom-
plish the tiresome solution through successive approxima-
tions, at extremely rapid rates. However, when the engi-
neer 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 in-
vestigated 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 basi~ of inelastic
action.
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 ap-
proach applies throughout the full range, from elastic
analysis to clastic-plastic and ultimate strength con-
siderations. 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 y

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 I c
tension in concrete is insignificant, and the Code requires
that it be completely neglected. A1 (x 1, y )
1
Qc ,,

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 desig-
0
nates 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<i.n
P, be i and y; and the coordinates of any given rein- FIGURE 1-In rectangular sections, choose one corner as the
forcing bar, of area A1 be x 1 and y,. origin.
The intercept form of the equation of the neutral axis
QR is :
compression, is a triangle. In the general case, when line
~+..!..=t QR is partially outside the concrete section (see Figure
a b 3), one or more smaller triangles must be subtracted from
Now, assuming that the stress f, at any point (x~, y,), the over-all larger one. This is illustrated in the following
is proportional to its distance from the neutral axis, then examples.
by multiplying fo, the stress at origin (o, o) , by the ratio
of the distances of point (x1y1 ) to that of (o, o) we ob- Reinforcing Steel Stress. The stress in the reinforcing
tain the general stress formula: bars is obtained by multiplying the value (fs) in the
general stress formula, by the modular ratio, n, the ratio
f1 =f 0 ( 1- ~ - ~) of the modulus of elasticity of steel to that of concrete.
Section 60 l of the ACI Code gives the ratio, n, as equal
The engineer need not keep track of the sign, as the to 30,000/f'.,.
stress formula will automatically result in positive stress, Hence, the stress in any bar A1 designated by coordi-
or compression, for all points lying to the left of the neu- nates x, and y, is:
tral axis (see Figure 1) and negative stress, or tension
beyond the neutral axis. f1 1 = nfl = nf0 ( 1 - X~ - ~ )

The coordinates of the centroid of the triangular area

under compression, OQR, are a/3 and b/3. Hence, the and the load in said bar, having an area A, is:
average compression stress within the effective concrete F 11 = f 1 1 X A 1
section will simply be:
The total load carried by the reinforcing bars (tension
x=a/3 and compression) 1s the summation of the loads in the
y=b/3 individual bars:
and the total compression load in the concrete :
ab
Fe= (Average Stress) X (Area)=~ f0 X Yz ab = f0 6
where N = total number of bars.
It can also be shown that, for equilibrium, the load Similarly the steel load moments about the coordinate
Fe is located at coordinates, a/4, b/4; hence, the moments axes will be:
of the compression load in the concrete, about the x and N N
y axes are: M'.,. = _2: F 81 x 1 and M'r = 1: F81 y 1
, _ ab a _ a2b t=l 1=1
M - f 0 6 X T - f 0 24 (in x direction, about y axis)
The above formulas are completely general and the
ab2 engineer, if he so wishes, may use different diameters for
M' 01 =f 0
24 (in y direction, about x axis) the individual bars, and he may or may not arrange the
bars with symmetry about either axis. However, since the
(The reader may note that a 2b/24 and ab 2/24 are simply same modular ratio n was applied to both tension and
the values of the section moduli of the effective concrete compression bars, we did presuppose that the bond
area, in the x and y directions respectively.) between the steel and concrete remains intact, and they
In Figure 1, the intercepts of the neutral axis, line QR, deform together under stress. That is, the steel in the
are shown smaller than the corresponding dimensions of compression zone can withstand a stress only n times that
the section. Hence, the effective concrete area under in the concrete. In reality, this is not exactly so. Because

40
 20"

.. - f8 ......

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

Az

117.5, ll.S)

FIGURE 2..:...Example 1. Find eccentric load P and moments FIGURE 3-Generally QR is partially outside the concrete
about centerline. section.

of plastic flow in the concrete, the compression bars are

stressed more than indicated by elastic analysis. Codes hence, use: f 0 = 0.45 f' c
have recognized it, by assigning higher values to the re-
inforcing bars in the compression zone. Section 706 (b) (c) Tensile stress in steel governs when:
of the ACI Code requires that: "To approximate the
effect of creep, the stress in compression reinforcement X y ft
resisting bending may be taken at twice the value indi-
-;-+ b > 1 + .45f' n 0

cated by using the straight-line relation between stress When this happens limit the stress in the extreme tension
and strain." However, in permitting this use of 2n the bar to (- f 1 ) Hence, use:
Code limits the stress in the compressive reinforcing to
be equal to or less than the allowable stress in tension. - ft ft

In the examp les that follow, the stress in the com- r. = -n-(""'"~--:---''-~--:-) = n(-;- + ~ - 1)
pressive reinforcement shall be made equal to:
(Compressive reinforcement only)
Example 1. Find the maximum value of an eccentrically
where ft is the allowable tensile unit stress in column re- applied load P, and the moments about the centerlines
inforcement. Also, a correction shall be made for the con- of the column shown in Figure 2, when the neutral axis
crete area displaced by the steel bar by subtracting ( f 1 ) is in the position indicated. f' c = 3,000 psi ft = 20,000
from the steel stress in said bar. Hence, compressive psi.
load carried in bar A; will be:
Solution:
F = A, (f -,)= AI (2n- 1) r,
Governing Stress-Concrete or Steel Tensile. In the
n = 30,000 = 10 A 1 = 0.79 sq. in/bar
f'c
general stress formula for f 1, the stress at origin (o, o) is
r. s 0.45 X 3,000 s 1,350 psi
designated as f0 , and is the maximum compressive stress
in the concrete. According to the ACI Code, Section f 1 S 20,000 psi
1109 (d) : "The maximum combined compressive stress in 12
the concrete shall not exceed 0.45fc'. For such cases the a= 12" (given) b- X 15=20"
12 - 3
tensile steel stress shall also be investigated." Hence, f.
will equal to 0.45fc' only if concrete governs, or when hence,
concrete and steel reach simultaneously maximum allow-
able values (balanced design). To determine the value
of f., compare: TABLE 1--Coordinates, Stresses, Bar Loads and Moments
for Example 1
(x/a+y!b) to I + (V0.45f'eD)
&I 11 M',. )1',7

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

-0 - 0 11 11
1- - - -
12 20
I.
(psi) ( ...
I.I
)
'I
(kipo)
I
(la-k;po)
I
(Ja.ki,.)
farthest away from the neutral axis. 0 ti.OO +I~
8 0 16 0.26 +337.6
I 2.6 12.6 +0.187 +226 + 4,500 + 3.38 + 8.45 +42.~
(a) Concrete stress governs when: 2 17 6 12.6 - I.Olr.l - 1462.6 -14.&26 -11.65 -202.13 -144.38
3 17.6 2.6 -D.683 - 787.6 - 7,876 - 6.22 -108.85 - 16.55
x+ y 1 f1
=
4
- 2.6 2.6
- - - - - ------ --- +O.M7
--- ---+GOO +18.000 +lUI + 33.78 + 33.78

7 b < + .45fen
hence, use: f 0 0.45 f' c Load on rtin!oreinc bars - O.S8 -268.76 - 83.t0
Load on coocrtte eft"eetive ~tetiou +63.16 +161.37 +2M.35
Total
-+52.28
- - -- 107.38
- - -+172.45
--
(b) Allowable concrete and steel stresses are reached
simultaneously when: f,ow in I'Ompreuive rtln!orcemcnt ccrrte~d lor area or ooocnte dieplaeed by bar.

41
 f 1 = fo (I- ~~ - ;~)
Coordinates, stresses, bar loads and moments are tabu-
lated in Table 1. Also see Figure 3.
The load and moments in the concrete are calculated
next.
F = 1.35 X 12 X 20 0.34 X 3 X 5 k'
c 6 = 5 3.1 6 lpS
6 ship for the strain e 1 at any point x., y 1 may be written
M'cx= 54.0 x 3.0- 0.84x 0.75 = 161.37 in-kips
M'cy = 54.0 x 5.0-0.84 x 16.25 = 256.35 in-kips
-107.38
x= =-2.05"
52.28
. y = + 172.45 = + 3.29"
52.28
The eccentricities of the load with respect to the cen-
terlines 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 Sec-
tion 1109 of the ACI Code could have been analyzed as
an uncracked section. The example was selected on pur-
pose, 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 in-
elastic 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 col-
umn, tensile strength in concrete is neglected. The de-
parture is, that stresses and strains are not proportional
at ultimate capacities. Section (A603) of ACI Code
permits "the diagram of compressive concrete stress dis-
tribution to be assumed a rectangle, trapezoid, parabola,
or any shape which results in ultimate strength in reason-
able agreement with comprehensive tests." Furthermore,
it limits maximum concrete strain Eo to .003, and max-
imum 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
~+..2:.._+_:_= 1
a b c
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 nota-
tion, may be written as E0 Constants a and b designate
the neutral axis as before. Hence, the general relation-
as:
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
1 =nf0 ( 1 -x,a - -Yt)
- :!Sf
b 1
About the Author
Eli Czerniak is a principal design engineer with The
Fluor Corp., Los Angeles. He coordinates computer
applications for the Design Engi-
neering Dept., reviews manual tech-
niques 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 Uni-
versity in 1949 and an M.S. in Civil
Engineering from Columbia in 1950.
He is a registered engineer in Cali-
fornia 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.
 z

''
''
''
''
,
,/
/

y
.,
F

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

and, as before, a correction for the concrete area dis- Tabulations of the calculations are given in Table 2.
placed by compressive reinforcement shall be made by
subtracting the concrete stress from the steel stress, when - -2 15
determining the load in the compressive bar.
x =- -- = - 1. 08"
199 E. = 10 + 1.08 = 11.08"

y- ~::
Example 2. Compute the Ultimate Load Pu and its 7
=+ 4.86" E1 = 7.5-4.86 = 2.64"
eccentricities with respect to the centerlines of the sec-
tion, 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.
TABLE 2- Loads on Steel and Concrete for Example 2
Solution:
Xu = 0. 717 X 12 = 8.60" Yu = 0.717x20= 14.34" II
1- - - -
11
II
Ultiote Streuca
---
Coacrelo
- --
Steel
M'..
I
M'.,
Poi11t II 11 12 20 ,,; poi psi
' I
kj,. 'It 'It
f0 = .003 X 1000 X 3000 = 9000 psi= 9.0 ksi -0 - 0 HOOO
Within triangle OXuY, concrete stress equals 0.85'. = B
Xu
0 15
8.80 0
0
fooo~ +ZUO
+2UO
2UO
2UO
2UO
2,550 psi Yv 0 14.3. +8.283 +2650 2650
I u 12.5 .187
:!:~; ....
1500 + 15,000 + 10.7 + 27 + 134
2 17.$ IU -1.083 -40,000 - 31.8 -553 -395
fo- 0.85 f' c = 9000 - 2,550 = 6,450 psi 3 17.$ u -Q.$83 -$~ -553 - 78
~::=
-31.8
(maximum value of excess stress) -Loed-and momenl.l
-
u u +0.847
oo o~l
+8000 Q +40. + 29,6 + 74 + 74
-2U -100$ -2118
Loedt and momtol.l oo coocrel.l +221.8
Load on concrete effective section + 7110 +1233
Total + 188.t -215 + 887
9.0x l 2x20 2.25 X 3X5 6.45 X 8.60 X 1~.34
p uc= 6 Loado in com.,-ve reinforcement comcted for._ of concnl.l displaeed by bar.
6 6
= 221.80k

and the moments about the coordinate axis Hence, for the concrete section shown, a maximum
M't = 360 X 3-5.63 X 0.75 - 132.57 X 2.15 = 790"k
ultimate load of 199 kips (divided by the proper load
factor) may be placed at distances 11.08 inches and 2.64
M'., = 360 X 5 - 5.63 X 16.25 - 132.57 X 3.58 = 1233"k inches from the centerline. ##

43
 Unusual foundation

design lor TALL TOWERS

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' en-

gineers 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 prob-
lems:
The towers w<n fairly high and clost' to one an-
other.
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 ~upport~ tower "" it is raised free of ground.

44

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 com-
bined 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 aero-
dynamic vibrations to occur at these frequencies, im-
pulses 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 cohe-
sive. 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
construction joint tie mat
and pedestal together
tan inorganic clay below which lies clayey sand and sand.
Using shear strengths indicated by the tests and Ter-
zaghi'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 percent-
age of it could be expected to occur during construction.
Load Combinations. The effects of three separate com-
binations 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 con-
ditions without wind.
Tower Fabrication. Schedules controlling tower fabri-
cation and tray delivery were coordinated so that the
trays could be shop-installed. Also, platforms, ladders
and most piping were scheduled for installation imme-
diately 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 fac-
tors were then applied which gave the following pres-
sures 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 pres-
sure against projected areas of cylindrical surfaces.
PLAN
Anchor Bolts. In designing anchor bolts, the upper
pedestals were analyzed as cantilevered flexural mem-
14' 14'
bers, loaded with combined bending and axial forces. I "I
Compressive stress in the concrete and tensile stress in 10''to.
the anchor bolts was then calculated according to the X 203'
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
1
11 12,170 "
J)_ 1115,580
1
"

and less tendency to creep under load was the most de-
sirable. The practical limit on the number of bolts that
could be placed around either tower perimeter was ap-
proximately 36. This in effect established the total ten-
sion 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 preten-
sioned 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 sym-
metrically about the foundation centerline. The condi-
tion causing the greatest eccentric loading from vertical
forces alone would result from either tower being water
tested singularly. This eccentricity, found to be consider-
ably 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 suit-
able 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 combina-
tions, with the number 2 load combination actually con-
trolling 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
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 cal-
culated 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. Oper-
ating 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 resist-
ing moment from soil pressure. This d.epth was th.en
continued to the outer edges of the mat m order to mm-
imize 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 11-
foot 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~ deter-
mined 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 maxi-
mum moment at the face of the pedestal and step and
at other points toward the edge of mat. Maxim~m mo-
ment in the same direction through the foundatiOn cen-
terline 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, Bar-
tlesville. 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' expe-
rience 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 com-
puting 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 pro-
duced maximum tension in the top of pedestal. This
was near the inside face of the leeward tower. Assum-
ing 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 combina-
tion 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 pedes-
tals thus providing the best possible shear connection
between the sections. Several factors making a continu-
ous 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 rein-
forcing totaling some eleven tons would normally re-
quire 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 con-
tinuous pour was made. Assuming a continuous pour,
the excavation would be exposed to weather longer be-
fore pouring could begin, the~eby subjecting .the s?il
below the footing level to detnmental change m mms-
ture content.
In order to eliminate these disadvantages, a construc-
tion 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 .to-
gether, 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 sec-
tion became functional when the full depth of the foun-
dation was considered a flexural member resisting a mo-
ment 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 trans-
ferred more evenly and that any tendency for the con-
crete to separate at the construction joint would be min-
imized. 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 foun-
dation 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 approx-
imately 30-foot centers. Figure 1 shows the poles with
the 10-foot by 203-foot tower free of the ground sup-
port. When the foundation was analyzed, applying con-
centrated 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 un-
desirable and to prevent it, additional heavy reinforce-
ment 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.
FIGURE 4-Tower installation complete with insulation,
Leveling The Towers. The pedestals were poured to platlorm and piping.
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 two independent foundations. This was substantiated by
of the towers was then accomplished by adjusting shims further experience when a third tower of similar propor-
and anchor bolt nuts. After all adjustments were com- tions ( 10~ feet x 177 feet) was designed and installed
pleted, two inches of grout was placed across the top simultaneously, nearby. This tower was placed on the
of pedestal and beneath the tower base rings. Each an- usual mat and pedestal octagonal foundation and re-
chor bolt was torqued to an initial stress of 45,000 psi. quired only 140 cubic yards of concrete. However, under
No inconvenience was reported by the contractor be- the circumstances which established the design condi-
cause the anchor bolts projected two feet above the con- tions, there were still advantages in the saving of space
crete. Neither was there any difficulty reported in re- in conformance with the best piping arrangement and
gard to spacing anchor bolts to match the tower base in the possible vibration damping effect gained.
rings.
Trend. There is a definite trend in the industry toward
Materials. A total of 383 cubic yards of concrete and the use of taller fractionating vessels containing more
27 tons of reinforcing steel was placed in the foundation. trays. The experience acquired during the design and
As mentioned previously, no large savings, if any, in installation of these towers will be useful in determining
concrete materials were realized over those required for the feasibility and planning of future units. ##

48
NOTES

49
 FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3

Foundation Sizing Simplified

Tables can be used to select foundations 5 - 47 k -6-
C,=7r/64 (5-Sk) + ( 16 2
1 k' + 31 k' )

as easily as capacity tables are used

to select pumps k' + ( Sk- 5 ) arcsin (?k--1)
\j/ k - 32 -
2(1-k)
E =D X (2C,-C,)
David H. Kannapell, Girdler Construction 2C,
Corp., Louisville, Ky.

M = EP
JUST AS a designer can select a storage tank using
capacity tables, so a structural designer can choose a The capacities of an octagon foundation subjected to
foundation based on tables of capacities. Entering the loading as shown in Figure 2 are determined from the
tables with a given weight and moment (or eccentricity) following formulas'.
you can quickly select the minimum size of foundation
E=~ X (1 - m)
required. In addition, you can readily determine the
distribution and magnitude of soil pressures under the
8 (1 + m)
foundation. P=8E2p X (l+m)'
( 1-m)'

How t o Make Capacity Tables. Two cases of foun- M= EP

dation loading are considered in developing capacity
tables. The first case consists of a loading which pro- NOTATION
duces uplift on part of the foundation. This case is P = Concentric vertical load capacity, kips
shown in Figure 1. The second case covers bearing
M = Overturning moment capacity, foot-kips
under the entire foundation and is shown in Figure 2.
For calculating the capacities of an octagon founda- E =Eccentricity of load to produce corresponding moment,
feet. E = M /P.
tion subjected to soil pressures as shown in Figure 1,
the following formulas 1 are used. p =Unit soil pressure, kips per sq. ft.
k = Ratio of unloaded length of diameter to diameter of in-
C,=7r/8(1 - 2k) + ( + - +k++k' )~~+ scribed 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 .
. ( 2k - 1 ) arc sin (2k- 1)
4 D . = Diameter of a circle equivalent to the inscribed diam-
eter, D, of an octagon, feet. D.= 1.04D.
50
 C, and C, are coefficients used to shorten algebriac opera-
tions. "Adjusted" M = ---;-;-:-----'M:..::...__,.-:---:-~
Allow. pressure, kips/sq.ft.
By decrementing k and incrementing m, capacities of The eccentricity, E, remains the same for any soil
a one-foot diameter octagon are developed based on a pressure.
maximum unit soil pressure of one kip per square foot.
The relations of the capacities and eccentricities of any Step 1- Assume weight of foundation, pier and earth
other diameter octagon, n., to those for the one-foot backfill as 50 kips.
octagon are as follows: P = 50.0 + 50.0 = 100 kips.
Ex = E,._,;,, X Dx for a given "k" or "m" value Step 2-Calculate eccentricity and "adjusted" value
of P:
n. for a given "k" or "m" value
P. = P,....,, X
M. = M,...,, X n.for a given "k" or "m" value
E = 147 = 1.47 ft.
100
_I00.0
"Adjusted" P - - - -_ 500k'
. tps
Tables 1 and 2 are illustrative of tables that may be 2.0
used to estimate and design footings subjected to the
forces described. The tables were developed on an elec- Step 3- Enter tables with "e" and "adjusted" P. Select
tronic digital computer. 11'-0'' octagon (Table 1) (table capacity P = 51.393
kips, "E" = 1.429 ft., k = 0.0 ) .

ILLUSTRATIVE PROBLEMS Step 4-Check assumed foundation weight:

To demonstrate the use of the capacity tables, several Pier: 5'-0" Oct. 3'-6" high = 10.87 kips
illustrative problems arc presented as follows: Foundation: 11'-0" Oct. 1'-6" thick = 22.50 kips
Backfill: (100.2-20.7)x 2.5x0.1 = 19.88 kips
Total = 53.25 kips
Problem 1. Size an octagonal foundation for the self-
supporting vertical vessel shown in Figure 3, using the P= 50.0 +
53.25 = 103.25 kips
following data: E= 147.0 = 1. 42
103.25
10
p = 2000 lbs./sq. ft. (2.0 kips/sq.ft. at 4'-0'' below grade) Adjusted P = ~ 25 = 51.6 kips
P. =50 kips, weight of tower
Re-enter Table 1 and check selection. Inspection indi-
M = 147 ft.-kips, about base of tower. cates 11'-0'' octagon is satisfactory. Since k = 0.0, the
Since the tables show capacity of foundations based distribution of soil pressure is such that 100 percent of
on a maximum soil pressure of 1 kip per square foot, it the foundation is under compression; minimum soil
is necessary to first use an "adjusted" value for P and M pressure is zero on the windward edge and 2,000 pounds
to compensate for the larger soil bearing value. The fol- per square foot on the leeward edge.
lowing relationships are used :
Alternate Solution.
"Adjusted" P = ""'7':-:----.::.P_-:-:-~:---::- Step 1-Same as in original solution.
Allow. pressure, kips/sq.ft.

TABLE 1-octagon Diamete r = 11.0D TAILI 2-octagon Diameter = 14.0D

I korm p M E korm p M E
37.009 85.596 2.312 59.949 176.466 2.943

k
ru
.20
.15
.10
40.037
43.016
45.923
84.784
!'3.016
80.412
2.117
1.929
1.751
k
.20
r.15
5
.10
64.8M
69.679
74.387
174.793
17U47
165.778
2.695
2.466
2.228
.05 48.729 77.147 1.683 .05 78.933 159.048 2.014
.00 61.393 73.493 1.429 .00 83.249 151.514 1.819
.05 53 ..963 69.818 1.293 .05 87.412 143.938 1.646
.10 66.533 66.143 1.169 .10 91.574 136.362 1.489
.15 59.102 62.469 1.066 .15 95.737 128.786 1.345
.20 61.672 58.794 .953 1 20 99.899 121.211 1.213
.26 64.242 55.119 .857 .25 104.062 113.635 1.091
.30 66.812 61.445 .769 .30 108.224 106.059 .979
.35 69.381 47.770 .688 .M 112.386 98.484 .876
.40 71.951 44.095 .612 .40 116.549 90.908 .779
.45 74.521 40.421 .642 .45 120.712 83.332 .690
m .50 77.090 36.746 .476 m .50 124.874 75.766 .606
79.680 33.071 .415 .65 129.0.16 68.181 .528
60
r 55 82.230 29.397 .357 .60 133.199 60.605 .464
65 84.799 26.722 .303 .65 137.361 63.029 .386
.70 87.369 22.047 .252 .70 141.524 45.453 .321
.76 89.939 18.373 .204 .75 146.686 37.878 .259
.80
.85
92.609
95.078
14.698
11.023
.158
.115 I .85
.SO 149.849
154.011
30.302
22.726
.202
.147
.90 97.648 7.349 .075 .90 158.17-l 15.150 .096
.95 100.218 3.674 .036 .95 162.336 7.575 .046

Capultlee hued on 1000 lb/ aq. f t . ano ...b le ~u bearing Capacltlee Baaed on 1000 lb./ aq. ft. Allowable Soli Bearing
Area of baae 100.2 aq. ft. Area of Baae - 162.3 aq. ft.
T h lckneu Weight (klpe) Thlckneea Wlaht (klpa)
1'---Q* 15.0 1'-o" 24.3
1'--6* 22.5 1'-6 36.5
2'-o 30.1 2'-o 48.7
2'-6"' 37.6 2'~ 60.9

51
 Foundation Sizing Simplified . .. Problem 3. This problem illustrates use of tables to
determine soil loading under an existing foundation.
Step 2-0btain "adjusted" values of P and M: For this problem, refer to Figure 3 and use the follow-
ing data:
"Adjusted" P = ~~~0 = 50.0 kips P. = 300 kips, weight of tower

0
1 M = 373 ft.-kips
"Adjusted" M = :: = 73.5 ft.-kips
D = 11'-0", diameter of octagon
Step 3-Enter Table 1 with these adjusted values. Se- I n the solution of this problem, the following relation-
lect 11'-0" octagon as bef~re. ship is used :
Step 4-Same as in original solution. ~=~or
1.0 p p, =~for
p a given "k" or "m" value.
Problem 2 . This problem illustrates the method for
obtaining sizes of foundations other than those given in When p 1 = actual
maximum unit soil pressure,
the tables. For this problem refer to Figure 3 and use P1 = total vertical load,
the following data: P = Table 1 octagon load capacity based on 1.0
p = 5,000 lb.)'sq. ft. (5.0 kips/sq.ft.) at 4'-0"
kips per square foot soil pressure.
P.= 235 kips, weight of tower Step ! -Calculate weight of pier, foundation, and
M = 990 ft.-kips earth back-fill:
I n the solution of this problem, the following rela- Pier: 5'-0" octagon 3'-6" high = 10.87 kips
tionship is used: Foundation: 11'-0" octagon 1'-6" thick = 22.50 kips
Back-fill : ( 100.2- 20. 7) x 2.5 x 0.1 = 19.88 kips
D,' =_f.!. or D, = - /_f.!. X D' Total = 53.25 kips
D' P V P
for a given "k" or "m" value. Step 2-Calculate total load and eccentricity:

Where D1 = octagon diameter desired

Total load = 300.0 + 53.25 = 353.25 kips.

D = table octagon diameter E = 3730 = 1.06 ft.

353.25
P1 = load to be carried by octagon D 1
Step 3-Enter Table 1 for 11'-0'' octagon with known
P = table octagon load capacity. "E." Read P =
59.102 kips.
Step 1-Assume weight of fou ndation, pier, and earth
backfill as 85 kips. m=0.15.

P = 235.0 + 85.0 = 320 .kips. p. = 59.102

353.25 = 5.98 kips/sq. ft. (5,980 lbs. per sq. ft.),
on leeward edge.
Step 2-Calculate eccentr icity and "adjusted" value
of P : M inimum soil pressure mp1 = 0.15 X 5980 = 897.0
lbs. per sq. ft. on windward edge. 100 percent of foot-
E - 990.0 = 3.09 ft
-320.0 . ing is under compression.
"Adjusted" P = 320 0
= 64.0 kips The method outlined herein has been limited to oc-
5.0 tagon foundations for brevity. Using appropriate for-
Step 3-Enter Table 2. Closest capacities are P = mulas2, the same method may be applied to square
59.949 kips, E = 2.943 ft., k = 0.25 for 14' -0" octagon. foundations with an overturning moment abou t both
P = 68.819 kips, E = 3.153 ft., k = 0.25 for 15'-0'' oc- the rectangular and diagonal axes.
tagon.
LITERATURE CITED
D= y 64.0/59.949 X 14.0' = 14.47 ft., say 14.5 ft., and
1
Fork, Chas. A., "Graphical Methods Aid io Stack Foundation De-
sign" Petroleum Rdiner SO, No. 3, p 81 (1951).
E = 14.5/14 X 2.943 = 3.06 ft. 'Fork, Ch.... A., "Applying Graphical Methods to Square Footing
Design" Petroleum R~6ner 31, No. 11, p 145 (1952).
Step 4-Check assumed foundation weights:
Pier: 5'-0" octagon 3'-6" high = 10.87 kips About the Author
Foundation: 14'-6" octagon 1'-6" thick = 39.20 kips
Backfill: (174.1-20.7) x2.5xO.J = 38.40 kips David H. Kannapell is a senior
Total = 88.47 kips structural engineer with Girdler
+
P= 235.0 88.47 = 323.47 k,ips Construction Corp., Louisville, Ky.
where he performs civil and struc-
E=~=306ft
323.47 . . tural design of gas processing and
chemical p lants. Holder of a B.S.
"Adjusted" P =~
5.0
= 64.69 kips degree in civil engineering from
the University of Louisville ( 1936),
D= ~ 64.69/59.949 X 14.0' = 14.62 ft. Kannapell has had structural de-
sign experience in many large
Since k = 0.25, it is immediately known that 25 per- chemical plants, synthetic am-
cent of the diameter of the octagon is unloaded and 75 monia, hydrogen production, gas
percent is loaded; the unit soil pressure varies from 0 purification and carbide manufac- D. H. KannapeiJ
on the windward side to 5,000 lbs. per sq. ft. on the lee- turing plants. He is currently the president of the
ward side over the loaded length. Louisville chapter of the Kentucky Society of Profes-
sional Engineers.

52
 Dowel Sizing For Tower Foundations

Tower pedestal dowel bar reinforcing THE SIZING OF THE DOWEL reinforcement is usually
the last part of tower foundation design. All combina-
is usually oversized by a commonly used tions of loads and moments are requiied in computing
formula with a high safety factor. the base slab. The pedestal size is usually fixed by the
base ring and anchor bolt spacing. So, with these data,
A more economical method is presented 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. M = 7,000,000 inch-pounds, the maximum moment

lJE 1m I! h lffipll{~
K
1.00
EEE: ffilll!,~ tffil lli= b _;_ u.J ::.~ = t:l1tt 1cv o<:
180
~111111 -+-'1 ! fl
.95 15409'
.90
1
I
~ = ~ "l -i!J I ~ 14308'
.85 f* 'i 1: 11 134"26'
.
.80
I= I==
I=
1 lf.
:
o
= >-;-
1!.
::1
l_ :.:_ i-'- 'j_
If-I
12652'
.75 120
.70 I= I=
It , 11= 'H I~ :j ; 1 l1 ' $ 113"35'
:~
~ ;; r
1 .j: f' ~ ill ~h,;
.65 107"28'
.60
t;; t -~ r" :r. : 1z r i': '] l:!: I '~ IJ 101 32'
.55
--:::. :)::::.!: }!; ' ci_ Ak1 h . Jtlt.:ii'=H 95"44'
1:: Itt 1-'- = :t IE ~~ : + v. .t :11! lf ~ :Jll"f_ ~::J;E
50

:o
90'
.45
~ 1'-' :;: .i .. !ffilifrl!f iEl[ffi E:
ff :
'.4i ru: IRE jffil Jl!, j,; g 8416'
.40 78"28'
.35
.30
;:
[i
~
I~ ~

..
k
l
1,1; FEE IW:'I
iiE lim l[ : .rn; [
7232'
6625'
-if Ill
.25
"t r'f;i
lf_ f-iT so

-
.20 1:! IE i+ 53"08'
.1 5
T
t4j It 1:1 !i lil Itil 45"34'
f ,...._ ' ~ ; jj_J lt:t-t
.10 36"52'
CM- .10 20 .30 .40 .60 .80 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 6D 8.0 0.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 - CM
cv - .03 .04 .06 .08 .10 .20 .30 .40 .60 80 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10. -cv
FIGURE !-Coefficient curves used to find unit stress.

53
DOWEL SIZING FOR TOWER FOUNDATIONS . . . It is apparent that the latter solution is not very
economical, and contains a factor of safety out of propor-
P = 80,000 pounds, the minimum load which includes tion to the other elements of the foundation. Its use
the weight of the concrete pedestal should be discontinued.
r = 36 inches, the radius of the inscribed circle
R = 33 inches, the radius of the dowel bar circle Derivation of Equations
Reinforcement: 20 number 8 bars, NA8 = 20 (.79) The subject of foundation design for tall stills and towers
has been accorded much thought during the past year as evi-
= 15.8 square inches denced by numerous articles. Other equally important items
n = 10 such as anchor bolts and dowels have been of less concern. Most
writers subscribed to the use of the approximate, inaccurate and
With this information t.he~is computed, k values are
r uneconomical formula of ~~- ~ for this purpose. As expressed
assumed and the various determinations made until the by many, it is safe. Actually it provides a factor of safety out
neutral axis is located. Then, the ~f the internal of proportion to the other designed elements and is merely an
r expedient. One would not dare to oversize the other parts of
stresses equals that of the external forces. the structure proportionally as he would never be retained for
As a convenience in recording the values, a table is a repeat performance.
To stimulate and provoke thinking toward the development
constructed .. This can be revised to suit the individual. of a more rational analysis for dowel bars, this method ts sub-
The analysis follows: mitted. It is not presented as the final answer but with the hope
that it will influence others to produce something better for
e M 7,000,000 our use.
1) = 2.43 For this presentation a cylindrical pedestal, or that formed
80,000 (36)
by the inscribed circle of the octagon or other regular polygon
R)2 24(10)(20).797T ( 33 )2 is used. The working stress design method is employed with the
2) SM = 24pn7T - = - = 2.45 attendant assumptions. A section that is plane before bending
( r 7T(36} 2 36 remains plane after flexure is imposed. Stress and strain vary as
a straight line and directly as the distance from the neutral axis.
) n7T = 3 (10) 7T (20) (.79) = . The r einforcement takes all tensile stress due to flexure.
3 3 366
p 7T (36) 2 In the development of the formulas the reinforcement is re-
placed with an area of Es/ Ec times that of the steel. In con-
Now try k = .26, from Figure 1, CM = 5.1 and structing the transformed section, the holes in the concrete were
CV = .41 (see table below for complete investigation not removed from the compression area. This should have very
little influence on the end results and is partially neutralized by
which shows efr = 2.01 or too small.) The other k values the area outside of the inscribed circle. It does simplify the
are tried until the e/ r approaches 2.43 ("k's" of .25 and derivations considerably.
.245 brackets this e/r). The symbols used arc the same as those usually found in
CM+SM concrete design manuals and text books employed for teaching
this subject.
Note: SV = 37Tpn ( l-2k) and-;- = 16(CV _ SV)
Figure 2 shows a typical foundation with the forces acting
on it and gives the location of the dowels. A section is taken
CM+
through the pedestal just above the foundation slab and the
k CM SM SM (I-lk) 3wpn sv cv 16(CV-SV) e/ r forces acting on this section are located in Figure 3.
-.26 - - - - - -
6.10 2.45 7.65 .48 .366
--
.175 .410 3.76 2.01 <2.4 3 The equations representing the total forces and moments im-
.23 3.90 2.45 6.35 .54 .366 .198 .310 1.79 3.5.5> 2.43 posed on the concrete and r einforcement are now derived.
.24 4.30 2.45 6.75 .52 .366 .190 .340 2.40 2.81> 2.43
.2/i 4.77 2.4.~ 7.22 .50 .366 .183 .380 3.15 2.29 <2.4 3 Taking the summation of moments about axis Y-Y we have
.245 4.1\7 2.46 7.02 .51 .366 .187 .360 2.77 2.54> 2.43 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+
The unit stress m the concrete can now be computed P = V 0 +V.
. 96kM The total vertical force acting on the concrete is the sum of
for these two k's by usmg formulas fc = (C
M
+ SM)r 3
for all the stress acting on the segment of the circle to the right
of the neutral axis.
nf0 [R+ r(1-2k)]
concrete, and r. = kr
2
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' =
for the reinforcement. (Equations 5 and 7) fc (cos</>-cosa) B y sub stttutmg
. . t hese va Iues m
. t h e a bove; t h e
(1-cosa)
f -
c-
96 (.25) 7,000, 000 -
7.22 (36)8
. -
- 497pst f.-
total force acting on the concrete, V 0 =
2f r2
c
)a(cos 4> -
(1- cosa)
(497) 10[33 + 18] 0
= 14,100 psi cos a) sin2 4> d </>.
18
Integrating and substituting a for 4> and 2k for ( 1 - cosa) we
f = 96 (.245) 7,000,000
502 psi r. = 2
c 7.02 (36)3 obtain V e = T - 3- + sin a cos
f r2 [sinS a a - a cos a]
2
, Equation I
(502) 10 [33 +
(36) .51] .
Taking moments of the internal stress in the concrete about
2 ( .245) 36 = 14,600 pst
axis Y - Y, it follows that dM 0 = xdVc The moment of the
By comparison with the conventional method of force f.' on elemental area dA 0 about Y - Y becomes dM 0 =
4M P f.' dA 0 rcos 4> as x = rcos </>. Substituting the values of dA0 and
NO - N , we get the force imposed on the maximum fc' as before, the total moment becomes
4 (7,000,000) 80,000
stressed bar = ( )
20 66
- ---w- = 21,200-4,000 = M0 =
(1 -
2{ r'l
e
cos a)
jCI(cos 4>- cos a) sin2 4> cos 4> d 4>
0
17,200 pounds.
.
The umt stress
.
IS
17,200
Q.79" = 21,700 psi. = (
2 rs
c
[
) - Y8 ( Y. sin 44>)
cos a sins 4> ]
1 -cos a 3 0

54
 = {0 rs [a + cos a sin a - 2 coss a _ cos a sinS a]
k 8 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 cos</>-r cos a f0 (R cos</>- r cos a)
{" =
r; - r(l- cosa) r ( l-cosa )
. . 2ft0 R
By substitutiOn dV8 = ,,.,..,.--"-- -7 ( R cos</> - r cos a) d <{>
r(l - cosa)

then V =
2
f tR
(.... M.p =e
r ( l - cosa ) )o (R cos</> r cos a ) d <f>

= 2f0 tR [ R sin <{>- r ~ cos a ] " ""

r(l-cos a) 0

2f0 tR
-:-:----"-----.,.. ( - 'iT cos a), since A 8 = pn 'iT r2 = 2 'iT Rt
r (l-cos a)
2Rt = pnr2 and ( 1 - cos a)= 2k then
I
{ pnr2 'iT cos a . FOUNDATION
v. = -
0

2
k , Equation 3.

FIGURE 2- Typical tower foundation showing dowel loca-

The moment of the forces acting on the dowel bars about axis tions.
Y - Y can be obtained by getting the summation of the mo-
ments of the forces acting on all the small dA areas. dM 1 =
dV 8 ( R cos</>)
2 f tR2
c (R cos<{>-rcosa) cos<{>d</>
r(l-cosa)
y
2 f tR~
00

M .= } '" ( R cos</> - rcosa)cos<{>d<f>

r(l - cosa) 0
1100

=
2
. tR
r(l-cosa)
2
[ R <t>
2
+R sin</> cos<{> - r cos a sin</> ]
0

Substituting the limits, Rt = p~~ , and 2k = ( 1 - cos a) we get

X X
f 0 pnrR2 'iT
M8 = Equa tion 4.
4k

dAc= 2r 2 sin 2 d
About the Author {2 ydx)

Andrew A. Brown is a structural

engineer with the Union Carbide r!cos- COS.c)
Chemicals Co., South Charleston, --f.-+o,__-++---t--
W. Va. His work at Carbide in- Mc+ Ms
cludes the preparation of structural ---
Vc t V
=e
5
designs, reports and analyses for all
types of frames and foundations r--.+f'-+....;R~c""'o,;:s - r c os...
both new and existing. Mr. Brown's X
profes~ional experience includes that
c
of a bridge consultant with 12 years -:n= ~~
active duty in the U.S. Navy Civil II

Engineering Corps as a public works

officer and 10 years in the Bridge
Brown Dept., State Road Commission of Z 2 kr
= r{ 1- cos.c}
West Virginia. He holds a B.S. de-
gree in civil engineering from the University of West SECTION X-X AXIS
Virginia. H e is a member of the Society of American
Military Engineers and Tau Beta Pi.
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 numerl~al ~oefflclents CV and CM

K cv CM
Now Equation 1 and 3 are added and multiplied by "r'' "
.10................... 36 25' .0. .57
.15 ...... " .............. .. 45 34' .11 1.51
.20... " ........... " . . . .. 63 08' .22 2.91
.25 .............. . ......... 6()0 .38 4.77
r (V., + V 0 ) = .30. . ......... . ........... . oo 25' .59 7.05
.35. .. .. " .............. .. 7ZO 32' .85 9.67
f.,rS (sin' a + sin a cos2 a - a cos a
k 3 2
f. pnrS., cos
2k
a) .40.
.45.
.50.
.. . . . . . . . . . . . ..
.. ... " ............. ..
. ...... . .............. .
78" 25'
84 16'
000
1.18
1.56
2.00
12.58
15.77
18.85
.55.. .. ................. . 95 44' 2.50 22.00
.60. ............. . 101 32' 3.06 25.12
.65.. ................... .. 107" 28' 3.68 28.03
= fr3 (2 sin* a+ 3 sin a cos 2 a - 3 a cos a - 3 pn 'TT cos a) .70. .. ................. . 11:!0 35' 4.36 30.65
6k .75 ................... . 120" 5.10 32.93
.80. . . 126 52' 5.87 34.79
.85. .. ................ .. 134 26' 6.71 36.19
.90. ................... .. 143" 08' 7.58 36.92
.95. . .............. .. 164 09' 8.49 37.51
This is the product of r and the total streucs in the concrete 1.00 .... ". . ...... . 180" 9.42 37.70
and reinforcement and equals the external load P x r. The total
moment of internal stresses is M 0 + M 8 =Equation 2 +4

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

k H
a)] + fcpnrR' 'TT
Q

= -f 0- rS
96k
[ l2(a +cos a sin a - 2 coss a sin a) - 32 cos a sin' a+ 24pn - (R)' J
r "
, Equation 5.

e
fer' [12(a+cos asin a -
96k
2 coss a sin a) - 32cosasina+24pn (~)'.,
r
M 0 + M.
r
= (V0 + V 0 )r
fer' (2 sin' a + 3 sin a cosz a - 3 pn 'TT cos a - 3 a cos a)
6k

_ 12 (a+ cos a sin a - 2 cos a sin a)- 32 cos a sin' a+ 24 pn ( ~)' 71'
, Equation 6.
16(2 sinS a+ 3 sin a cos2 a - 3 a cos a - 3 pn 'TT cos a

CM+SM . . .
- whereCM = 12 (a+ cos asm a-2 coss a am a) - 32 cos crams a,
16 (CV -SV)

SM = 24 pn ( ~)' 'TT, CV = 2 sinS a + 3 sin a cos2 a - 3 a cos a

and SV = - 3 pn ., cos a

The observation is made that for any value of k or a, CM M = maximum bending moment in inch pounds at the bot-
and CV can be computed. Table 1 has been computed for the tom of pedestal (section A-A)
values of k of .10 through 1.0 and the respective angles are
noted. p = ratio of area of steel to area of concrete
Using these values, the curves on Figure 1 were constructed n = ratio of modulus of elasticity of steel to that of the
with k and a as ordinates and C M and CV as abscissas. concrete
By the use of Equation 6, the neutral axis can be located. r = radius of concrete pedestal in inches
This is done by assuming various values for k until one is ob-
tained that approximates the~ of the external forces. Using R = radius of dowel bar circle in inches
r M = external moment at the section
the curves, this determination is rather easy to obtain.
V 0 = total vertical force in the concrete
The unit stress in the concrete is found by Equation 5;
V, = total vertical force in the reinforcement (dowels)
f = 96Mk Me = resisting moment of the concrete
0
(CM +SM )rS
Then, the unit stress in the reinforcement is found as f,
M0 =
resisting moment of the reinforcement
f0 = maximum unit stress in concrete in pounds per square
nf0 [R+r( l - 2k)) . inch
kr , Equatlon 7
2 d =
diameter of circular pedestal
f, = maximum unit stress in the reinforcing steel in pounds
per square inch
NOMENCLATURE
2kr =
the distance to the neutral axis measured along a
N = number of dowel bars radius from the point of maximum stress in the con-
A,= area of one bar in square inches crete. (kd)
D= diameter of dowel bar circle in inches 2a =
the angle aubtended by radii drawn from each end of
P= minimum total of vertical loads in pounds at the the chord which forms the neutral axis
juncture of pedestal and concrete slab (section A-A) e = eccentricity in inches of M/P ##
56
 2,000,000

1,000,000

500,000
...
c ~ ...
"g
:::; 0
m g
o;
....
.....
d-
0 0..

..
~

o;
en ~
......
~
..0
...J.

...
1: ...
::t:
....,.
.c

::t:

2
~
0
10 .....
~

.. .....
0

.E""
c
m
~

.....
20 ..
0
.
t:...
..c 40
30-----:~
40 ...
...
~8
cr

... ..
30 o;
t2 1:
... E 100 0
E

"'
0

-~
2
...
c
20
..
lil
t2
"'
0
0 e 0
100

. 90
...J
c;
en -=... 10 -::;
::0
80
o. ""' 10
""=>c 5,000
0
Q:
60
0 ::t:
en 0 50
0

... _;
.5 40
...J
...
u .30
c
~
...
.:!
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 In designing foundations for self.supporting towers,

Atlos Powder Compony
Wilmington, Del.
"FOUNDATION DESIGN For Stacks and Towers"
by V. 0. Marshall was the subject of a special supple-
ment 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.
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:
100000

~
90000
50 t 80000
70000
40 Where :
60000
_i, Con Be Either
1,000,000 50000
30 S1 Or s,.. And !
900,000
800,000 Is W Or Wr, Respectively. 40000
700,000
600,000
-G)
G)
u..
20
K, Is The Area Shape
Foetor.
_.
u.. 30000
500,000 .!: d, Ia Tile Short cT
G)
en
..........
"'0 Diameter Of The Sou .d

---
400,000
-
CD _J
20000
0
....
"'
"0
c:
300,000
-Q)

G)
E
.~
10
9
8 ....
en
"0
0
0

-
::J _J
0 C) 0
0...
c: 200,000 -.... 7
u..
(.)
0
"0
0
10000

-... 1-
0
..<::
en
6
5
G)
~
0
1000 Square ~
;-:a;soclogon
0
9000
8000
~'" ....,;; j
G)
~ "0 c: ..<::
_J en
7000
0 0
4 Q)
(.) ....
G)
.7854 Circle E 6000
~ c: <t ::J
....
Q)
E
0
en
c:
100,000
90,000
80,000
3
-
G)

Q)

a::
::.::
~
c:

0'1
50 00

4000
0
70,000
a:: c:
"0 "0
0 2 0
0 60,000 0 3000

-
...J

.&;
0'1
'Q;
50,000
_J

'(5
en
~
40,000 c: 20 0 0
~ ::::>
en
30,000

20,000 1000
No111ogroph No. 2 900
800
700
Key : W-d -- R -K -s
600
10,000 500

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 suit-
ability 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.
 The total soil loading is, therefore,
S = S1 +S 0
where:
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
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
a= K (d} 2
and,
z= 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 over-
turning moment is given by
M1 = 0.0025(V)2 D 0
HL
equations (2) and (3) can be written as follows,
w (7)
s1 = K. d2
S _ 0.0025(V)2 D 0 H L
o F ds
Here,
V, wind velocity, mph.
D0 , diameter of tower including insulation, ft.
H, height of tower, ft.
L, 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 engi-
neer for Atlas Powder Co., Wil-
mington, 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 su-
pervision. 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 Depart-
ment, Atlas Point Plant until 1956, when he became
technical assistant to the production superintendent.
Kuong has been a process engineer since 1957.
when it is erected and empty and does not include aux-
iliaries. 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:
stm-
- KWT (9)
d2
<3 > and the condition of a perfectly balanced system, as ex-
plained 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.
(4) The second nomograph solves both equations (7) and
(9) when W, WT and d are known. The nomograph
(5) 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 de-
tailed calculations) and compare the solutions obtained
for S,, So and S 1 m using the nomographs presented
(6) 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.
(8) 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 fac-
tor 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 com-
pares 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 out-
lines 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 in-
tensity 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 uni-
form 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 self-
explanatory. 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: 0.0328wDa
= 0.414D ( D/ 2 - x) - 0.414D
= [.25 (D/2- x) - 0.0795D]wD
where "x" is the distance from the outer edge of the octa-
gon 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
w:..f..: __P__
A D2 X .828
to exceed 350 psi.
The pier reinforcement is computed by the usual for-
f ----SHORT DIAMETER OF OCTAGON,D,FT.-----1 mula used for column design. The minimum steel require-
DISTANCES TO C. G. ment would normally govern. The maximum tensile stress
t -- - - - - - -t-,43096 DI
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
r---D/2-x
then be required in the bottom of the slab. This projec-
r----D/2------1 tion beyond the pier reduces the bending moment at the
t SPAN center of the span. ##
SECTION A-A
SHOWS LOAD DISTRIBUTION ON THE SANDS

Fig. 2-Base slab plan looking up underneath the footi ng. About the author
ANDREW A. BROWN, Captain, Civil En-

,":.'1
gineer Corps, U.S. Naval Reserve, is a
Senior Engineer, Ole fins Division, Union
TABLE 1-Table of Area a a nd Mome nts
Carbide Corp., So. Charleston, W. Va.
1- Mr. Brown's professional e:r:perience in-
Mom. cludes several years in the Bridge De-
Height About
Area of Soil Volume Dlst. to Center partnumt, State Road Commission of
Sec. Prism Base Bear. Force Cent. Grav. Spnn West Virginia, and he has served as a
I. ....... .042893D .042893D2w .43096D .018485D'w bridge consultant for several cities.
"' During his 1! y ears of active duty in
II ....... .07Hl67D w/2 .0.155.11D2 w .31904D .01133G6D2w
the U.S. Navy some of his billets were:
111-a .... .007:J59D w/3 .0024531D2w .235700 .000578DJw Public Works Officer, Naval Air Station, Hampton Roads,
-
III-b .... .01471902 w/3 .0040063D2w .1()667D .000817D2w Va., Naval Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, and Naval
IV ..... .07Hl67D w/4 .oJ7766D2 w .09048D .001607702w Station, San Juan, Puerto Rico; Design and Construction
Officer, Fifth Naval District, Maintenance and Operations
Totals .... .207!0402 R- .O:l282.1603to Officer, Eleventh Naval District, and Assistant Public Works
.10355D>w
Officer and Maintenance Superintendent, Naval Air Train-
ing Basea, Pensacola, Fla. He is a member of International
Use .032SD2w
Association for Bridge and Structural Engineers, SAME,
ASCE, and has BSCE and CE degrees from West Virginia
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 University.
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
 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

1.9
J . A . A . Cummins
Hudson Engineering Corp.
Houston
l.S
IF THE FULLEST economy is
to be realized in the design of a
foundation, a complete understand-
ing of its action under various load-
ing 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 pres-
sure, 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 mid-
dle third rule gave a factor of safety
z y
of 3. The use of this data will result
in a precise, and hence more eco-
nomical design and will be consist- - I
ent with the safety factors derived
from the American Standard Build-
ing Code Requirements A58.1-

~
1955, and the ACI Building Code.
.; ConJI
Advantages of Square Base. For
vertical pressure vessel foundations,
a square base is preferable to an
octagonal or round base mainly be-
C!IHlll c:t=J. .
cause of the complications involved
in laying out the steel. An octagonal
base requires at least three layers of 0.8 L __ _....L.__ __.__ ____J._ _ _ .~.-. _ _..J__ __.__ _---i

steel, one on top of the other, and 1.5 2.0 2 .5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
consequently a greater depth of con- .,..., B BW
/YY "2e" 2M
crete.
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. Furth-
ermore, 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 char-
acter. 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 mini-
mum 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.
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 nor-
mal 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~
4 culmination of much study of wind pressures in the
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 pur-
poses. However, some companies advocate the filling of
vessels with water when hurricane warnings are re-
ceived, 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
y M N
z
0 b
B
z d c
y 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 ef-
fect 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
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 fre-
quently 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 ves-
sels, 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 recom-
mended for any location in the U.S. and for any height
above ground level. In addition, minimum recom-
mended seismic factors are given and a schedule for
recorded earthquakes in the U.S. with a map showing
the locations of their epicenters.
 T
Concrete Design. The concrete base should be de-
signed according to the latest ACI Building Code ( ACI
318-56) . In Figure 2, the bending moment on the foot-
ing is calculated on Section MM and the diagonal ten-
99'-6"
sion on NN ~ith bending about YY axis. The octagonal

l
pedestal is reduced to a square of equivalent area and H=IOG'O"
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 X the area of the steel
y2
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 FIGURE 3-Example Figure. A typical absorber is studied
then be placed at wider spacings. At present, the ACI with foundations located in Nevada, Oklahoma and Central
Texas.
Code specifies the moment to be taken and the steel to
be distributed evenly over the full breadth of the base M. = Earthquake moment bottom of footing, lb. ft.
on Section MM. The diagonal tensile stress is to be C' =Side of square of equivalent area to octagon, ft.
computed from area bcgh on Section NN of width gh. s, = Soil pressure for mat design, PSF
The computation of bending moment and diagonal ten- S0 = Soil pressure due to total operating load, PSF
St = Soil pressure due to total test load, PSF
sion about these sections is best handled by use of S,. = Soil pressure due to wind or earthquake, PSF
formulae. These must vary according to whether the D = Depth of concrete, ft.
conditions are Case I or Case II (see Figure 1) . Case d = Depth of steel in concrete, inches
III will be similar to Case II. The method of design is B =Side of square base, ft.
probably best illustrated by the following examples: ']min= Minjroum FOS against overturning
=
']o Operating FOS against overturning
e0 =Operating eccentricity, ft.
EXAMPLES V 0 = Shear at Section N, lbs.
A typical absorber is taken, for example, with founda- V m = Shear at Section M, lb/ft
tions to be located in ( 1) Nevada, (2) Oklahoma, (3) Mm = Moment in footing on Section M, lb ft/ft
Central Texas (Figure 3) . The vessel is 84 inches ID X Sa= Allowable stresses in accordance with ACI 'C ode, psi
99 feet-6 inches S-S. The allowable soil pressure is 4000 Mu = Moment in footing due to uplift at Section M, lb
ft/ ft
PSI at 5 feet below grade. The shell thickness is 3.5 ~ 0 = Sum of bar perimeters in one foot width, inches
inches. Using 4 inch insulation gives 99 inches or 8.25 s. = Shear stress, psi
feet OD. f = Depth of soil above base, ft.

Erected weight empty

Weight of water to fill
=
409,620 lbs. w.
244,500 lbs. = w..
409,620 Jbs. t W.plusW1 =
Maximum vessel weight 654,120 lbs. = wm 438,420
Operating liqujd load =WI 28,800 Jbs. ~
Pedestal 9 feet-3 inches across flats;
weight = 70.84 X 4 .25 X 150 45,100 lbs.
Operating design load for mat 483,520 lbs.
Notes. ( 1) Unit weight of soil in calculations has been
taken at 90 lbf cu ft, being the probable
The following abbreviations have been used: minimum weight if unconsolidated.
M,.r = Wind moment about bottom of footing at center, ( 2) For wind moment calculation allow 2 feet
lb. ft. 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 re- V0 = B 2W
X"Y[ 2
~ (C' plus d/6) (2X- Y) plus Y/3 (3x- y) J
duced by an analysis of all the extraneous 2 X 483,520 X 4-.13
projections. 19.5X (16.2)2

Example (I)-Nevada. A58-1-1955 gives a 20 PSF

[~ .(8.42 plus 2.83) (32.40- 4.13) plus 1.28 (48.60- 4.13) J
pressure zone. = 780 ( 159.08 plus 56.92) = 168,480 lbs.
Wind pressure 0 - SO feet= 15 X shape factor 0.6 = 9 PSF S = Shear Stress =
vn
en vert. proj. ( 12"0' plus 2 d) jd
SO- 50 feet= 20 X shape factor 0.6 = 12 PSF 168,480
....,..,~-=--=-:-7-:~=-:-~=-
= 85 PSI < 100
50- 100 feet= 25 X shape factor 0.6 = 15 PSF ( 101 plus 34) 0.867 X 17
u 2 W" B-C'
100 feet up =SO X shape factor 0.6 = 18 PSF M 01 = B,Z ( 2X plus u) where u = - --
3 2 2
M,.r = 10.25 ( 18 X 6 X 108 plus 15 X 50 X 80 plus u = ~ (19.5-8.42) =5.54
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) = (5.54 )2 483,520
Mm = 58.5 X ( 16.2 ) 2 (32.40plus5.54) =36,700lb.ft/ft
900,6061b/ft
Let B = 19 feet-6 inches and
D= 1.75feet W0 = 483,520 lbs. WP = 45,100 lbs.
Weight of base 19.5 2 X 1.75 X 150 wb = 99,820 lbs. 99,820 lbs.
Weight of soil above base wb + WP 144,920 lbs.
90X (280-71) 3.25 W1 =90,380 lbs.
Operating load on soil W0 - 673,720 lbs.
Operating liquid load -deduct =
W 1 -28,800 lbs. 12 M 01 = 12 X 36,700
Steel in bottom
Minimum direct soil load W min= 644,920 lbs. s. X jd 26,667 X 0.867 X 17
Water to fill W,. = 244,500 lbs. = 1.12 in. 2
Max. test load on soil wt = 889,4-20 lbs.
Soil pressure under test load 2,341 PSF Use No. 7 @ 6 inches on centers

As Nevada is a region of recorded earthquakes, see

KF = 260 X 12 X 172 = 75,300 >M - no compression steel
12
A58.1-1955, a seismic factor of 0.1 is taken.
4-Mm 4 X 36,700
check bond: V m ::;: (B _ C') 13,250 lbs./ft
M. = 0.1 (438,420 X 58.5 plus 144,920 X 2.5) 11.08
= 2,564,750 plus 362,300
= 2,927,050 lb. ft/ft. - vm - 13,250
bond stress- jd l:o - 0.867 X 17 X S.S = 163 PSI < 267
This moment must be used since it is greater than M.,.r.
_ WmlnXB 644,920 X 19.5 = 1. The formula for uplift is approximate and applies only when
2 15 5
'1mln- 2 M 2 X 2,927,050 . > BplusC'
x> 2

'1o =
W0 X B
2M,
= 673,720 X 19.5 = .
2 X 2,927,050
2 24 Mu= -B2 (90fplus 150D) ( - 3- -1
8 '~min
)2
- 2,927,050 - 380 (90 X 3.25 plus 150 X 1.75)
M
e
o
=-
wo
- - 673,720
= 4.35 feet 8 (0.396)2
= 4,135 lb. ft/ft
. 4,135 X 12 _ . 2
From curve, '7o < 2.8 and ;, > 1 i.e. max soil pressure at side Steel 10 top 26,667 X 0.867 X 17 - 0 13 10

4- wo 4- X 673,720 = 4-,265 PSF Use No.4@ 12 inches on centers

Soil pressure =-=-=-':-:-
3B (B-2e) 58.5 X 10.8 KF > M I no compression steel
Subtract wt. of original soil at
given depth 90 X 5 = 4-50
Vu = (90 f plus 150 D) (B- x) = 555 X 3.3 = 1,850 lbs./ft.
Max. soil pressure 3,815 PSF < 4,000 1 850 .
bond stress 0.867 X 17 X 1.6 = 79 pslok
Concrete design for 2,500 psi at 28 days
f0 = 1,125 f, = 20,000 Example (2)-0klahoma. A58-1-1955 gives a 40
adding 33y; percent overstress for ACI 603(c) PSF pressure zone.
f 0 = 1,500 f, = 26,667
Wind pressure 0 - 30 feet 30 X shape factor 0.6 = 18 PSF
.iFor D = 1.75; let d = 17 inches; C' = 0.91 X 9.25 = 8.42 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= ~ (B-C' -d/6) = ~ (19.5-8.4-2 -2.83)=4.13 100up 60 X shape factor 0.6 = 36 PSF

66
 M... r= 10.25 (36 X 6 X 108 plus 30 X 50 X 80 plus
Shear stress S,
24- X 20 X 45 plus 18 X 30 X 20) (12 C' plus 2d) X 0.867 d
= 10.25 (23\328 plus 120,000 phu 21,600 phu 10,800) 156 265
=1,801,200 b. ft. = 99 9 PSI< 100
(101 plus 28) X 0.867 X 14
For 8 = 18 f~et; D = 1.5; f = 3.5 W, plus W 1 = 438,420 lbs.
Design moment Mm = ~
8
(8- C')2 plus~
24-B
WP = 70.84 X 4.5 X 150 = 47,820 lbs.
..;- 82 = S1 = 1,501 PSF (2 BS- 3 BZC' plus C'S)
W0 " = 486,240 lbs. Note: if s... < Ys s., then letS,.= 0 and allowable bending
stress Sb = 20,000 PSI
Weight of base 182 X 1.5 X 150 Wb= 72,900 lbs.
if S,.. > Ys S1 , compute Mm as above and Sb = 26,667 PSI
Weight of soil above
90X3.5 (324-71) W8 = 79,700 lbs. 1,501 1,853
Mm = --(18 - 8.42)2 plus X (11,664-
8 24 18 8,175 plus 595)
Operating load on soil w 0 = 638,840 lbs.
W 1 = -28,800 lbs. = 17,256 plus 17,518 = 34,774lb. ft/ft
Operating liquid load deduct
Minimum direct soil load W min= 610,040 lbs. 12 34 774 12
Steel in bottom = Mm "{' X
Sb X .867 d 26,667 X 0.867 X 14
Water to fill Ww = 244,500 lbs. = 1.29 in2/ft.
Max. test load on soil Wt = 854,540 lbs.
Use No.8@ 7 inches on centers
Soil pressure under test load Wt/82 = 2,637 PSF
4M 4 X 34,774- .
V m+ B _ 10
C' = _ _ :;;;;: 14,490 lbs./ft l:0 = 5.4 mches
Seismic factor 0.025 gives M. ;;;;:: 652,000 lb/ft < M,.r 18 8 41

610,010 X 18 KF = X X 50,960 > M, i.e. no compression

J..!.!L: =
3.05 260 12 12 steel
'~miD= 2 X 1,801,200
1,801,200 Bond stress =
vm 14,490
638,840 X 18
3.19 and e0 , = 2.82 feet 0.867 dl:0 0.867 X 14 X 5.4
2 X 1,801,200 638 840
= 221 PSI< 267
Consult curve for.-!:. for '10 = 3.19 and obtain.-!:.= 0.914 Note: if s ... had been < Ys S1, allowable bond stress = 200 PSI
p' p'
Uplift-Since 7JmtD > 3, there can be no uplift. It is
. 4W 0 P _ 4 X 638,840 usual to provide nominal No. 4 @ 12 inch centers in
Sot) pressure = ( _ eo) 0

p;-- 54 (18-5.64)
38 8 2 such cases in the top of the mat, both ways.
1
X _ = 4,189 PSF
0 914 Example (3)-Central Texas. A58-1-1955 gives a 25
Subtract weight of original soil at given depth 90 X 5 = - 450
PSF pressure zone.
(at comer) Max. soil pressure - 3,739 Wind Pressure: 0 - 30 20 X shape factor 0.6 = 12 PSF
< 4,000PSF 30- 50 25 X shape factor 0.6 = 15 PSF
Concrete design for 2,500 psi concrete @ 28 days 50-100 30 X shape factor 0.6 = 18 PSF
f0 = 1,125 f, =
20,000 100up 40 X shape factor 0.6 = 24 PSF
and adding 33 ~ percent overstress for ACI 603 (c) M,.r = 10.25 (24 X 6 X 108 + 18 X 50 X 80+
fe = 1,500 f, =
26,667 15 X 20 X 45 +
12 X 30 X 20)
C' = 0.91 X 9.25 = 8.42 feet B = 18 D = 1.5 d = 14 inches = 10.25 (15,552 + 72,000 + 13,500 + 7,200)
= 1,109,580 lb. ft.
K = 1/B (C' plus d/6) = 1/18 (8.42 plus 2.33) = 0.6
For B = 16 feet-6 inch D= 1.5 f=3.5
S = M ... r X 6 1,801,200 X 6 = 1,853 PSF W 0,. =486,240 ..;- B2 = S, = 1,786 PSF
w 81 (18)a Weight of base
B2 16.52 X 1.5 X 150 wb = 61,260 lbs.
Max. shear V D= c1 - K) [3 S1 (K plus 1) plus 2 s... (K 2
12 plus K plus 1)]
Weight of soil above
90X3.5(272-71) W,=63,320lbs.
Note: if s ... < Ys S1 , then let S,. = 0 and allowable shear Operating load on soil W0 = 610,820 + B2 = S0 = 2,244 PSF
stress S, = 75 PSI Operating liquid load-
if S,. > Ys S1, compute Vn as above and S, = 100 PSI deduct - 28,800 lbs.
Minimum direct soil load
182
Vn=12(0.4) WmiD= 582,020 lbs.
Water to fill W., = 244,500 lbs.
(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. 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 For example (1),
M" = 0.1 (438,420 X 56.75 + 45,100 X 2.25) =
Wmla X B 582.020 X 16.5 2,600,470 lb. ft.
'~min= 2 M wt = 2 X 1' 109, 580 = 433 > 1.5
WR = cw. + Wp + WL) = 483,520
610,820 X 16.5 _ (48/104) X2,600,470 - 483,520_ 716,700
17 o = 2 X 1,109,50 = 454 A- 26,667 X 32 - 26,667 X 32
= 0.84 in 2
A! '10 > 3.6, proceed as follows:
i.e., provide 2 at No. 9 and 2 at No. 8 at each of 8 pedestal
M,.t X 6 1,109,580 X 6 = 1,482 PSF faces.
S,.= BS (16.5)8
For example (2), M" =
(H/ 2) ++
L- D
(H/ 2 L
56.5
Mwt = 5s Mwt
Soil pressure (on comer) = S0 +
1.414 S,.
+
= 2,244 2,096 = 4,340 PSF For cases where the depth of the base D is small
compared to overall height of tower, M'' can be taken
Subtract weight of original soil at given - 450
depth 90 X 5 - 3,890 PSF as Mwf
Max. soil pressure < 4,000 PSF WR = (W. + Wp ) = 457,440
- (48/104) 1,801,200 - 457,440 373,890
Concrete design for 2,500 psi concrete at 28 Days.
A- 26,667 XN 26,667 X 32
"'o > 3, procedure similar to example (2). = 0.44in
).e., provide 4 at No. 6 at each pedestal face
Dowels. These must be provided to transfer any ten-
For example (3),
sile force from the pedestal into the base. This force is
transferred by bond from that part of the anchor bolts _ (48/104X 1,to9,580 - 457,440 _ . 2
A- 26,667 :X 16 - 0.I 3 m
actually embedded in the pedestal. However it is usual
to design dowels for the full tensile force whether the i.e., provide 2 at No. 4 at each pedestal face
bolts go into the mat or not.
Anchor Bolts. These may be computed as follows:
Let N = number of dowels in a circle Dd inches in
diameter Let Db = diameter of bolt circle in inches.
Let M'' = the wind or earthquake moment at bot- N = number of bolts
tom of pedestal M' = wind moment at base plate
Let A = area of each dowel; WR = minimum resist- W R = minimum resisting weight
ing weight
(48/Db) M' - Wa
(48/Dd) M-WR
Then Root Area A = f X N
Then A= SA X N
WR is usually the empty weight W but when the earth-
quake 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 M' = 438,420 X 52.5 = 2,301,700 lb. ft.
J. A. A. Cummins is a civil A_ (48/104) 2,301 ,700-438,420 623,900 .
engineer working in design and - 30,000 X 20 600,000 = 1.04 m2
construction for H\ldson Engi-
neering Corp., Houston. He at- Use 20- 1%-inch dia. bolts SAE 4140
tended Nautical College, Pang-
bourne, Epgland, for four. years;- For example (2),
then went to Royal College of
, (H/ 2) 53
Science and Technology, Gla.~
gow, Scotland, for four years tl
+
M ~ (H/2 ) LMwr =ssX 1,801,200 = 1,646,000 lb. ft.
study civil en'gineering. He started A (48/104) 1,646,000 - 409,620
his career with a consulting engi- = 30,000 X 16
neering firm in Scotland in 1947.
From 1951-54 he was a concrete 350,070
0.73 inZ
structural engineer in England, 480,000
and from 1954-56 was an engi- Use 16@ 11,4-inch dia SAE 4140
neer and superintendent on a
project to construct a dam in
Scotland. He joined Hudson 2~ For example (3) M' ~ ~; X 1,109,580 = 1,013,930
years ago in Ontarior and has
been with the Houston office for (48/104) 1,013,930-409,620 58,350 041. 2
a year. A registered professional A= 12,000 X 12 144,000 = 10
engineer, Cummins is a member
of several technical societies. Use 12 @ 1 inch dia. carbon steel.
( Ys" dia would do here, but normally less than inch would
not be used) ##
68
NOTES

69
 ~ "
COMPUTER FOUNDATION :~.
....
OESIGN . . f
... .
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 proc-

essing 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 over-
turning 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 foot-
ing (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 over-
turning moments, respectively; applied at the footing
centroid-without giving any special consideration as to
how this combination of forces and moments was ob-
tained. It should be mentioned, however, that when pro-
portioning footing sizes in the design engineering office,
the actual make-up of the critical load-moment combi-
nations could be of economic significance. Figure 1
shows several computer-designed footings in a refinery
under construction. As with the other engineering mate-
rials, 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. Ob-
viously, no increase in allowable soil bearing would be
advisable when the moments, about the footing center-
lines, 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 foot-
ings 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 foot-
ings 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 uncer-
tain. 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 simpli-
fying 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 contribu-
tion can be evaluated from the simple flexure formula
~e , provided that the resultant eccentricity e (com-
puted from ~) falls within the kern of the footing
area. By superposition, the maximum and minimum
pressures are simply the algebraic additions of the direct
andbendmg. components, A+P
-Me d P Me
- an A - - - , respec-
1 1
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 foot-
ing, 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 de-
scribed 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 con-
jectured, 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 por-
tions 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 rein-
forcement is placed in two directions, (as can be seen
in Figure 2) with the bars in one direction resting di-
rectly 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. + Mye 1
A - IX -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:
y
~T'
T
1 Q'
o~ a ---1
.a
j_l
o~a ~
x
T
1
ol-- a -----J
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 l-
axis, the maximum soil pressure under the footing
corner equals the resultant load P divided by A - C!or -
a part of the footing area becomes ineffective in the analy-
~x where A is the effective footing area; Q 0 and Q 07
, sis: stability diminishes and the maximum soil pressure
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 loca-
tions 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,
.
t.e., 0
E,.
+ TE 1
~
1
6 The footing is then fully under
D
4
D ~
4 :j
~I..-
-i
y
T
.a
j1v
ol- a -----l
X
.D
l
1-
a
X
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 aver-
age 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,
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 re-
sistance 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 depend-
ence 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. COMPUTE: PRINT

SOIL BEARING: k, = IXY- Y,.Ooy HEADINGS
p0 = GIVEN P k 2 = lxY- X.. Oox AND GIVEN
A _ OoY _ Oox k = lox- Y,.Oox
3
INPUT DATA
a b k4 = loy- X.. Oov
ks = Oox- YpA
k = Oov- X.. A
6 COMPUTE LOAD
COMPUTE
COORDINATES:
p, =Po[ 1- ~] X,. = D/ 2 - Ex
Y,. = T/ 2 - Ey

COMPUTE INITIAL
NEUTRAL-AXIS
PARAMETERS:
a = 2Dl 100%
PRINTOUT:
b =2T \BEARING
PROPERTIES,
PARAMETERS, r - coMPuTe me - I
% OF GROSS, I GEOMETRIC PROPERTIES I
CYCLE I OF EFFECTIVE* AREA:
L~:_~x~ov,~o~l~, ~Y J
COMPUTE PERCENT
FOOTING AREA
UNDER BEARING

ADD ONE
TO CYCLE 1 - - -- - - '
COUNTER

PRINT: STORE THE N.A.

SOIL BEARING COMPARE PARAMETERS USED
AT FOOTING PARAMETER b IN COMPUTING THE
0
1- CORNERS TO OLD b 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

SIOL 0 SIDE l AR.EA OF FOO T l NG GIVEN LOAO P 11/fCCENTRJC IT J ES

)( y
15.000 1 0 .500 1!>7.500 SO.FT. 250.000 KIPS 1. 000 l.OOO FT.

PROPER TIES 0 1' EFFECTlVE FOO TI NG ARE A

CYCLE ARt A :ji GROSS Ci Q I 1 I PARAMfTE RS

0)( C!Y ox OY H A 6
S TAitT WITH 30.000 21. 000
1 157 . 500 10 C.OCO fl26 . t!75 1181 .250 5788. 125 ll$12.500 620 1 .56 2 36.964 111 .1 13
2 15 7.500 1CO . OCO 826 . 875 1181 . 25 0 5 788 .1 25 11812.500 6201.562 36. 9 64 u . 1n

~ Pf. 0 iil PT .l i PT. 2 i PT . 3

SG IL B EARI~G AT CORNER 3129 . 14 6 PSF 1317 . 310 PSF 50. 066 PSF l tl61.8H PSF

Exa mp le 2
SIC E. C SIDE T AREA Cf FOCT ING GIVEN LOAD p WIECCENTRICI TIES
)( y
1!>.00 0 1.0.500 157.soo so.n. 100 . 000 KIPS 3.750 3. 250 FT .

PROPI:RTHS OF EFF ECTIVE FOOTING AREA

C.YCl E Ai~EA t GRGSS I PARAMET ERS
' ())(
Q
OY
I
ox OV
I

START WITH
XV A
30. 000
B
21.000
1 157.500 100 . 000 H26.615 1181.250 '.5788.125 11812 . 500 6201.562 2 1. 786 12.317
l 118 . 23 1 75.067 501.779 11-6.501 2999.846 6696.222 2688. 006 17. 422 10.1"+8
3 86.690 , 5. 0 41 298.221 486.357 1516.686 404"+.463 1289.866 1 5~663 8.798
4 6&.718 't3.668 202.0'o9 357 . 855 888.882 2788.659 191.004 15.094 8. 147
5 61 . ... 83 39.036 166.973 309 . 317 680 . 1"68 2334.152 630 . 075 15 . 003 8 . 006
6 60 . (1 5.7 38. lJ 1 160.272 300 . 345 641.569 2253.038 601.140 15.000 a.o oo
7 60 . 000 38.095 l6o . ooo 300 . 000 640.000 2250 . 000 600.000 15 . 000 8.000

@ PT . 0 a PT. 1 i PT. 2 i PT . J
SOIL BEARI~G AT CORN ER 5000.000 PSF PSF PSF . 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 Solution.
taken as the boundary line cf the c!Tective footing area.
TllC basic computer routine developed for solving biaxial
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 eccen-
trically with respect to the footing centerlines, at a
distance of 1'-0" from each centerline.
P= 250kips
E = 1'0"
X

eccentricity problems in reinforced-concrete, described E = 1'-0"

y
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
I
t 2
comply with the usual nomenclature applicable to foot-
ings. 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 -
(D
the reader is also referred to the writer's paper " Ana- . . t....
lytical Approach to Biaxial Ecc(:ntricity. " 2 T he logic -0
pattern used in formulating this program for the small !Ey p
computer is shown flow-charted in Figure 4. From start 1-~+ .
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.
1o, .. I
I
Ex

Example 1. The plan of a footing used in a rigid

.....-- - - -- 15 I - 0 II
frame structure supporting several heat-exchangers is FIGURE 5-Example L

75
CALCULATE FOOTING SOIL BEARING
- --
--- --
,..._.,t.~--
1"1- ..;;;.;-
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 rec-
tangle (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 Engi-
neering Dept., reviews manual tech-
niques 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 Uni-
versity in 1949 and an M.S. in Civil
Engineering from Columbia in 1950.
He is a registered engineer in Cali-
fornia 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
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 neutral-
axis parameters remain the same throughout two con-
secutive 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.
Solution. Resultant P = 250- 150 = 100 kips
. .. ~Ex= 1.00 + 2.75 = 3.75 ft.
Eccentncttles 1Ey = 1.00 + 2.25 = 3.25 ft.
Stability t S.R. = 7.50/3.75 = 2.0
Ratios 5 S.Ry = 5.25/3.25 = 1.62 > 1.5
The load is now outside the kern, and with the large
eccentricities used in this example, stability against over-
turning 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: x-
direction 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 suc-
cessive substitutions of neutral-axis parameters to ab-
solute convergence, which for this example was reached
in six cycles (see Note in Example 1). Computer print-
out results, including the geometric properties at each
cycle, are shown in Figure 6, and diagram of the dis-
tribution of the soil bearing under the footing in Fig-
ure 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 sup-
ports 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 solu-
tion 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 com-
puter with a core storage capacity of only 4,000 alpha-
merical 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 them-
selves 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, func-
tional 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 col-
umn 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 load-
moment 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 re-
sults. This computational complexity in reinforced-con-
crete 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 mem-
ber might be a simple rectangle, the shape of the con-
crete's effective portion (used in analysis) need not neces-
sarily 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 compli-
cate 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 con-
crete. According to Section 1109 (b) of the ACI Code*
* Building Code Requirement.l for Reinforud Concrete (ACI S18-56}

77
CONCRETE SUPPORT ANAlYSIS
f ~--------------------~c
OR c
s OOb
OS f 0
y
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 com-
pression 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-~-
a _!.b._]
where f0 represents the intensity of stress at the chosen
point of origin, and the constants a, b designate the inter-
cepts of the neutral-axis line on the x- and y-axP.S re-
spectively.
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 compres-
sion 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 ex-
tends 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. Conver-
gence of the two lines until they almost coincide consti
tutes, for all practical purposes, the solution of the prob-
lem. 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 as-
sumed 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 meas-
uring 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 con-
crete remains intact at all times, and they deform to-
gether under stress. In reality, this is not exactly true.
There is experimental evidence that the bars in the com-
pression 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
y
R 0
I~ a j
FIGURE 3-The area under compression is a triangle.
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 approxi-
mate the effect of creep, the stress in compression rein-
forcement resisting bending may be taken at twice the
value indicated by using the straight-line relation be-
tween stress and strain, and the modular ratio n." How-
ever, 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. De-
noting the allowable tensile unit stress in reinforcement
by f 1 the equations governing the stresses in the reinforc-
ing steel can be written as:
tensile f = nf 0 [ 1- : - ~ J
~ J: ;
compressive ' 8 = 2nf0 [ 1- : - f1
The reader should note that in the case of the com-
pressive reinforcement, the bar which is under compres-
sion 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 sub-
tracted 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 com-
pensation, 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 [ L --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 per-
mitted, these bars also displace some effective concrete.
Hence. they too must have their areas subtracted or the
 100/o
Compress eon

I n m v
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]
a b
Where A denotes the over-all effective area of the cross-
section 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 deter-
mining the adequacy of the section to sustain a given de-
sign 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 engi-
neers. Nevertheless, it must be determined first, before
proceeding with the more essential task of establishing
structural adequacy. The general equation* for the pa-
rameters of the neutral-axis are:
obtained. Furthermore, by choosing (as the origin) that
corner at which the concrete compressive stress is a maxi-
mum, 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 in-
tersects 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 compres-
sion 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 tri-
angle to rectangle, are shown shaded in Figure 4.
y
o~d
b~t

-
x-axis intercept a=

(lxy-Yp~;y) (l.y-XpQo,.)- (lox-Yp~x) (Ioy-XpQoy)

(~x- YpA) (I,.1 - XPQ0 ,.) - (Q01 - XPA) (101 - YPQ0 ,.)
X
yaxis intercept b =
d
(11 y - Yp~y) (I,.,.- XP~")- (10 , . - YPQ0 ,.} (l0y-Xp~y)
(Q07 - X 11 A) (Ixy- YPQ07 ) - (Q.,,.- YpA) {I0 y- X,~,.)

Where lox and loy are the. moments of inertia about the
t a
The required properties of the effective portion of the
J
x, y-axes, and I,.,. denotes the product of inertia of the
concrete for the five possible shapes can be obtained from
area about the origin. XP and YP are the coordinates of
the formulas for shape IV. The geometric properties in
the applied eccentric load.
terms of the neutral-axis intercepts and the section di-
In the above equations, all the section properties obvi- mensions are shown formulated below:
ously pertain to the over-all effective section. The proper-
tics of the effective portion of the concrete are added
with the transformed properties of the steel.
I [ ("-d):
AR.EA="f ab - a - - (b-t), ]
1- -b-

Rectangular Sections. In the case of rectangular sec-

1 [- (a-d)' (b-t)'-s (b-t)'
Q..=s"' -a- - -b- I > 1> t]
tions, it is convenient to locate the origin of the coordi-
nate system in one of the corners of the rectangle (see
1 [1- (a-d)'
Q.,=r;a'b -.,.- - (b-)' (a-d)' d]
- b - --3 -
3
- -;

Figure 2) and let the axes coincide with two sides. The
main advantage is the relative ease with which the vari-
ous formulas for the required section properties can be
*For background and dcvdopment of th-.e and the other equations listed
in this article cc the author's "Analytical App<oach to Biaxial Eccentric-
ity" Paper 3239 in the Journal of the Sttuetural Divialon, Proceedinso of
tho American Society of Civil Engineen, Vol. 88. No. ST4, Augwt 1962.

79
 N N
CONCRETE SUPPORT ANALYSIS
Moments of Inertia 10 x. = .!: m A 1 y 12 loy == 2: m AI xi2
i == l i=l
enter with
Old poromlfM A and I N
and section sides C and D
subtract
K from AREA . aubtroct
3Cft from OoK
Product of Inertia lx.y = .!: m A1 x1 y 1
compute i == 1
.R T
A I
5ubtroet sublroct
let_ w ether \
v.t _, ~
R from ~ox 2CR (2t C)
from loy
Convergence Technique. In the usual design problem_,
A I .
it potttive ? I y oot. .
compresSion #
1
C1'f
~ it is necessary to find the size of the reinforced-concrete
J, move 20 to subtroetfox compute
section which can adequately sustain a given system of
crocked'-:
' no ) parameter A 1
K from l:~ YG
ec:tlon loading. Several loading combinations must frequently
J l
zeroout~.
subtract multiply
AIIU by 0
be considered, and the trial sections must be incremented
e~ate to one: move 2T to 4Cit from In Ol)d
AR A,~Ooy
lox, lov XY
parameter 1 store n AREA until all conditions are satisfied. The most laborious part
multply
of the computations (as design engineers well know) is
~~'
move nro subtract Oox by Gil!
and determining the parameters of the neutral-axis line. The
to MARK ICR from 0 0 y K for store in OoK
NE coordinates of the applied load are calculated from the
subtract
no
mulliply
QOY b~ GA/3
bending moments (usually given with respect to the cen-
move a d
parameter A
to AXIS L
2CII(2 Cl
from loy
store in Ooy terlines of the section). Together with the properties of
TWO
test
MARK for fS
mumr>Y 1
lox by G& t&
the assumed section, they are used to determine the
move
side D
move
parameter I
and
store in lox
neutral-axis parameters. There will be only one neutral-
toWIOTH W to L no
~ axis which will satisfy equilibrium conditions and stress-
/
~---- ---
EXIT t~ \
multiply a
Joy by GA i'l strain limitations. When the concrete is not permitted to
, error routtne 1
o.dd one
to MARK
move
side T -----
.... _.; store .a"\
n v take any calculated tension, the neutral-axis line is as-
to w

.., multiply 1
1XY by (;/12
sumed to be the boundary line of the effective portion of
the concrete. The problem, then, is to find that neutral-
~-
test whlrfher \ oM
store In 1xv
L- W
Is nevative ? j Y"-i KO
RO axis which almost coincides with the edge of the effective
EXIT section. The clifference betwen the two lines constitutes
no to steel
the measure of the computational error, which, obviously,
compute
properties routin should be kept as small as practicable.
compute compute
~.e f- (J..-i_W)' r.- (!-~w_)' "
L
I(
The work of finding the required parameters may fre-
quently be facilitated by following a systematic procedure
FIGURE 5-Computer sequence for properties of effective of successive substitutions until the desired results are

concrete section. 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
To compute the contribution of the steel is compara- parameters equal to twice the section dimensions) the
tively easy. The transformed properties of all the indi- first trial line is determined. If the neutral-axis line falls
vidual bars are added. Care must be exercised to assign within the section, it is subsequently used to define the
the proper effectiveness index to each bar. In order to effective section, all the properties are recalculated, and
differentiate it from the modular ration, let the effective-
ness index be designated by m. For tension bars, the
numerical value of m is made equal to n in cracked sec-
tions and to n - 1, when concrete tension is permitted.
About the Author
For compressive reinforcement, its value is 2n- 1 when
Eli Czerniak is a principal design engineer with The
the bar stress is less than ft. When the stress in the com- Fluor Corp., Los Angeles. He coordinates computer
pressive bar reaches (the allowable steel tensile stress) applications for the Design Engi-
neering Dept., reviews manual tech-
the value of m is reduced to niques and develops new methods
and procedures better adaptable to

ft - 1 C::: 2n- l systems conversiOn 1n automating
the design and drafting of refinery
f0 (~-~-:!__)
a b
units. Mr. Czerniak received a B.S.
in engineering from Columbia Uni-
versity in 1949 and an M.S. in Civil
where fo is the concrete stress at the origin. Engineering from Columbia in 1950.
He is a registered engineer in Cali-
Therefore, the required transformed properties for fornia and has published a number
of technical articles. He has had
steel reinforcement are: field experience as a civil engineer
Czerniak and worked in design and drafting
with Arthur G. McKee Co. in Union,
Area A= r. N

i == 1
mA 1 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
MoJllent Areas Qox. = r.
N

i == 1
m Al Yl Qoy = r.
N

i == 1
m Ai xi
his present position.

80
 r-t-~-
new parameters are determined. The process of substitut- y
ing the calculated parameters of the neutral-axis for the B'i Co<>r!oles

1
z"tlr
parameters of the effective section is repeated to any de- lTypl 6-11 .s bars
2.375" 2 375"
sired degree of approximation. The convergence routine
is quite fast, and only a small number of cycles will
. 2.375" 11.625"
9.ooo'' 2.375"

usually be sufficient for most practical problems.

<IJ
f
9.000" 11.62!1"
15.625" 2.375"
1 e. 15.625" II .62.5'' X
Computer Program. When setting up a computer pro- I. '18" .I 0
gram for solution of e1')gineering problems, heavy emphasis
should be placed on the simplicity of the input data and FIGURE 6--Comer colwnn in exchanger structure used iD
clarity of the output. With the formulas and procedures examples.
described before, the writer developed a program for
solving biaxial eccentricity problems, on the basis of elas- compressive stresses in concrete (at corner used for
tic action, with a small computer, having a core storage origin} and steel, as well as the maximum stress in the
capacity of 4,000 alphamerical characters. Because of the tensile reinforcement.
widespread availability of these small units it should in-
Numerical Examples. The reinforced-concrete section
terest engineers that even without Fortran capability they
shown in Figure 6 is a corner column in an exchanger
can be used for numerous analytical applications. The
structure. The allowable unit stresses are: 1,350 psi in
program was written in SPS (Symbolic Programing Sys-
concrete (for f/ = 3,000) and 20,000 for the reinforcing
tem) and punched into 529 cards, which were later con-
densed into a 104 card deck. The card reader has a rated .steel.
speed of 800 cards per minute, which means that it takes Example I. The column section shown in Figure 6 is
approximately 8 second to load the whole program. Com- loaded with a compressive force of 15 kips, and with
putations and printout average one-half second per cycle. bending moments about the centerlines of the section
Absolute convergence, wherein the neutral-axis param- equal to 22.5 ft. kips and 17.5 ft. kips, in the x and y
eters {measured to three significant figures to the right directions, respectively. Determine whether the section
of the decimal point) remain the same through two con- can adequately sustain the above loading using effective
secutive cycles is usually achieved within eight cydes. In modular ratios of n equals 10 for the tensile and 2n- l
most instances the results of the third iteration seemed to or 19 for compressive reinforcement.
have sufficed for all practical purposes. In the two ex-
amples cited, six cycles were required for the absolute
y
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 ma-

chine digested, the convergence routine starts with
neutral-axis parameters equal to twice the section di- -~ .
mensions and computes the necessary 'transformed' sec
tion properties from which, together with the load coor-
-(\J

0
.
dinates 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
X
effective-section properties is illustrated in the block dia- w
0 12"
gram, shown in Figure 5.
At each iteration cycle the equilibrium load compati-
ble with the section properties, load coordinates, limiting
-.....
J
stresses and the newly determined neutral-axis para- g'
meters, is computed and printed together with maximum

SlOE 0 SlOE T lOAD COORDINATES NO. Of URS A WEIGHT SUM 0 PIOOULAR RATIOS
s II N
u.ooo 14.000
)(
- 9.000
'(
- 7.000 06 2.640 9.012 l't.Ut. 10.0 "
19.0

AREA 0 0 I I I PARAMETERS
OK OY ox UY XY A II
STEEl 50.1&00 )51. uoo lt!il.lt400 .l510. 79)6 S530.6624 3160.0798 36.000 28.000
CNCR1' 252.0000 1764.0000 2268.0000 16464.0000 27216.0000 15876.0000
TOTAL 302.1600 2115.1200 2719.4400 l99<i4.1936 3271t6.6624 19016.0798
CYCLE CNCRT FO 1350.000PSl STEH,COMPR l9S48 TENSION l60l LOAD 323201 19.200 l5.486NEW

STEEL 34.3200 203.6100 282.6450 1902.9860 :U53.91l7 1770.1817 12.000 10.200

CNCRT 61.2000 208.0800 244.8000 1061.2080 U68.8000 624.2400
TOTAL 95.5200 411.6900 S27.41t50 2964.1940 4722.77l7 2l9ft.4217
CYCLE 6 CNCRT FO l350.000PSI STEEl,tOMPR 15411 TENSION 19454 LOAD 1Sl2U 12.000 10.200NfW

FIGURE 7-Computer solutioa to problem Example 1.

81
CONCRETE SUPPORT ANALYSIS . is an actual computer printout. For these eccentricities
the load coordinates listed with respect to one corner as
Solution. With P = 15 kips, the eccentricities are: origin are:
22.5 X 12 . xp = - 9 inches
e. =
. 15
= 18 mch~~
YP = - 7 inches

e1 = I 7.515X 12 = 14 me
h
es After convergen ce, the load capacity is shown as
15,128 lbs. which is slightly more than the given 15 kips
The solution of this prqblem is shown in Figure 7, which and hence O.K . The capacity of t he section to sustain
K this eccentric load was evidently limited by the 1,350 psi
y 14.64 compression in the concrete. Maximum tensile stress was
( te nsion) 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) .
Example 2. What is the maximum tension load which
can be supported by the section of Figure 6, if the eccen

X
tricities of Example 1 are halved?
Solution. P =
? With eccentricities equal to e,. 9 =
inches and e7 = 7 inches it is apparent that the load is

J located at the corner of the section, and since it is tension,

must be opposite the corner used as origin.

SI DE 0 SJD E T LOAD COORD I NATES NO . OF BARS A WE IGHT SUM 0 ~OOULAR RATIOS

)( y s N 11
u .ooo H.OOO l8, 000 H, 000 Ob 2.640 '9,012 llooll6 10. 0 19 . 0

AR EA Q Q I I I PARMIETE RS
OX OY OX OY XY A a

STEfl 30.3600 l9olj . 2050 24 7,0050 1880.6491 2933. 2ll7 1685.5367 7,844 7,0ql
CHCRT 2 7.8109 65 . 7356 72.1162 23J,ObS9 28':i . t 930 128.9077
TOTAL 58.1 109 2 S9.9ft06 319 .7 212 ZlLJ.11SO J218,4047 18 14.'141,4
CYCLE 6 CNCRT FO 760, 4'56PS I ST EElrCOMPR 5536 TtNSION 20000 LOAD - l 4636ll 7.091 NHI

FIGURE 8-- C~mputer solution to Example 2.

The computed tension load capacity
TU~SfORM ~ D PRUP .. ~I lfS OF STEfl Kf !N Fn~ tJ NG 8 A~S
(for txomple I}
is 14,636 lbs., limited by tensile rein
forcing stress of 20,000 psi. (Figure
UUIOEIIA A
U.OD-0
P&AJoot TE 8
10.200
..-:lO<Jl AA MU 101 11
oo. o
~ n
~~.o
.. HUtl&f R Rf ft AAS
o.
8) Maximum comer stress in the con-
crete (at th1 origin ) is 760.456 psi
s MOO, AIUA Q
U< UY
I
ux
I
DY XY
a nd maximum stress in compressive
. ~40 IS, U~ llo6lS 10, 0 ......ooo ~ l.J\00 &8 . !SOP Sq~.b\*1 1014.11~1 l99 .. JHil reinforcement is 5,536 psi, which as
.<40 2. , , 2.)1~ }9.0 1.!600 J9.n~o I Q. &1SO 4111. 1 'lioS' 1.1 \~{. 41.l'> !(l
"'0 2, US 11.615 10.0
,.ooo 2.H S JQ,O
4,4000
u.oo ''' soo IO .C.\0(,1 S"'to\.,U/
u . , s.
H.&lll IZ J ,411 expected is way below the allowables.
""0
c 9.000 11.625 10.0 ooo
&. 8SSO
11. n oo
!~.1.00
l~ ...ooo Sv~. 6lAl
6 1 l. lb0b
;so , 4000
lli. M~O
"-bO. l)OU The main purpose of the second
'"0 u . zs 1.ns 1o. o ~ 1~00 ''"'~'
4.4000 Jn.oo IOI. 21R7 161. 2~\l
example is to illustrate the often over~
TOT.t.~~
WHGHI.
9, 0111
SUI< 0
14.Jl6 H . l?Oll 20l.-.oo ?Rl. ~ ~n lfJI)l, ')M~O .~)'d.? 1\1 ll/0. 1~ 11
looked fact that the reinforced con-
crete section, as a whole, is quite cap-
TA.t.I!SFDU0 P~ O O f RTi t 5 01 S I HL Mf 11<fO C I "~ ~ARS (for exompfe 2) able to resist significant amounts of
eccentric tension loads.
NU-~f ~ flf 0AA ~
PA-HETlK .t.
1 .....
PARAOI!(k ;;
!.091
140 0UL A~ KA 1105 N
10.0
AKU
19.0 " 0~ Finally, to show how the individual
bars contribute to the transformed
A
s ..oo. uu 0
u
0
OY
I
or
I
DY
I
l1 properties of the section, a short sup-
.. ~~tO 1o.o 000 S I. ISOO 68. 1500 ~ 'J4 . 6187 10h . H 8 7 199.1117
-~o
IS.6H U . US
2. ns 2 . llS 19,0 )600 l9.HSO 19. ~ ~50 H.ISS6 4l.J ISL 41.11 16 plementary routine was written that
,.ltttO lo )lS 11 , 0 2 1 10.0 ,. ooo Sl.l500 10.4 500 5?4. 6UJ 14. &181 111.461 1
prints out all pertinent properties of
. 440 9.000 z. ns 1o. o 4."-000 10 . 4100 39.6000 24. e t&r 156,4000 ... osoo
.4~0
.....0
9.000 11625
IS.6H 2-375
10.0
10. 0
~-ooo
~000
Sl .ISOO
IO. soo
l9. ~U00
b~.HOO
S'J4. 4 1ff1
?4.8111
316~ 00
I014.21Kl
O HOO
J6),ZRI Z the reinforcement for the converged
parameters. The computer printed
~U C11T SUM 0 properties of the steel reinforcing bars
lOTUS 0121 ~"--11& 10.1600 19<.7050 147. 0 050 18~ 0 . 6<~1
zH"' ' Jt~ A 'l.~1nl

for both Examples l and 2 are shown

FIGURR 9-Properties of reinforcing bars for Rxamples l and 2. in Figure 9. ##
82
NOTES
 . .\ . ,'

FOUNDATIONS
t< SOIL~
..
.. .. .
... .
 Foundations on Weak Soils
Because today's plants are being constructed on filled sites not ideal for founda-
tions, 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 com-
bined in groups; equipment has become heavier. More-
over riaid
0 reinforced concrete structures permit only
negligible differential settlement. Tank foundatlons
) . de-
serve particular attention.

New Design Techniques. These considerations suggest

the desirability of design innovations or nonconventional
design techniques. Foundations having negligible settle-
ment 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 down-
drag 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, pro-
vided no considerable change in subsoil water level
occurs. Foundations on clay settle slowly and over a
both the tolerable magnitude of settling and the time
longer period of time, the settlement also depending upon available for foundation preparation.
water level variation, but not to such an extent a.~ it Nearly every large tank which is supported on soil
does in the case of sandy soils. will have, after years of service, about one or two feet
of differential settlement between the shell and the tank
Storage tank foundations appear to be unimportant center. The reason for this is the unit soil pressure at the
structures in petrochemical plants. However, considering tank bottom. For a tank about 150 feet in diameter and
the large investment in tanks, substantial economy can 50 feet high there will be approximately 130 psi under
the shell and 23 psi in the middle of the tank.
be realized if, by proper foundation design, long main-
A large differential settlement between the shell and
tenance-free tank service life is achieved. In order to
bottom may cause a tearing or shearing effect l;letween
effect substantial savings on tank foundations, the design the bottom plate and the shell. However, large tanks over
engineer and the owner must reach an understanding on 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 dif-
ferential 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 con-
troversial subject. Some owners feel that "edge cutting"
is not detrime1~tal and that the cost of the edge treat-
ment 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 perim-
eter is necessary for proper tank erection.
Even small localized deflection of the foundation
during operation may cause "hang-up" of the float-
ing 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; cor-
rosion problems and maintenance costs will be mini-
mized.
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 receiv-
ing 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
Bridge and Structural Engineering Makaretz
and the American Con crete I nsti-
tute. 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 1.6"4

and compressible soil strata, not over approximately 20

feet thick, the following methods of foundation design -
c
.... 1.4
can be used: g ~ \
:: (.) 1.3
\
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-com-
- ..
, ; - ; 1.2

:{!u
>
\
\
:.o
~'
pacted granular fills. Note that it is necessary to ..5
=~
extend the compacted fill beyond the tank perimeter. 0
(1)0 09
I .
For deeper, weak soil deposits, it is entirely prac- 0 ~ o.e I ' ......
I I'
0.7 - .,...
~--~--~
- ll)
tical to surcharge the compressible strata before the SN 1
tank foundation is constructed, if time permits. The (.) ... 06 1I I 1
wO I I 1 I I
purpose of such a surcharge is to increase the f= ~ 0.5 I I 1 I I
st.rength of the subsoil and to reduce the tank settle- t.O
ment during operation.
25 o.4 Of The Total Plant
The tank foundation may be put on a crust of very Cost In Million Dollars
strong fill and allowed to float on weak soil strata.
This is practical where the ground has to be filled FIGURE 2-Soil inv~tigation cost as a percent of founda
anyway. The crust must be thick enough and extend tion, structures and buildings cost.
far enough beyond the tank perimeter to prevent
lateral plastic flow of the weak subsoils. Steel sheet
Where B is the width and L is the length of the
pilings, concrete rings, or crushed stone rings may
rectangular foundation, in feet.
be applied to prevent lateral flow of the weak sub-
soils which might cause tank foundation failure. 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
Sheet steel pilings, concrete should be checked. This is especially important if a safety
factor of 2 or 3 against ultimate failure is projected.
rings, or crushed stone rings may Example. Applying the dimensions given in Figure I
to Skempton's formula,
be used to prevent latera/flow of Nc =coefficient 6.2 for round and &quare footings, 5.2 for strip
footings ( nondimensional)
weak subsoils
N. (adjusted)= 5.2 + ...!!._
50
= 5.44

quit = 5.44 X 800 + 0.75 X 120 = 4442 lbs. per sq. ft.
Stability analysis of cohesive soils may be made using Tank load = 65 lbs. per sq. ft.
either A. W. Skempton's method1 or the balancing
moments method between the imposed load and the Liquid load = 1900 lbs. per sq. ft.
shearing stress resistance of the soil strata in question. Pad weight= 240 lbs. per sq. ft.
In order to calculate the stability of the tank founda-
tion, properties of a clay stratum are required, such as: Total= 2205lbs. per sq. ft.
undrained shear value (C) lbs.fsq. ft., density (y) 4442
lbs.jcu. ft., the bearing capacity factor (nondimensional), Factor of safety:
2205
= 2.
and the height of the surcharge (d) ft. According to
Skempton, ultimate bearing capacity of clays is ex- 2) Using the balancing moment method:
pressed as:
rz 2 XC XL
quit= +
C X Nc Y X d (assuming that the clay is saturated, quit X--
2
= C XL X r =- ~'
an angle of shearing resistance >f = 0)
5.44
The cohesion of the soil (C) for our purpose may Reduction factor p, = - - = 0.88
6.20
be assumed equal to 50 percent of the nonconfined com-
pressive strength of the soil. The bearing capacity factor 2 X BOO X 12 X 3.14
N. varies from 5.2 for elongated footings to 6.2 for round qull -- T2 = 5024lbs. per sq. ft.
and square footings.
Reduced quit = 5024 X 0.88 = 4421lbs. per sq. ft.
For rectangular footings, (the result should be the same as in Case l, or 4442 lbs.
B
per sq. ft.)
.!\J,. = 0.84 + 0.16 ~X ~c (for square or circular footings)
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; foundation pad was in place at least three months before
Cc, compressibility factor = 0,009 (L,.- 10 ) = 0.27. tank erection.
The above solution to tank support includes con-
It is assumed that this strain is constant for the clay siderable risk in comparison with pile foundation design.
stratum and the clay is normally consolidated (i.e. no However, the necessity of releveling the tanks several
drying effect on the surface occurred) . The factors as- times during installation still may save money as com-
sumed above are usually obtained from laboratory tests. pared with pile foundation construction. The conven-
In order to achieve better average conditions for the
tional 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
Soil investigations are a the piles, may be used. The compacted crushed stone
creates arches between the piles and transfers tank load
small part of total plant costs yet to piles relatively uniformly.
The exact prediction of tank settlement is impossible,
some owners object to taking a except if supported on point-bearing piles, for the fol-
lowin.g reasons:
sufficient number of borings or The stress distribution in thin, weak soil layers under
the foundation cannot be accurately determined.
any at all The magnitude of lateral plastic flow in highly
stressed soils is unknown.
Behavior of the crushed stone cap on the piles is
settlement calculation the 12-foot clay stratum is divided difficult to predict.
into two 6-foot layers. The nature of the deflection of piles in soft soils is
Approximate ae ttlement {in.) , tl. = H X 12 unpredictable.
X c. I P+tt.p Relative Cost of Soli Investigation. Let us consider an
1+ eo ogto - -
p-
average size petrochemical plant, the total cost of which
For part a, p = 2' X 120 = 240 Jbs. per q. ft. is about six million dollars. The approximate cost of
3' X 11 5 = 345lbs. per sq. ft. foundations, structures and buildings would be about
25 percent of the total cost, or $1 !/:1 million. Soil investi-
585 lbs. per sq. ft.
gation for such a plant would require about 10 borings,
tl.p = 1900 lbt. per sq. ft.+ 65 lbs. per sq. ft.= 1965 lbs. per which with laboratory analysis and a complete report
sq. lt. would amount to from $4,000 to $9,000, depending on
p + tl.p = 585 + 1965 = 2550 lbs. per tq. ft. soil conditions.
Plotting soil investigation cost against 25 percent of
6' X 12 2550 the total plant cost (foundation, structures and buildings)
tl.a = .
22
X 0.27 X log1 0 ~= 5.7 in.
we obtain a curve shown in Figure 2.
For pan b, p = 2 X 120 = 240 lbs. per sq. ft. The cost of soil investigation is small if it is related
to foundations, structures and buildings only; in com-
9 X 115 = 1035 lbs. per sq. ft . parison with the total plant cost, it is almost negligible.
1275lbs. per sq. ft. It is hard to understand why some clients strongly
p +tt.p = 1275 + 1765 = 3040 lb1. per sq. ft. object to taking a sufficient number of borings; some
object to taking any at all. A comprehensive soil report
(.O.p for the part b, decreased in accordance with Boussines q enables an engineer to design with confidence, repays the
formula)
cost of the soil investigation, and saves money for the
6' X 12 3040 . owner.
~b - . X 0.27 X log10 ~ = 3.4 m.
22
LITERATURE CITED
Total deflection~ 9 in. 1
SkemptoDJ A. W., ''The BeariD~r Capacity of Clap," Buildizla Reseazeh
ConJlreu, 19;>1.
It is assumed for the above investigation that the tank Proceeding of the American Society of Civil Engineen, The Journal of
Soil Mechanics and Foundationa Div., Part l, Oct. 1961.

88
Graphs Speed Spread Footing Design

When designing square or octagonal below the foundation must not exceed the maximum
allowable soil pressure. The most severe stability condi-
footings, these graphs will cut the tions are realized when the vertical load is minimum and
calculation time to a minimum. the lateral loads (winds or earthquake) are maximum.
Severest soil bearing conditions are realized when the
No trial and error sizing is required vertical and lateral loads are maximum.
Both graphs were scheduled for an allowable soil pres-
sure of 1000 lbs. per sq. ft. However, these graphs can
be used for any allowable soil pressure if the vertical load
F. 8. van Hamme, Chief Structural Engineer, (including the weight of the footing and backfill) and
Fluor-Schuytvlot N. V., Haarlem, Holland* the overturning moment about the base of the footing
arc divided by the soil pressure coefficient N.
TRIALANI>-ERROR SIZING of spread footings can be sup-
planted by a better method. A graph can be used to size N = allowable soil pressure in lbs. per sq. ft.
footings with a minimum of calculations. Use Figure l, 1000 lbs. per sq. ft.
to determine the size of square footings, Figure 2 for
octagonal footings. .. = total vertical load in kips
1000
N
Stability and soil bearing are the main considerations
in designing spread footings. Equipment must be .sup- M[QQO =overturning moment in ft.-kips
ported by the foundation so it will not be overturned by N
maximum forces acting upon it. The load on the soil
Square Footings. When the footing can turn on the
*Subsidiary of The Fluor Corp., Lid., Los Angtl<s, Calif. A-A-a.xis only (Figure 1) (pipe-rack footings, for ex-

12
...... I .,..,
" J j
'II'.
0 1/
1/ / I'
v

vv
I
II
--~.,.. 1.....
- ....,
..... 1<. .....
)

.....
~
/
/
v
/ ......
v
V'
~- ....
>...
~ /, 'V)
~

il .,, /
D<
v
/
~ i/

-
J ~'--...
....... >L~>j
,... 1"-o ~5' I"' v ,. ./ /
(/)
0. - -- - f- tl v ~!' k IL / )<l5' I' v A lA
jf1:!--- ..... Y.. Or
" / / v ~ .::~
<.~ '"' '
~
'~,
>< ~ ~,
,.., / ~~
.-' ~ / 1/- / ~ r-...
II.. v It l/ / L :>< ,;" IL '~
14 ,,
I' ["\
IV ~ !- [i
,.. ~ / < ,
/ ... < I'. I'-
Ia ~~ / ...... .<.. ./ ,;" > ..._.:: .....
'..... ......
~.

,,
_j 'f
'/.A ~ ~~
/ ><
/. .?' >C :;;... .....
,;" ;> ~ ~
""...... ' I~
~
...... I"'

,v
_///.4 It' I/ ~ / ~
...-.:; ~. ......; ....... r-...
r..
r, ' '
1/) ~ v C>. I<:: ~ ~ ~ 1:::::
...
;;.>" ............
--~'-E - .........- "
1'.
......
......
I...._
" "' .....
r' - ~

~ =~
r.... r--.. I'
............. r--. :_, :::.. ~ - f-- f- - s~
-~
......
~ '41
~ ~
0
0 5 10 15 ' 20 25

V1000 {KIPS)-----
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
1 I I I 2! I I I I_ I ... II
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I2 0~ . 1 125 2..~ ,~.-303.5 I I I I
f.... 3.0 ,.. 7.,.; 4.555 I -1-f-+11
1 r-...1/ 20 '(/ " 6.0
:Lt r-.. 3.5 U> s.L 5v. ~r/17"1J' ,.., 1
I/ r--.. J I !!:: 11f' ~ f7' . ~ I
1/ 1~ ~'I 1 ~ IXliL ~[/t.,; r<: D-7'6'
J' '(f~ t'\..7'
A

400 1 II II II I II I L i rf i'. II .O it IO t-
il"' - .L II ~ ..t_ ._. J~li':~ ~
IL i.;' I" X 4.5 0 ~ ......... ~ "" " I
' ~ I' ~ L1 ~~ ~ '
'L g ~
71/ II .L "" ' r\ 5.0 ~ OI I ' ""' I~ N
I I I 1111 5,.1.51/ II/_ 1;11'./ J r--.11', 11~~ Ill\. VI ) 5.5 0 10 20 30 40
I J I Ll 11 l I l l I/ ' !1
II v ~
........
'1.1 IL~ IL !t..._L '" ~ ~
"- ""- ./1 60 r-r- V1Q00(KIPS)
----
l/Vl/1 JIIIT T7l II ~I Y I 1\lTlXTI/I'l VI I'J
7,{)() 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
r;
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" 1\.

?00

MLYY UJrll-Nl ~P'Vr R 1 NIUN] N II'l 1 1'l"'. ~.,, , , " ..

-
( /)
a.. 100
:X::
...,:
LL

0
0
I ~~tmctl'tli'W\~~Itil
~ ~ ~Ei I~
0
~

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 320

V1000 (KIPS)_ _ __
FIGURE 2-Use this graph to design octagonal footings.