Design Example 4 Reinforced Concrete Parking Garage: 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

Design Example 4 䡲 Reinforced Concrete Parking Garage
Summary
Design and detailing of secondary beams and columns in a reinforced concrete parking garage has been
demonstrated. Section 21.13 of ACI 318-11 lists the requirements for secondary frame members, which
must conform to a subset of requirements for special moment-resisting frame members depending on axial
load and whether they yield at the design seismic displacement. The design process must be completed for
ASCE 7 load combinations 5 and 7. This can be complicated if the two load combinations produce different
design requirements.
Except for the shear strength requirements of Sections 21.5.4 and 21.6.5, all of the requirements referenced
in Section 21.13 for beams and columns can be met through detailing. For example, all secondary members
must meet minimum standards for longitudinal reinforcement and must have transverse reinforcement
spaced more closely than is generally required by Chapters 7 and 11. Secondary members need not
conform to transverse reinforcement in beams (Section 21.5.3), strong column-weak beam (Section 21.6.2),
and joint shear strength (21.7.4). The shear-strength requirements are the only requirements that potentially
require members to be designed to resist forces larger than those determined by analysis.
In the case of members with small axial loads, such as beams and upper-level columns, members
explicitly designed to resist the induced seismic forces are exempt from the shear-strength requirements of
Section 21.5.4. This approach can be utilized effectively with members subject to relatively small seismic
forces. However, members with significant axial loads must always meet the shear-strength requirements of
Section 21.6.5 regardless of yielding at the design displacement.
The conventional approach to shear-strength design provided in Section 21.6.5 considers the members as
isolated elements subjected to moments at each end. However, the design shear resulting from this approach
increases without limits as the member clear span decreases. This is problematic for short columns such
as occur at the ramps of parking garages. An alternative approach, which models the full-height column, is
provided. This approach results in finite shear values, even for very short column spans.
Diaphragm and collector design have also been shown for the example structure. Collector elements are
required where the diaphragm shear strength and shear friction are not adequate to transfer lateral forces
directly to the vertical elements of the seismic-load -resisting system. The design example illustrates both
cases. Diaphragm shear-strength and shear-friction capacity are increased near line 9 to transfer inertial
forces directly to the wall via shear. Collector elements are provided in the slab at line A to transfer inertial
forces to the wall as tension and compression forces.
2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 171
04_Example-04_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd 171 8/6/13 3:34 PM

Design Example 5
Pile Foundation
OVERVIEW
The structure in this Design Example is a parking garage with five elevated levels. It includes post-
tensioned one-way slabs and post-tensioned beams. It resists lateral loads with its perimeter reinforced
concrete moment-resisting frames. This Design Example includes the design of the pile foundation to resist
vertical and lateral loads.
The purpose of this example is to illustrate the selection of the appropriate pile length and capacity as well
as the design and detailing of pile reinforcing.
OUTLINE
1. Building Geometry and Loads
2. Load Combinations for Design
3. Determination of Optimal Pile Capacity and Length
4. Preliminary Pile Vertical Reinforcement
5. Building Base Shear Resistance
6. Lateral-Loading Analysis
7. Check of Axial-Moment Interaction
8. Design of Transverse Reinforcing
9. Development of Vertical Bars into Cap
1. Building Geometry and Loads ASCE 7
1.1 GIVEN INFORMATION
The following information is given:
SDS = 0.93g
Site Class = D
Seismic Design Category = D
Pile grout strength, fc′ = 5 ksi.

Pile cap and slab-on-grade concrete strength, fc′ = 4 ksi.
Reinforcing steel yield strength, fy = 60,000 psi.

Design Example 5 䡲 Pile Foundation
Building Base Shear, each perimeter line = 1130 kips, including accidental torsion.
Overall building plan dimensions: 249 ft. × 186 ft.
Concrete slab-on-grade thickness = 5 in.
Figure 5–1 shows the foundation plan.
Figure 5–1. Foundation plan
1.2 DESIGN VERTICAL LOADS
Design loads for several foundation categories are given in Table 5–1. The live loads have been reduced by
20 percent, as permitted by IBC Section 1607.10.1.3 (Exception) and Section 1808.3.
174 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

Table 5–1. Loading at various support conditions
Number Dead Load (D) Live Load (L) Seismic Load (E)
Condition Each kips kips kips
Stair support 8 5 10 0
Typical exterior 12 340 94 0
Frame interior 20 260 40 0
Frame end 8 230 54 280
Typical interior 14 590 182 0
Interior girder 8 930 271 0
1.3 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The surficial soils at the site are soft alluvial deposits, underlain by denser old alluvium. The Geotechnical
Engineer has recommended a pile foundation in order to reduce settlements to an acceptable level.
Liquefaction is not expected at the site. The geotechnical engineer has indicated that piles will develop their
resistance through skin friction and end bearing and has provided a chart of allowable capacity vs. depth for
16-inch-diameter drilled piles, reproduced in Figure 5–2.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Pile Geotechnical Capacity, Tons
Figure 5–2. Geotechnical pile capacity vs. depth, from geotechnical report

The structural engineer may select the depth most appropriate for the design within the range of 30 to 55
feet, yielding allowable capacities of 76 to 160 tons. The geotechnical engineer has noted that a one-third
increase in allowable loads is permitted for load combinations including wind or seismic. This is allowed
by 2012 IBC Section 1806.1 for the Alternative Basic Load Combinations.
2. Load Combinations for Design IBC
2.1 COMBINATIONS FOR GEOTECHNCAL DESIGN
Geotechnical design is accomplished using the Alternative Basic Load Combinations for allowable
stress design (IBC Section 1605.3.2). These combinations are consistent with the traditional approach
to geotechnical design, permitting the use of increased allowable stresses for short-term loading. This
approach is appropriate for geotechnical design because the allowable loads are determined based on the
limitation of settlements. Since settlements occur over time, use of higher allowable loads for transient
loads is appropriate. The applicable load combinations for this design are:
D+L IBC Eq 16–17

D + L + E/1.4, where E is positive and acts downward IBC Eq 16–21
0.9D + E/1.4, where E is negative and acts upward IBC Eq 16–22
2.2 COMBINATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Structural design of the piles is accomplished using the Basic Load Combinations for load and resistance
factor design (IBC Section 1605.2.1).
The applicable load combinations for this design (simplified to omit inapplicable load types) are:
1.4D IBC Eq 16–1

1.2D + 1.6L IBC Eq 16–2
1.2D + 1.0E + 1.0L, where E is positive and acts downward;
E includes 0.2SDS IBC Eq 16–5
(The load factor for L, f1, is 1.0 for parking garages)
0.9D + 1.0E, where E is negative and acts upward; E includes 0.2SDS IBC Eq 16–7
3. Determination of Optimal Pile Capacity and Length IBC
3.1 NUMBER OF PILES PER LOCATION—GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
Table 5–2 shows the load combinations for geotechnical design for each pile group using the Alternative
Basic Load Combinations for allowable stress design per Section 2.1, above. See Figure 5–1 for the
locations of the various support conditions indicated.

Table 5–2. Load combinations for geotechnical design
Vertical Loads on Pile Caps

Dead Live Seismic D+L D + L + E/1.4 0.9D − E/1.4
Number Load (D) Load (L) Load (E) IBC 16-17 IBC 16-21 IBC 16-22
Condition Each (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Stair support 8 5 10 0 15 15 4.5
Typical exterior 12 340 94 0 434 434 306
Frame interior 20 260 40 0 300 300 234
Frame end 8 230 54 280 284 484 7
Typical interior 14 590 182 0 772 772 531
Interior girder 8 930 271 0 1201 1201 837
The structural engineer can assess the relationship between the number of piles required at each location
vs. the pile demand loads. Doing so can minimize the pile cost by employing fewer deeper piles where
feasible. The engineer should use a single pile length for the project in order to simplify interpretation of
the in-situ confirmatory load tests.
First, consider the relative values of the combined load for the frame ends. The seismic load combination
(484 k) is more than one-third greater than the gravity load combination (284 k). Thus, this category of
foundation will be controlled by the seismic combination. Dividing the seismic load combination (484 k)
by 1.33 provides an equivalent gravity design load of 363 kips. A single pile at this location would need an
allowable capacity of 182 tons, which exceeds the permitted range. Two piles at this location would need a
capacity of 91 tons each.
Next, consider the typical exterior condition. Here, the gravity load combination yields 434 kips. A single
pile at this location would need an allowable capacity of 217 tons, which again exceeds the permitted range.
Two piles at this location would need a capacity of 109 tons each, and three piles would need a capacity of
72 tons each.
Consider the typical interior condition. Here, the gravity load combination yields 772 kips. A single pile at
this location would need an allowable capacity of 386 tons, which again exceeds the permitted range. Two
piles at this location would need a capacity of 193 tons each, three piles would need a capacity of 129 tons
each, and four piles at this location would need a capacity of 97 tons each.
Lastly, consider the typical interior girder condition. Here, the gravity load combination yields 1201 kips.
Three piles at this location would need capacity of 200 tons each, four piles at this location would need
capacity of 150 tons each, five piles at this location would need capacity of 120 tons each, and six piles
would need capacity of 100 tons each.
Considering a capacity of 130 tons provides for an efficient design. Increasing the capacity beyond this
point does not decrease the number of piles significantly, while decreasing the capacity will require
more piles (due to the typical interior caps all changing from three piles to four). Select this capacity and
determine the required length of 47 feet from the geotechnical engineer’s table, shown in Figure 5–3.

60
50
47 ft.
40
30
13OT
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Pile Geotechnical Capacity, Tons
Figure 5–3. Geotechnical pile capacity vs. depth, with selected depth and capacity
Round up the required length to an even number and specify a depth of 48 feet for the piles. This results in a
total of 170 piles.
Use 16-inch-diameter ⴛ 48-foot-long reinforced concrete piles, spaced at three diameters (4 feet) apart.
The number of piles used at each pile group size is shown in Table 5–3.
Table 5–3. Number of piles required for each condition
Condition Piles Per Group

Stair support 1
Typical exterior 2
Frame interior 2
Frame end 2
Typical interior 3
Interior girder 5

4. Preliminary Pile Vertical Reinforcement IBC, ACI 318
4.1 MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT
Minimum reinforcing for cast-in-place concrete piles is indicated in Chapter 18 of the IBC.
Section 1810.2.4.1, which applies only to site classes E and F, requires a minimum longitudinal reinforcing
ratio of 0.005 throughout the pile length in order to avoid explicit design due to free-field earthquake-
induced soil strains. It is good practice to provide this minimum reinforcing regardless of the site class.
Use #9 Continuous Center Bar.
Section 1810.3.9.4.2 defines a “minimum reinforced length” for cast-in-place concrete piles, which is
defined by four factors: 1) half the pile length, 2) 10 feet, 3) three pile diameters, and 4) the distance from
the top of the pile to the point below which the required moment strength remains below the pile cracking
moment. For this provision, the IBC defines the cracking moment (in Section 1810.3.9.1) as 3 fc′Sm (where
Sm is the elastic section modulus) which is 40 percent of the normally computed cracking moment per
ACI 318. This last computation implies that the moments be determined based on a laterally loaded pile
analysis. For practical purposes and in almost all cases, the first requirement (half the pile length) will be
the controlling requirement. Proceed on this basis and confirm following additional computations.
Within the minimum reinforced length, a minimum of four longitudinal bars are required, with a minimum
reinforcing ratio of 0.005. In order to maintain a reasonably circular cage and to maintain more uniform
flexural resistance for loading in any direction, a minimum of six #6 bars is recommended.
Use six #6 bars throughout the reinforced length. (See Figure 5–6.)
4.2 LIMITING LOADS
Loads on pile structural sections are limited by IBC Section 1810.3.2.6. However, these limits may be
exceeded and the structural capacity computed by normal means (i.e., in accordance with ACI 318)
provided that there is a geotechnical investigation for the project and the piles will be tested in-situ. Both
of these conditions are satisfied in this example, so the structural capacity will be computed according to
ACI 318.
5. Building Base Shear Resistance IBC
5.1 DISTRIBUTION THROUGH GROUND LEVEL SLAB
The building base shear is imparted along the perimeter lines at the locations of the moment-resisting
frames with a value of 1130 kips per frame in each direction. This shear includes the effect of accidental
torsion. A total base shear of 2260 kips is then a conservative assessment of the total loading at the
foundation level. Excluding the eight single piles that support the stairs, this results in an average shear
per pile of 2260/168 = 13.5 kips per pile. This simple analysis ignores the additional resistance due to
passive pressure on the pile caps and presumes that all of the piles resist the lateral load equally. Subsequent
sections of this example provide additional refinement.

5.2 PASSIVE PRESSURE ON CAPS
The geotechnical engineer has indicated that it is appropriate to incorporate resistance due to passive
pressure of 350 pcf on the sides of the caps acting in parallel with the resistance of the piles. This pressure
is developed at a displacement equal to 0.5 percent of the caps’ vertical dimension. Since our caps are
40 inches deep, the passive pressure is mobilized at a deflection of 0.2 inches. For each foot of cap width,
the resulting resistive force on the sides of the cap is 350 pcf (3.33 f )2 2 1.94 k .
5.3 PILE GROUP EFFICIENCY
Piles spaced at less than eight diameters apart in the direction of the lateral load will be more flexible,
because they share the soil that resists their lateral movement. Consideration of this behavior is required
by Section 1810.2.5 of the IBC. This requirement is based on research on the behavior of piles under
lateral loading by various investigators and documented by Reese, et al. (2006). The preferred method of
addressing the softening of the soil surrounding pile groups is to reduce the stiffness of the p-y curve used
in the laterally loaded pile analysis. The computed p-modification factor may be used directly as input in
the commonly used laterally loaded pile analysis program LPILE. Table 5–4 indicates the p-modification
factors for conventionally arranged pile groups of sizes employed in this example, spaced at three
diameters.
Table 5-4. Computed p-modification factors for groups of various numbers of piles in standard
formations, with three-diameter spacing, according to formulae presented in Reese, et al. (2006)
p-Modification
N Piles Per Group x y Average
2 83% 93% 88%
3 78% 78% 78%
4 74% 74% 74%
5 77% 77% 77%
Rather than using differing p-modification factors for pile groups of various sizes, use an average values for
both directions of loading, based on the distribution of pile group sizes in this example. The average value
used is 84 percent.
6. Lateral-Loading Analysis
6.1 PILE LATERAL STIFFNESS
The flexural stiffness of piles is dependent on their axial loading. For most of the piles in this example, all
loading is due to gravity. For the pile groups at the frame ends, loading includes seismic effects and can
vary, depending on the direction of the seismic loading. For the purpose of this example, consider three
loading cases: gravity, seismic up, and seismic down. Table 5–5 shows the load combinations for structural
design, for each type of foundation. Since the number of piles in each pile group is now known, the loads
are presented on a per-pile basis.

Table 5–5. Computed factored axial loads per pile for various support types
1.4D 1.2D + 1.6L 1.2D + 1.0E + 1.0L 0.9D + 1.0E

Piles Per IBC 16-1 IBC 16-2 IBC 16-5 IBC 16-7
Support Type Group (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Stair support 1 7 22
Typical exterior 2 238 279
Frame interior 2 182 188
Frame end 2 161 181 439 −42
Typical interior 3 275 333
Interior girder 5 260 310
For the purpose of stiffness calculations, consider three cases:
Minimum load (maximum uplift): −42 k

Moderate gravity loading: 240 k (average of all except stair support columns)
Maximum loading: 439 k.
For each of these cases, compute the elastic pile stiffness in a moment-curvature analysis:
Pu = −42 k: EI = 1.9 million kip-in2

Pu = 240 k: EI = 6.7 million kip-in2
Pu = 439 k: EI = 10.7 million kip-in2.
Use these values in the laterally loaded pile analysis to compute the pile flexural demands and shear
developed at a given displacement.
6.2 CONSISTENT LATERAL DEFORMATIONS
Because the ground floor slab is tied to the pile caps and grade beams and the slab is relatively rigid
in-plane, consider that all piles are subject to the same lateral displacement. Each pile resists shear
based on this displacement and its stiffness, which depends on its reinforcing and the applied axial load.
The displacement employed in this analysis is a matter of judgment, but should be consistent with the
displacement used in the development of the passive pressure on the sides of the caps. Therefore, the LPILE
analyses should be performed at the same deformation (0.2 inch) that was used to develop the passive
pressure recommendations.
The LPILE analyses result in differing shears and moments at the various axial loads, due to the stiffness
variation, as shown in Table 5–6. All of the LPILE analyses are performed considering fixed-head pile
behavior, since the pile reinforcing is developed into the caps.
Table 5–6. Axial load, moment, and shear for selected design points
Design Points Pu (kips) Mu (kip-in) Vu (kips)

Min −42 326 12.0
Mod 240 675 18.2
Max 439 821 20.5

6.3 RESISTANCE OF TOTAL BASE SHEAR
Resistance to the total base shear in the building’s transverse direction will be investigated. For this
analysis, consider the passive pressure acting on the faces of all of the two-pile and larger pile caps and
main grade beams. Consider the pile resistance for all caps, with the exception of the single pile caps and
the two-pile caps oriented perpendicular to the load. These caps are not able to restrain the tops of the piles
from rotation. They will not truly be able to produce pile head fixity. As such, they will be considerably
more flexible under lateral loading and may be conservatively ignored. Similarly, the contribution of the
passive pressure on the single pile caps at the stair supports and on the minor grade beams should be
ignored due to their lower stiffness. Table 5–7 shows the resistance developed at the 0.2-inch displacement
recommended by the geotechnical engineer, based on the contribution of the caps and piles under
consideration.
Table 5–7. Lateral resistance due to passive pressure and pile bending
Gridlines
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Min 2 2
No. of piles at
each loading Mod 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
condition
Max 2 2
Cap face width (ft) 7 32 14 32 36 50 50 50 50 50 36 32 14 32 7
Resistance @ (kips) 261 244 27 244 252 279 279 279 279 279 252 244 27 244 261
0.2 in.
The sum of the resistance is 3450 kips, which exceeds the required base shear of 2260 kips (1130 kips per
frame). This indicates that the required resistance will actually be developed at a lower deformation, but
that the analysis is conservative.
The analysis assumes that the ground floor slab will be required to distribute the shear among the piles and
caps. The maximum shear in the slab occurs immediately inside of gridline 1 (or 15).
Vu = 1130 k − 261 k = 869 k = 4.7 k/fft.
This shear is resisted by the ground floor slab, which is 5 inches thick and reinforced with #3 at 18 inches
on center.
⎣ (
ϕVn = 0.75 ⎡(12)(5) 2 4000 + (0.11 )
1 )(60000)(12 18) ⎤ = 9 0 k/ft
⎦
/ . . . . OK.
So, the slab is adequate to transfer the shear. It’s also necessary to attach the grade beam to the slab to
transfer the same shear using embedded dowels crossing the interface. Using #4 dowels at 12 inches on
center,
ϕVn 0 75 μ = 0.6)(0.2)(60000)] = 5.4 k/ft

/ . . . . OK.
The #4 connecting dowels are shown in Figure 5–6.

7. Check of Axial-Moment Interaction ACI 318
7.1 ACI 318 REQUIREMENTS
The axial-flexural design is based on the typical approach outlined in ACI 318 Chapter 10 for columns, with
the proviso that, per IBC Section 1810.2.1, the soil is considered to brace the pile laterally for the purpose
of axial loading. The limiting axial loads, per ACI 318 Section 10.3.6.2 are
ϕ n max
ϕP a
.8 )(0.65)[0.85 f ′(A
( .80 Ag Ast f y Ast ] = 521 k .
7.2 CONTROLLING DESIGN POINTS
The capacity in the interaction analysis is limited by this maximum value, resulting in a truncated curve,
which is due primarily to the limiting factor of 0.8 and the strength reduction factor of 0.65 for compression
elements that do not comply with the ACI 318 Chapter 10 requirements for columns. The resulting
interaction diagram with design points indicated is shown in Figure 5–4.
Pile Axial-Moment Interaction
700
500
300
100
-100
-300
Design Moment Strength, kip-in
Factored Loads 16-in (6)#6 5 ksi
Figure 5–4. Axial-moment interaction, with axial load limited per ACI 318
All points are within the interaction diagram, so the proposed reinforcing is acceptable.
Use six #6 vertical bars.

8. Design of Transverse Reinforcing IBC, ACI 318
8.1 IBC DETAILING REQUIREMENTS
Transverse confining reinforcing is required within the top three diameters of the pile (4 feet) by IBC
Section 1810.3.9.4.2.1. The requirement points to Sections 21.6.4.2, .3, and .4 of ACI 318. Transverse
reinforcing is also required within the remainder of the reinforced length. A summary of the requirements is
shown in Table 5–8.
Table 5–8. Transverse reinforcing requirements
Transverse Reinforcing for 16-inch Cast-in-Place Piles; SDC D, Site Class D

Requirement Reference
Spiral or tie size #3 minimum IBC 1810.3.9.4.2
Spiral or tie spacing 1/4 pile diameter (4 in) ACI 318 21.6.4.3
Volumetric ratio ρs = 0.12 fc′ /fyt ACI 318 21.6.4.4(a)
The minimum spiral size of #3 and maximum spacing of 4 inches results in a volumetric ratio of 0.011
for the 16-inch-diameter pile. For the materials in this example, the required volumetric confinement ratio
per ACI 318 is 0.12 × 5/60 = 0.010, and the IBC permits the use of one-half of this value as a minimum in
Section 1810.3.9.4.2.1. However, the minimum tie size and maximum spacing will control the design.
ACI 318 Section 21.6.4.4 requires compliance with Eq. 10–5, which requires considerably heavier
confinement. However, IBC Section 1810.3.2.1.2 specifically excludes this requirement for piles. This
clause was deleted from Chapter 18A of the CBC. Thus, the heavier confinement requirements of ACI 318
Eq. 10–5 do indeed apply for DSA and OSHPD in California.
Transverse reinforcing is also required outside of the confined length, but within the minimum reinforced
length. For this reinforcing, the tie spacing may be relaxed to 12 longitudinal bar diameters (9 inches), half
the pile diameter (8 inches), or 12 inches. In this example, the reinforcing spacing outside of the confined
length will not be relaxed, for ease of cage alignment during placement.
Use #3 at 4 inches spirals throughout the reinforced length.
8.3 CHECK PILE MOMENT VS. DEPTH FOR REINFORCED LENGTH
After having completed the LPILE analysis, confirm that the depth where the flexural demand exceeds the
cracking moment does not exceed half the pile length. For the piles in this example, the cracking moment
(as defined by the IBC) is
⎛ ⎛ 16 ⎞ 4 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 16 ⎞
3 5000 ⎜ π ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ / ⎜ ⎟ = 855 kip
i -in.
⎜⎝ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎟⎠ ⎝ 4 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
As shown in Figure 5–5, the deepest point in the pile where the moment exceeds the cracking moment is
165 inches (13 feet, 9 inches), which is significantly less than half the pile length.

Moment (kip-in.)
-1,000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400

0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
Depth = 165 in
200.00
250.00
Mcr = 85 kip-in
300.00
350.00
400.00 Maximum Load
Moderate Load
Minimum Load
450.00
Figure 5–5. Moment vs. Depth from LPILE, with cracking moment shown

8.3 CHECK PILE SHEAR CAPACITY
The largest shear developed in the piles is Vu = 20.5 kips. Confirm that the piles’ structural shear capacity
exceeds this amount, according to Chapter 11 of ACI 318. Section 11.2.3 indicates that b may be taken as
the diameter and d may be taken as 0.8 times the diameter of a circular cross section. Thus,
ϕVn ( )
ϕ[Vc + Vs ] = 0.. 5 ⎡(16)(0. )( 6) 2 5000 + ( )( .11)(6
⎣
)
) ( ( .8)(16) / 4 ⎤
⎦
53.4 k. . . . OK.
9. Development of Vertical Bars into Cap ACI 318
9.1 DEVELOPMENT OF STRAIGHT BARS
In most designs, straight bar development is computed using Section 12.2.2 of ACI 318. In the case of
the connection of the pile bars into the cap or grade beam, it’s possible to take advantage of the greater
spacing between the bars and the greater edge distance (from the bars to the edge of the cap) to employ the
formulation in Section 12.2.3.
⎡ 3 fy ψt ψeψ s ⎤
ld = ⎢ ⎥ db
⎢ 40 λ fc′ ⎛ cb K tr ⎞ ⎥
⎢ ⎜ d ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝ b ⎠⎦
Here, cb is the lesser of the one-half of the center-to-center bar spacing and the distance from the center
of the bar to the edge of the cap concrete. Since the edge distance is very large, the center-to-center bar
spacing controls. Ktr, which incorporates the effect of confinement reinforcing, may be ignored. The
maximum permitted value of cb/db is 2.5. For the #6 bars in this example, db is 0.75, meaning that the
smallest center-to-center spacing between bars that will result in the maximum benefit is
⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜⎝ 1/ 2 ⎟⎠ (2.5)(0.75) 3.75 in.
1' – 4"
3"
Figure 5–6. Center-to-center spacing of six bars in a 16-inch pile with 3 inches of clear cover
For the geometry of the pile reinforcing in this example, the applicable distance is 4¼ inches, allowing the
use of cb/db of 2.5. The resulting development length in the pile cap or grade beam, based on 4 ksi concrete,
is then computed:
⎡ 3 60, 000 (1.0)(1.0)(0.8)(1.0) ⎤
ld = ⎢ ⎥ ( .75) = 1 .1 in.
⎢⎣ 40 4, 000 25 ⎥⎦
Use 19-inch (1 foot, 7 inches) bar extensions to allow for installation tolerance (see Figure 5–7).

9.2 DEVELOPMENT OF HEADED BARS
When more or larger vertical bars are required, there may not be sufficient room in the pile cap to develop
the bars without hooks. Hooks are inconvenient to use, because the pile head will be within the drilled hole
until the caps are excavated; headed terminators are preferred. The development length for headed bars is
specified in ACI 318 Section 12.6.
9.3 EMBEDMENT OF PILES INTO CAP
Section 1810.3.11 of the IBC requires that piles be embedded into the caps and grade beams they support
by a minimum of 3 inches. In order to account for installation tolerances, a specified embedment of
4 inches is recommended.
9.4 DESIGN OF GRADE BEAMS
Section 1810.3.12 of the IBC requires that grade beams that resist shear and flexure due to seismic
demands comply with ACI 318 Section 21.12.3, which requires that the grade beams be detailed per
ACI 318 Section 21.5 (as beams in Special Moment Resisting Frames), or be designed to remain elastic
per the amplified load combinations in ASCE 7.
9.5 SUMMARY OF DESIGN
Figure 5–7 shows the connection of the slab-on-grade to the grade beam. Figure 5–8 shows a summary of
the reinforcing and dimensional requirements for the pile.
COLUMN PER PLAN

AND SCHEDULE
GRADE BEAM SLAB ON GRADE
#4 BARS @ 12" O.C.

ALONG GRADE BEAM
AND AROUND
PERIMETERS OF PILE
CAPS
GRADE BM. REINF.
3"
CLR.
PILES PER PLAN, TYP.
Figure 5–7. Grade beam detail, showing connection to slab-on-grade

ADD TWO
TURNS @ TOP
PILE CUTOFF ELEV.
BOTT. OF PILE CAP
SPIRAL
SPIRAL PITCH = 4",
TYP.
LONGITUDINAL BAR,
TYP.
ADD TWO TIGHT

TURNS @ BOTTOM
OF CAGE
CENTER BAR
TIP ELEV.
PILE ELEVATION
PILE 135° HOOK @ EA.

16" Ø END OF SPIRAL
#3 SPIRALS
LONGITUDINAL BARS:
(6) #6
3" TYP.
CENTER BAR: #9
PILE SECTION
Figure 5–8. Pile detail, showing dimensions and reinforcing

Design Example 6
Design of Concrete Diaphragm and Collector
OVERVIEW
Diaphragms are horizontal or sloped systems acting to transfer lateral forces to the vertical lateral-load-
resisting system (LLRS). The purpose of the diaphragm is to (a) transfer inertial mass to the vertical LLRS,
(b) provide restraint to gravity as well as the LLRS from buckling and (c) facilitate connection of various
components of the vertical LLRS with appropriate strength and stiffness so that the building responds as
intended in design.
In this design example, the four-story concrete building has a big opening in the center of the floor
diaphragm. The purpose of this example is to demonstrate a simplified approach to find the demands on
the diaphragm (using a rigid diaphragm assumption) and collector based on the IBC 2012. Design of
diaphragm chords and collector and detailing of these elements is also included in this example.
The diaphragm demands obtained from a simplified approach is compared with the demands obtained by
modeling the diaphragm as a semi-rigid element using shell elements. Conclusions based on the results are
presented at the end of the example.
OUTLINE
2. Determination of Diaphragm Demands
3. Determination of Diaphragm Shears and Chord Forces for Diaphragm with Large Opening
4. Design of Diaphragm Reinforcement for Diaphragm with Large Opening
5. Collector Design
6. Comparison of Diaphragm Force and Chord Force using Rigid Diaphragm Assumption and
Hand Calculations vs. Computer Model Analysis with Semi-Rigid Diaphragm Assumption
GENERAL INFORMATION
• Building located in Pasadena, CA
• Site Class D
• Occupancy Category IV
• Four-story concrete building with a penthouse on the roof
• Concrete flat slab system with shear walls and collector beams at the perimeter

Design Example 6 䡲 Design of Concrete Diaphragm and Collector
• Concrete compressive strength fc′ = 4000 psi for concrete slab, beams, columns, and shear wall
• Reinforcing steel strength f y′ = 60,000 psi
• Typical flat slab reinforcing is #5 at 12 inches on center each way, top and bottom
• Governing codes: IBC 2012 , ASCE 7, and ACI 318-08
COMPUTER MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

A computer program is used to calculate the self-weight of the concrete slabs, beams, girders, columns,
and shear walls. The following are the modeling assumptions incorporated into the computer model for the
lateral-load-resisting system analysis:
• The concrete shear walls were assigned a stiffness modifier of 0.35 to model cracked section
properties
• All nodes at the foundation level for gravity columns are assigned pinned supports
• All nodes at the foundation level for shear walls are assigned fixed supports
• Seismic mass source is defined as from “Dead Load”
• It is assumed that the building has neither vertical nor horizontal irregularities
• Diaphragm is assumed to be rigid diaphragm

Design Example 6 䡲 Design of Concrete Diaphragm and Collector

• Floor plan has typical dimension of 49 feet, 10 inches × 138 feet, 6 inches with typical floor
and roof framing as shown in Figures 6–1 and 6–2.
• Four stories with a penthouse level as shown in Figures 6–3 to 6–6.
Figure 6–1. Typical floor framing plan
Figure 6–2. Penthouse framing plan

Design Example 4 Reinforced Concrete Parking Garage: 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Example 4 Reinforced Concrete Parking Garage: 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Example 4 䡲 Reinforced Concrete Parking Garage

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 171

04_Example-04_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd 171 8/6/13 3:34 PM

1. Building Geometry and Loads

2. Load Combinations for Design

3. Determination of Optimal Pile Capacity and Length

4. Preliminary Pile Vertical Reinforcement

5. Building Base Shear Resistance

7. Check of Axial-Moment Interaction

8. Design of Transverse Reinforcing

9. Development of Vertical Bars into Cap

1. Building Geometry and Loads ASCE 7

1.1 GIVEN INFORMATION

The following information is given:

Pile grout strength, fc′ = 5 ksi.

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 173

05_Example-05_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd 173 8/6/13 3:32 PM

Figure 5–1 shows the foundation plan.

Figure 5–1. Foundation plan

1.2 DESIGN VERTICAL LOADS

174 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

05_Example-05_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd 174 8/6/13 3:32 PM

Table 5–1. Loading at various support conditions

1.3 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 175

05_Example-05_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd 175 8/6/13 3:32 PM

2. Load Combinations for Design IBC

2.1 COMBINATIONS FOR GEOTECHNCAL DESIGN

D+L IBC Eq 16–17

2.2 COMBINATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN

1.4D IBC Eq 16–1

3. Determination of Optimal Pile Capacity and Length IBC

3.1 NUMBER OF PILES PER LOCATION—GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN

176 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

05_Example-05_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd 176 8/6/13 3:32 PM

Table 5–2. Load combinations for geotechnical design

Vertical Loads on Pile Caps

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 177

05_Example-05_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd 177 8/6/13 3:32 PM

Table 5–3. Number of piles required for each condition

Condition Piles Per Group

178 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

05_Example-05_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd 178 8/6/13 3:32 PM

4. Preliminary Pile Vertical Reinforcement IBC, ACI 318

4.1 MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT

Use #9 Continuous Center Bar.

4.2 LIMITING LOADS

5. Building Base Shear Resistance IBC

5.1 DISTRIBUTION THROUGH GROUND LEVEL SLAB

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 179

05_Example-05_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd 179 8/6/13 3:32 PM

5.2 PASSIVE PRESSURE ON CAPS

5.3 PILE GROUP EFFICIENCY

6.1 PILE LATERAL STIFFNESS

180 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

05_Example-05_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd 180 8/6/13 3:32 PM

1.4D 1.2D + 1.6L 1.2D + 1.0E + 1.0L 0.9D + 1.0E

For the purpose of stiffness calculations, consider three cases:

Minimum load (maximum uplift): −42 k

Pu = −42 k: EI = 1.9 million kip-in2

6.2 CONSISTENT LATERAL DEFORMATIONS

Design Points Pu (kips) Mu (kip-in) Vu (kips)

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 181