Moment Restraint and Second-

Order Analysis of a Cantilevered

Precast Column Supported by
an Isolated Footing
J. Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa,
Ph.D., P.E.
125-Year Generation Professor
School of Civil Engineering
National University
Medellín, Colombia
This paper presents criteria for determining the base rotational spring
restraint and the second-order analysis of a cantilevered precast
concrete column supported by an isolated reinforced concrete
footing and its anchorages bearing on elastic soil on piling. The
column-base-footing system is analyzed, as well as the relative
importance of its two interfaces: the column base plate to footing and
the footing to soil. This issue is of major importance in the analysis
and design of framed structures and in the determination of their
deflections, stability, and second-order effects. This paper extends the
procedure presented in Sections 3.8.2 through 3.8.4 of the PCI
Design Handbook, Fifth Edition, and provides a practical tool for
calculating the degree of fixity at the base of precast and monolithic
columns on isolated footings bearing directly on soil or supported by
piling. The steps for calculating the total overturning moment, overall
stability, and stresses in the different materials and supporting soil, in
accordance with the ACI Building Code (ACI 318-99), are presented.
The proposed model is limited to rigid footings and short-term
behavior. Further research is ongoing to determine the effects of
secondary settlements in the soil, creep and shrinkage of the
concrete, bond slippage in the anchor bolts, and other factors.

he strength, stability, and struc- caused by strong winds and earth-

T tural behavior of buildings,

bridges and other structures are
highly sensitive to the overturning
moment restraint provided to the base
of columns by their connections to the
foundation, the foundation itself, and
the supporting soil or medium. The
base moment restraint is of particular
importance in structures subjected to
severe lateral loads, such as those
quakes. The behavior and strength of
columns at their bases affect the over-
all response of buildings and bridges
(including substantial increases in the
lateral drifts and overturning mo-
ments).
Second-order effects (lateral sway,
P- ∆, and “bowing” secondary mo-
ments, P-δ) must be considered in the
analysis. The ACI Building Code1 and

2 PCI JOURNAL
AISC LRFD Steel Manual 2 provide
for the proper evaluation of these ef-
fects for precast cantilevered columns.
Column bases must resist overturn-
ing moments in addition to axial verti-
cal loads. The vertical loads cause a
pre-compression zone at the interface
between the column base plate and
footing and between the footing and
soil. When a large overturning mo-
ment is applied, the pre-compression
at both interfaces on the tension side
of flexure is reduced, often to zero,
creating uplift of the footing, tension
in the anchor bolts, or both simultane-
ously.
On the compression side of the in-
terfaces, the contact areas remain in
compression but with the possibility of
exceeding the compressive strength
capacity of the concrete or the bearing
capacity of the soil. The base plate, the
anchor bolts, and the footing each
have the ability to undergo rotational
or axial deformations, depending pri-
marily on the size of the base plate,
the distribution of the anchor bolts and
their length available to deform, and
the area of the supporting soil avail-
able. The behavior of the anchor bolts
and base plate is also influenced by
any pretension force initially applied
to the anchor bolts.3

BACKGROUND
Chapter 15 of the ACI Building
Code 1 contains provisions for the
proper design and detailing of rein-
forced concrete footings and their con-
nections to columns through anchor-
age and base plates. The PCI Design
Handbook, 4 Fifth Edition, Sections
3.8.2 to 3.8.4, presents a procedure for
calculating the overturning moment
restraint at column bases, including
the calculation of degree of fixity and
the structural modeling of partially
fixed columns. In this paper, the PCI
procedure is adopted and extended to
footings supported by piles. Example
1 presents the application of the PCI
procedure, and Examples 2 and 3 pre-
sent the application of the extended
procedure.
Chapter 11 of the AISC LRFD Steel
Manual contains the design procedure
presented by Thornton5 for both heav-
ily and lightly loaded column base
Fig. 1. Column supported by an isolated footing (modeling of a column-base-footing
system): (a) Column base-plate-to-footing interface; (b) Footing-to-soil interface.
plates. For moment-resisting bases in Sarisley7 and Thambiratnam and Para-
steel columns, there exist a number of masivam.8
methods that depend on the magnitude More recently, Melchers9 has pre-
of the axial load, its eccentricity, and sented experimental results with indi-
the details of the base plate and anchor cations that include the following:
bolts.2,3,6 1. The footing rotation estimates
Current research has been aimed at have more uncertainty than those of
modeling the behavior of the column- the base plate, particularly in cases of
base-footing system and the relative foundations on soft soils and subjected
importance of its two interfaces: the to light vertical loads.
column base plate to footing and the 2. For a given lateral load, the foot-
footing to soil. Experimental studies ing-to-soil interface can contribute
of steel base plates subjected to axial more than one-half the total rotation
load and overturning moments have for nominally pinned bases, and con-
been reported by DeWolf and

November-December 2002 3

Fig. 2. Rigid footing of dimensions L × B resting on a two-parameter (ks and S) soil.
siderably more for nominally fixed
bases, even in cases of very stiff sup-
porting soils.
3. The behavior of the base-plate-to-
footing interface depends primarily on
the base plate thickness and, to a
lesser extent, the bolt size.
4. The deformation of the base plate
is critical to the degree of fixity at the
base of the column. Results reveal that
even for nominally fixed base connec-
tions, the base can become essentially
pinned once sufficient permanent plas-
tic deformation of the base plate oc-
4 PCI JOURNAL
curs at load levels of about one-half of
its ultimate moment capacity.
OBJECTIVES
The principal objective of this paper
is to present a practical method for de-
termining the base rotational spring
restraint and second-order analysis of
a cantilevered precast column sup-
ported by an isolated reinforced con-
crete footing and its anchorages bear-
ing on elastic soil or on piling. An
analysis of the column-base-footing
system and an explanation of the rela-
tive importance of the two interfaces
are given. The method is based on
static equilibrium, strain compatibility,
material properties, and well-estab-
lished principals of soil mechanics.10,11
Three cases of an isolated footing
supported by an elastic medium are
presented. These are “two-parameter”
soils,12,13 toe-bearing piles, and shaft-
friction piles. The effects of the rota-
tion of the footing as a rigid body, the
bending of the base plate, and the
elongation of the anchor bolts are also
included in the proposed models.
The effects of the rotation of the
footing (which is assumed to behave
as a rigid body), the bending of the
base plate, and the elongation of the
anchor bolts are included in the pro-
posed models. Three numerical exam-
ples demonstrate the application of the
proposed models and corresponding
equations in the stability, second-order
analysis, and calculations of the total
design moments and deflections of
cantilever columns.
PROPOSED MODELS AND
EQUATIONS
The structural model of a rigid foot-
ing supporting an eccentrically con-
nected column (with properties E, A, I,
and H) is shown in Fig. 1. The total
rotation of the column base θb is sim-
ply the sum of the rotations of the base
plate, anchor bolts, and footing (see
Fig. 1b), as expressed by Eq. (1a):
θb = θbp + θab + θf (1a)
where
θf = rotation of the footing
θbp = rotation of the base plate
θab = rotation caused by elongation
of the anchor bolts
If the axial load on the column is
heavy enough that there is no tension
in the anchor bolts, θ bp and θ ab are
each zero, resulting in θ b = θ f and
making the moment spring restraint at
the column base a maximum. In terms
of flexibility coefficients, Eq. (1a) can
be expressed as:
θb = (γbp + γab)M + γf Mf (1b)
where
 M = overturning moment at the
column base
Mf = overturning moment at the
footing-to-soil interface
γbp = flexibility coefficient of the
base plate
γab = flexibility coefficient of the
anchor bolts
γf = flexibility coefficient of the
footing
These three flexibility coefficients
are presented in the next two sections.

Flexibility at the Base-Plate-to-

Footing Interface
The elastic structural modeling for
the moment-rotation behavior of a
base plate and its anchor bolts is pre-
sented in this section. The flexibilities
of the base plate and its anchor bolts
can be estimated using Eqs. (2a) and
(2b), which are similar to those in-
cluded in the PCI Design Handbook.
Their derivations are presented in Ap-
pendix A for quick reference.

g[2e / ( w + 2 x1 ) − 1]
γ ab = (2a)
2eEab Aab ( w + x1 )
γ bp =
( x1 + x 2 )3 [2e / ( w + 2 x1 ) − 1]
6eEbp Ibp ( w + x1 )
(2b)

where
Aab = total area of anchor bolts in
tension
e = eccentricity of the applied
axial load at the column base
(M/P)
Ebp = modulus of elasticity of the
base plate
Eab = modulus of elasticity of the
anchor bolts
g = assumed length over which
elongation of the anchor bolts
takes place
w = width of the column in the di-
rection of bending
Ibp = moment of inertia of the base
plate
x1 = distance from face of column
to center of the anchor bolts
(positive when anchor bolts
are outside the column, and
negative when they are inside
the column)
Fig. 3. Plan views of a rigid footing supported on regular arrays of piles.
x2 = distance from face of column
to the base plate anchorage
The rotation of the base and the lat-
eral deflection of the column cause an
additional eccentricity of the axial
loads on the column, increasing the
total base overturning moment. Note
that in Eqs. (2a) and (2b), if the eccen-
tricity (e = M/P) is less than w/2 + x1
(i.e., P lies inside the center of com-
pression of the bearing plate-to-bolts
interface), then θbp = θab = 0 (i.e., the
effects of base plate rotation and rota-
tion caused by anchor bolt elongation
do not need to be considered).
Eqs. (2a) and (2b) indicate that the
base plate thickness, the size, distribu-
tion, and anchorage of its anchor
bolts, and the material characteristics
of both components play significant
roles in the strength and stiffness of
the base-plate-to-footing interface. Ex-
perimental results and further details
on the behavior and ultimate strength
of steel-bolted base plates are given by
DeWolf and Sarisley,7 Thambiratnam
and Paramasivam,8 and Melchers.9
Flexibility at the
Footing-to-Soil Interface
Two cases for rigid footings – those
resting directly on “two parameter”
elastic soil and those resting on piling
– are presented in this section.
1. Rigid footing resting directly on
a “two-parameter” elastic soil. The
flexibility coefficient of a rigid footing
(with dimensions L × B as shown by
Fig. 2) resting on a soil with elastic

November-December 2002 5
 glected. In this case, the flexibility of
the footing-to-soil interface is in-
creased by a factor equal to (1 + k1 +
12k12) according to Eq. (3), and conse-
quently reducing the rotational spring
restraint at the base of the column.
Note that Eq. (3) is valid as long as e ≤
B/6 (i.e., the eccentric vertical load ap-
plied at the footing-to-soil interface is
within the kern of its area), indicating
that the rigid footing is subjecting the
soil to compression without undergo-
ing uplift.
Otherwise, for e > B/6, the nonlinear
effects of that portion of the footing
being uplifted must be taken into ac-
count. Gurfinkel 16 has treated this
problem, including the combined ef-
fects of biaxial bending and compres-
sive axial load, using a numerical al-
gorithm for three different types of
stress-strain curves for the supporting
soil.
2. Rigid footing resting directly on
piles. For this discussion, it is as-
sumed that all the piles are identical –
with total length Dp, cross-sectional
area A p , moment of inertia I p , and
modulus of elasticity Ep – and sym-
metrically distributed as shown in
Figs. 3 and 4.
For a set of three piles at a distance
D between centers (see Fig. 3a):

2
γf = (5a)
ksp Ap D 2

Fig. 4. Elevation view of a rigid footing supported on (a) toe-bearing piles and For a set of four piles (2 × 2) at a
(b) friction piles. distance D between centers (see Fig.
3b):
parameters ks and S is calculated using porting soil or medium is calculated 1
Eq. (3):12,13 by Eq. (4): γf = (5b)
ksp Ap D 2
θf 1/12
γf = 0.65 Es  Es L4  For a set of six piles (2 × 3) at a dis-
Mf ks = E I  (4)
1 − νs2  f f tance D between centers (see Fig. 3c):
 12   1 
= 3   (3) 1
 ks LB   1 + 6k1 + 12 k12  where γf = (5c)
4 ksp Ap D 2
Es = Young’s modulus of support-
where ing soil or medium
For a set of nine piles (3 × 3) at a
ks = coefficient of subgrade reaction νs = Poisson’s ratio of supporting
distance D between centers (see Fig.
k1 = S/ksB2 soil or medium
3d):
S = second “parameter,” denoted as Ef = Young’s modulus of rectan-
the surface tension reaction of gular footing 1
the supporting soil.12,13 If = moment of inertia of rectan- γf = (5d)
6ksp Ap D 2
According to Vesic,14,15 the relation- gular footing
ship between the soil spring constant ks Eq. (3) can be reduced to γ f =
For a set of sixteen piles (4 × 4) at a
and the elastic properties of the sup- 12/ksLB3 if the surface tension S is ne-

6 PCI JOURNAL
distance D between centers (see Fig.
3e):

1
γf = (5e)
20 ksp Ap D 2

For a set of m × n piles at a distance

D between centers (see Fig. 3f):

1
γf = (5f)
mn(n 2 − 1)ksp Ap D 2

For bearing piles resting on rock

with a coefficient of elastic reaction kro
(see Fig. 4a):

kro E p / Dp
ksp = (6a)
kro + E p / Dp

For friction piles with their bottom

ends bearing on soil with a coefficient
of elastic reaction kso and surrounded
by soil (shaft friction) with a coeffi-
cient of elastic reaction kss (see Fig 4b):

ksp =
1
Dp λ Ap
[λ + α (1 – λ )] E +
kso
+ (1 – λ )
kss S pe
p

(6b)

Note that Spe is the shaft friction area

of the pile (i.e., the embedment area of
each pile in the surrounding soil = pile
perimeter × embedment length =
LperDe). The parameters α and λ repre-
sent, respectively, the variation of the
shaft friction stress along the embed-
Fig. 5. Vesic’s
ment length of the pile and the ratio of
suggested
the axial load bearing at the pile toe to values for α
the total applied axial load at the pile according to
head. the distribution
Vesic15 suggests different values for of the shaft
α according to the distribution of the friction force.15
shaft friction force, as shown in Fig. 5,
and for λ according to Eq. (7):
D = average depth (taken herein as 0.45 fc′
De /2) kss =
λ = 1 – βγD S pe / Pp (7) L per Cs
Pp = total applied axial load at the
top of a pile where
where In addition, Vesic 15 recommends d = pile diameter
sin φ cosφ that f c′ = concrete compressive strength
β= (8) of the piles
1 + sin 2 φ 0.45 fc′d
kso = Cp = empirical coefficient that de-
φ = angle of internal friction of the Ap C p
pends on the soil surrounding
surrounding soil and the piles (see Table 1)
 γ = specific weight of the soil at Cs = (0.93 + 0.16 De / d )Cp
depth De Eqs. (6a) and (6b) represent the

November-December 2002 7
Table 1. Cp values according to Vesic.
Soil Type
Sand (from dense to loose)
Clay (from hard to soft)
Silt (from dense to loose)
combined elastic modulus of the pile-
rock system for toe-bearing piles and
the combined elastic modulus of the
pile-surrounding soil-bearing stratum
system for shaft-friction piles.
Note that in Eqs. (6a) and (6b), the
stiffnesses of each component are con-
nected in series. The values for kro, kso,
and kss can be determined from in-situ
load testing, or suggested values can be
assumed according to the correspond-
ing soil characteristics.10,11,17 Also, note
that in Eqs. (7) and (8), β is a dimen-
sionless factor obtained assuming that
the friction stress along the pile shaft is
constant and that the embedded surface
of the pile becomes a sliding or failure
surface with an average frictional force
of magnitude βγD S pe .
Second-Order Analysis
For a particular loading condition,
the total lateral drift at the top of a
cantilever column can be calculated by
the well-known equation of flexibility
for a beam-column, Eq. (9), developed
by Salmon and Johnson3 and Aristiza-
bal-Ochoa,18,19 which includes both the
P-∆ and P-δ effects:
Ma sin Φ − Φ
+ For Load Case 2:
( EI / H ) Φ 2 sin Φ
Mb sin Φ − ΦcosΦ
( EI / H ) Φ 2 sin Φ
∆ Mb
=− − (9)
H κb
where
Pu
Φ= 2 umn
( EI / H )
∆ = the total drift of the column at
A with respect to the base B
Ma = total factored moment at top
end A of the column (positive
clockwise)
Mb = total factored moment at bot-
tom end B of the column
(positive clockwise)
It is important to emphasize that Eq.
8 PCI JOURNAL
Driven Piles Bored Piles
0.02 to 0.04 0.09 to 0.18
0.02 to 0.04 0.04 to 0.08
0.03 to 0.05 0.09 to 0.12
(9) represents the second-order equi-
librium of an unbraced column under
axial compression and end moments,
which can be solved directly (without
trial-and-error procedures, as shown in
Example 1 below). This is an im-
provement over the method presented
in the PCI Design Handbook, which
requires an iterative procedure. Eq. (9)
is derived in Appendix B.
For a cantilever column with Ma ≠ 0
and Mb = –(Mpr + Pu∆) = –Pu(e + ∆),
then from Eq. (9):
e – ( Ma / Pu )(1 – Φ / sin Φ )
etotal =
Φ tan Φ – Pu H / κ b
(9*)
where etotal = e + ∆
NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
Example 1 – Analysis of a Can-
tilever Column on a Rigid Footing
Resting on an Elastic Soil
Given the cantilever column and
footing resting on an elastic soil of
Fig. 6a, determine the overturning mo-
ment restraint at B and the design
loads and overturning moments, tak-
ing into account the second-order ef-
fects. Assume that:
σa = allowable bearing soil stress
= 5000 psf (240 kPa)
ks = 200 psi/in. (0.054 N/mm3)
S = 0
f c′ = 5000 psi (35 MPa)
E = Young’s modulus of the col-
= 4300 ksi (30 GPa)
Pdead = 80 kips (356 kN)
Plive = 30 kips (133 kN)
W (wind load) = 2 kips (8.9 kN)
Check the soil bearing stress and the
slenderness ratio KH/r of the column
according to ACI 319-99, Section
10.11.5.
Solution
Calculate the first-order design
loads.
According to ACI Code Section 9.2,
the required column strength is con-
trolled by one of the following three
load cases:
Load Case 1: U = 1.4D + 1.7L
Load Case 2: U = 0.75(1.4D + 1.7L
+ 1.7W)
Load Case 3: U = 0.9D + 1.3W
These three load combinations are
depicted in Fig. 6b with their respec-
tive first-order eccentricities.
Check rotation between column
and footing.
Since w/2 + x1 = 20/2 + (–2) = 8 in.
(> e = 6.933 in.) and e < L/6 = 12 in.,
there is no tension in the anchor bolts,
and the axial force resultant falls in-
side the middle third of the founda-
tion. Therefore, γbp = γab = 0 and γf =
12/(ksLB3) = 12/(200 × 724 lb-in.) =
1/(4.47897 × 108 lb-in.). Based on a
first-order analysis, the overturning
moment restraint at the base B is κb =
4.47897 × 108 lb-in./radian.
Perform the second-order analysis
and check final eccentricities.
In this particular problem, Ma = 0
and Mb = –(WuH + Pu∆) = –Pu(e + ∆).
Then, from Eq. (9):
∆=
e
1 / (1 – Φ tan Φ + Pu H / κ b ) – 1
(10)
Pu = 122.25 kips
Φ=
122.25 / [ 4300 × 20 4 / (12 × 192 2 )]
= 0.2804
e = 4 in.
Therefore, from Eq. (10):
∆ = 0.34 in.
Mb = –Pu(e + ∆)
= 530.8 kip-in.
etotal = e + ∆
= 4.34 in. (110 mm).
For Load Case 3: Pu = 72 kips
Φ=
72 / [ 4300 × 20 4 / (12 × 192 2 )]
= 0.2152 and e = 6.93 in.
Fig. 6. Cantilever column on a rigid footing resting on an elastic soil (Example 1): (a) Structural model; (b) Load combinations
with their respective first-order eccentricities; (c) Imaginary beam-column for computer analysis.
Therefore, from Eq. (10):
∆ = 0.34 in.
Mb = –Pu(e + ∆)
= 523.4 kip-in.
etotal = e + ∆
= 7.27 in. (185 mm).
For all load cases, the total eccen-
tricity etotal < (w/2 + x1) = 8 in. and L/6
= 12 in. Therefore, there is no induced
tension in the anchor bolts, and the
axial force resultant falls inside the
middle third of the foundation.
Examine imaginary column for
computer modeling.
As suggested in the PCI Design
Handbook, an imaginary beam-col-
umn of flexural stiffness 3EiIi /Hi = κb
= 4.47897 × 10 5 kip-in./radian and
axial stiffness EiAi/Hi = ksBL = 200 ×
722 lb/in.= 1036.8 kip/in. is chosen to
simulate the effects of the column-
footing-soil interaction, as shown in
Fig. 6c. If the same material and mo-
ment of inertia are chosen (i.e., Ii = I =
13,333 in.4), then the span and cross-
sectional area, respectively, must be
Hi = 384 in. or 32 ft, and Ai = 92.59 sq
in. These results are similar to those
reported in the PCI Design Handbook.
November-December 2002
Check the soil bearing stress.
σ a < P total /BL + [W(H + h f ) +
P∆]/(BL2/6)
Under service conditions P total =
Pdead + Plive + Weightcol + Weightfoot =
80 + 30 + 6.67 + 8.1 = 124.77 kips.
Then, Ptotal /BL = 3.466 ksf and [W(H
+ hf) + P∆] = 2 × 17.5 + (80 + 30) ×
0.34/12 = 38.12 kip-ft (assuming con-
servatively that ∆ = 0.34 in.), and
Mtotal /(BL2/6) = 1.059 ksf. Therefore,
the maximum soil stress = 3.466 +
1.059 = 4.525 ksf < σ a = 5000 psf
(OK)
Check the slenderness ratio kH/r
of the column.
With Ψa = ∞ and Ψb = (EI/H)/(κ /6)
= [4300 × 204/(12 × 192)]/(4.47897 ×
105/6) = 4.0, the effective length factor
k obtained from the alignment chart or
from the stability equation
( π /k)tan( π /k) = 1.5 is k = 3.179.
Therefore:
kH/r = 3.179 × 192/5.7735
= 105.7 > 100 (too high!)
Conclusions
The flexural fixity given to this col-
umn at its base is very low, resulting in
a slenderness ratio kH/r greater than
100, which, according to the ACI
Building Code, requires a special anal-
ysis that must include the effects of
shrinkage and creep, cracking, material
nonlinearity, and other considerations.
This is an important oversight of the
PCI Design Handbook. Therefore, to
further reduce kH/r, it is recommended
that the value of B be increased. In ad-
dition, the fact that etotal = 7.27 in. for
Load Case 3 is very close to the limit
of (w/2 + x1) = 8 in., indicating that in
order to avoid tension in the anchor
bolts and a further reduction in the
base resistance, the anchor bolts should
be located outside of the cross section,
as shown in Fig. 1a.
Note that in all three load cases,
the precast cantilever column is rigidly
connected to the footing (since γbp =
γab = 0), making the rotational spring
restraint at the column base a maxi-
mum (with a value of κb = 4.47897 ×
108 lb-in./radian). Further, it is benefi-
cial to have x1 = –x2, making γbp = 0
[see Eq. (2b)] for any loading condi-
tion and base plate size.
9

Fig. 7. Cantilever
column on a rigid
footing resting on
toe-bearing piles
(Example 2).
Example 2 – Cantilever Column
Supported by a Rigid Footing
Resting on Toe-Bearing Piles
The rigid footing of Example 1 is
being supported by four equally
spaced piles, as shown in Fig. 7. De-
termine the moment restraint at the
base of the column. Assume that:
f c′ = concrete strength of the piles
= 3000 psi (21 MPa)
10
Ep = Young’s modulus of the con-
crete piles = 3122 ksi (21.5
MPa)
Dp = 18 ft (5.5 m)
d = pile diameter = 1 ft (0.305
m)
D = 4 ft (1.2 m)
Kro = 1.8067 kip/in. 3 (0.4904
N/mm3)
Assume that the loads and proper-
ties of the column are the same as
those given in Example 1.
Solution
Using Eqs. (6a) and (5b):
kro E p / Dp
ksp =
kro + E p / Dp
1.8067 × 3122 / 216
=
1.8067 + 3122 / 216
= 1.6059 kip/in.3
1
γf =
ksp Ap D 2
1
=
482 × (π × 12 2 / 4) × 1.6059
1
=
4.18468 × 10 5 kip - in.
or
κb = 4.18468 × 108 lb-in./radian
Conclusions
The flexural restraint provided by the
four toe-bearing piles shown in Fig. 7
is lower than that provided by the sup-
porting soil in Example 1, resulting in
even larger values for kH/r, second-
order moments, and lateral deflections.
To reach the same degree of fixity and
the same results of the column of Ex-
ample 1, the distance D between piles
must be increased slightly from 48 to
49.7 in. Since κb is proportional to D2,
it is recommended that D be increased.
Assuming D = 54 in., then kH/r =
98.08, which is a little improvement in
the design at no extra cost.
Example 3 – Cantilever Column
Supported by a Rigid Footing
Resting on Shaft-Friction Piles
The square footing of Example 1 is
being supported as shown in Fig. 8 by
four equally spaced friction piles
driven 10 ft (3.1 m) deep into a dense
sand stratum. Determine the rotational
spring restraint at the column base.
Assume that:
f c′ = concrete strength of the piles
= 3000 psi (21 MPa)
Ep = Young’s modulus of the con-
crete of the piles = 3122 ksi
(21.5 MPa)
d = 1 ft (0.31 m)
D = 4 ft (1.2 m)
PCI JOURNAL
 Dp = 10.5 ft (3.20 m)
De = 10 ft (3.05 m)
γ = 143.61 lb/ft (22.56 KN/m)
φ = 0.35 radians
α = 0.5
Cp = 0.02
Assume that the loads and properties
of the column are the same as those
given in Example 1.

Solution
Before making use of Eqs. (6b) and
(5b), the following parameters must be
determined using Vesic’s approach:15
Cp = 0.02 (for dense sand and driven
piles; see Table 1)
Cs = (0.93 + 0.16 De / d )Cp
= (0.93 + 0.16 10 / 1 ) × 0.02
= 0.02872
0.45 fc′d
kso =
Ap C p
0.45(3.0)(12)
=
(π × 12 2 / 4)(0.02)
= 7.162 kip/in.3

0.45 fc′
kss =
L per Cs
0.45(3.0)
=
(π × 12)(0.02872)
= 1.2469 kip/in.3
sin φ cos φ
β=
1 + sin 2 φ
(sin 0.35)(cos 0.35)
=
1 + sin 2 0.35
= 0.2882
Fig. 8. Cantilever
column on a rigid
( Pdead + Plive + Weightcol + Weight foot ) footing resting on
( m × n) friction piles
(80 + 30 + 6.67 + 8.1) (Example 3).
=
(2 × 2)
= 31.193 kips

Finally, using Eq. (5b)

λ = 1 – βγD S pe /Pp
= 1 – [0.2882 × 143.61 lb/ft3 × (0.5 × 10 ft) × (π × 1 × 10 ft2)]/(31,193 lbs) 1
γf =
= 0.7916 ksp Ap D 2
1
ksp =
482 × (π × 12 2 / 4) × 6.5285
1
= 1
10.5 × 12 0.7916 π (12 2 / 4) =
[0.7916 + 0.5(1 – 0.7916)] + + (1 – 0.7916) 1.701167 × 10 6 kip - in.
3122 7.162 π (12 × 10 × 12 × 1.2469)
= 6.5285 kip/in.3 or
κb = 1.701167 × 109 lb-in./radian

November-December 2002 11
 Perform second-order analysis
and check of final moments and ec-
centricities.
For Load Case 2:
Pu = 122.25 kips
Φ = 0.2804
e = 4 in.
Therefore, from Eq. (10):
∆ = 0.17 in.
Mb = –Pu(e + ∆) = 509.4 kip-in.
etotal = e + ∆ = 4.17 in. (106 mm)
For Load Case 3:
Pu = 72 kips
Φ = 0.2152
e = 6.93 in.
Therefore, from Eq. (10):
∆ = 0.17 in.
Mb = –Pu(e + ∆) = 511.2 kip-in.
etotal = e + ∆ = 7.10 in. (180 mm)
As in Example 1, for all load cases,
the total eccentricity etotal < (w/2 + x1)
= 8 in. and L/6 = 12 in. Therefore,
there is no induced tension in the an-
chor bolts and the axial force resultant
falls inside the middle third of the
foundation.
Check the slenderness ratio kH/r
of the column.
With Ψa = ∞ and Ψb = (EI/H)/(κ/6)
= [4300 × 204/(12 × 192)]/(1.701167 ×
106/6) = 1.0532, the effective length
factor k obtained from the alignment
chart or from the stability equation
(π/k)tan(π/k) = 5.6969 is k = 2.345.
Therefore:
kH/r = 2.345 × 192/5.7735
= 77.98 < 100 (OK)
Conclusion
The rotational spring restraint pro-
vided by the four friction piles to the
column shown in Fig. 8 is about 3.8
and 4.1 times that provided by the
supporting soil and toe-bearing piles
in Examples 1 and 3, respectively. As
a result, the slenderness ratio kH/r, the
12
induced second-order moments, and
lateral deflections are reduced, meet-
ing stability requirements of the ACI
Building Code.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The analytical results discussed in
this paper indicate that the rotational
spring restraint of a column base con-
nected to an isolated footing and the
cantilever column’s stability depend
on the following factors:
1. The physical parameters of the
connection between the column and
the footing (i.e., arrangement, size,
and materials of the base plate and its
anchor bolts);
2. The geometry and size of the
footing;
3. The bearing characteristics of the
soil under the footing and its sur-
roundings;
4. The type and arrangement of the
footing-soil interface and the type and
distribution of the piles; and
5. The intensities of the applied
loads and overturning moments.
Analytical results also indicate that
it is beneficial to have x1 = –x2, mak-
ing γbp = 0 [see Eq. (2b)] for any load-
ing condition and base plate size.
However, cases in which etotal at the
precast column base is greater than
(w/2 + x1) must be avoided in practice.
They probably are not only unreliable,
as claimed by Melchers, 9 but also
cumbersome to analyze, requiring an
iterative procedure to determine κ b
since both γ bp and γ ab are nonlinear
functions of the eccentricity e [see
Eqs. (2a) and (2b) with e = etotal].
In addition, the effects of the footing
thickness hf on κb, which must be cal-
culated according to Eq. (1b) (i.e., κb =
M/θb), and on the critical axial load of
the precast column [according to Eq.
(9)] must be considered. An “exact”
second-order analysis would require a
more complex model like a “step-up”
column system comprising the precast
column and the footing itself with all
the corresponding connections.
The proposed models and corre-
sponding equations are limited to rigid
footings, short term behavior, and
static loads (i.e., linear elastic ranges
of stresses, deflections, and immediate
settlements). Therefore, there is a real
need for further research to determine
practical models that include the fol-
lowing:
1. The effects of the flexibility of
the footing and piles;
2. Long-term effects (such as sec-
ondary settlements in the supporting
soils, bond slippage in the anchor
bolts, and creep and shrinkage in the
concrete members);
3. The actual nominal strength of
each component and their interactions
at ultimate loading conditions (such as
the axial and shear forces and biaxial
bending interactions);
4. The effects of prestressing the an-
chor bolts and reinforcements; and
5. The effects of different types of
loads.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research presented in this
paper was carried out at the National
University of Colombia, School of
Mines, in Medellín, Colombia. The
author wishes to express his apprecia-
tion to DIME for their financial sup-
port and encouragement and to Mr. J.
Paul Smith-Pardo, graduate student at
Purdue University, Indiana, while he
was at the National University of
Colombia, for his cooperation and as-
sistance. The author also expresses his
appreciation to the PCI JOURNAL re-
viewers of this paper for their thought-
ful and constructive comments.
PCI JOURNAL
 REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Struc-
tural Concrete (ACI 318-99),” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1999.
2. AISC, Manual of Steel Construction: Load & Resistance Factor
Design, Second Edition, V. II, Chapter 11, American Institute
of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 1993, pp. 11-54 to 11-64.
3. Salmon, C. G., and Johnson, J. E., Steel Structures: Design
and Behavior, Fourth Edition, Harper-Collins, New York, NY,
1996.
4. PCI Design Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete,
Fifth Edition, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago,
IL, 1999.
5. Thornton, W. A., “Design of Base Plates for Wide Flange
Columns – A Concatenation of Methods,” Engineering Jour-
nal, V. 27, No. 4, Fourth Quarter, American Institute of Steel
Construction, 1990, pp. 173-174.
6. Blodgett, O. W., Design of Welded Structures, James F. Lin-
coln Arc Welding Foundation, Cleveland, OH, 1966.
7. DeWolf, J. T., and Sarisley, E. F., “Column Base Plate with
Axial Loads and Moments,” Journal of the Structural
Division, V. 106, No. ST11, November 1980, American Soci-
ety of Civil Engineers, pp. 2176-2184.
8. Thambiratnam, D. P., and Paramasivam, P., “Base Plates
Under Axial Loads and Moments,” Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, V. 112 , No. 5, May 1986, American Society of Civil
Engineers, pp. 1166-1181.
9. Melchers, R. E., “Steel Base Plate-Footing-Soil Behavior,”
Second International Workshop on Connections in Steel Struc-
tures: Behavior, Strength and Design, American Institute of
Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 1992, pp. 132-139.
APPENDIX A— DERIVATION OF FLEXIBILITY EQS. (2A) AND (2B)
Flexibility due to the Connecting Bolts
Assuming the model shown in Fig. 1, in which the left-
side anchor bolts are subject to tension with an equivalent
free length g and are still in the elastic range with a total
elongation ∆g = Tg/Eab Aab caused by the tensile force T:
∆g Tg
θ ab = = (A1)
( w + x1 ) Eab Aab ( w + x1 )
From equilibrium (overturning about the right bolt in Fig.
1b):
T(w + 2x1) – P(e – w/2 – x1) = 0
or
M  2e 
T=  − 1 (A2)
2e  w + x1 
Substituting T into Eq. (A1):
M  2e  6eEbp Ibp ( w + x1 )
 − 1 g
2e  w + x1  θ bp
θ ab = = γ bp = 1
Eab Aab ( w + x1 )
November-December 2002
10. Bowles, J. E., Foundation Analysis and Design, Fourth Edi-
tion, McGraw-Hill Company, New York, NY, 1988.
11. Das, B. M., Principles of Foundation Engineering, Second
Edition, PWS-Kent Publishing Company, Boston, MA, 1990.
12. Scott, R. F., Foundation Analysis, Prentice-Hall Inc., Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ, 1981.
13. Lin, G., “Stability of Frames with Grade Beam and Soil Inter-
action,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, V. 118, No. 1,
January 1992, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 125-
140.
14. Vesic, A. S., “Bending of Beams on Isotropic Elastic Solid,”
Proceedings, V. 87, No. 2, American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, 1966, pp. 35-51.
15. Vesic, A. S., “Design of Pile Foundations,” National Coopera-
tive Highway Research Program, Synthesis of Practice No. 42,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1977.
16. Gurfinkel, G., “Analysis of Footings Subjected to Biaxial
Bending,” Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 96, No. ST6,
June 1970, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 1049-
1059.
17. Fang, H-Y (Editor), Foundation Engineering Handbook, Sec-
ond Edition, Van-Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, 1991.
18. Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. Dario, “Braced, Partially Braced, and
Unbraced Columns: Complete Set of Classical Stability Equa-
tions,” Structural Engineering and Mechanics, V. 4, No. 4,
1996, Techno-Press, Korea, pp. 365-381.
19. Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. Dario, “Story Stability of Braced, Par-
tially Braced, and Unbraced Frames: Classical Approach,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 123, No. 6, June 1997,
American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 799-807.
 2e 
g − 1
θ ab  w + x 
or = γ ab = 1
(2a)
M 2eEab Aab ( w + x1 )
Flexibility due to the bearing plate
Assuming the model shown in Fig. 1, which shows that
the span of the plate (x1 + x2) acting as a cantilever:
δ
θ bp = (A3)
( w + x1 )
T ( x1 + x 2 )3
δ= (A4)
3Ebp Ibp
Substituting T from Eq. (A2) into Eq. (A4) and the result
into Eq. (A3):
M ( x1 + x 2 )3 [2e / ( w + 2 x1 ) − 1]
θ bp =
( x + x 2 )3 [2e / ( w + 2 x1 ) − 1]
(2b)
M 6eEbp Ibp ( w + x1 )
13
 APPENDIX B — DERIVATION OF EQ. (9)
The reader is referred to Salmon and Johnson3 (p. 900) for Then
further details on the derivation of Eq. (9). The general ap-
proach to the second-order analysis of an “ideal” beam-col- Ma  sin(Φ − Φx / H ) H − x
y=  − −
umn (i.e., a perfectly straight prismatic member with per- P  sin Φ H 
fectly centered compressive end loads P, and with bending
Mb  sin(Φx / H ) x x
end moments Ma and Mb occurring about one of the princi- − + ∆ (B5)
pal axes of its cross section) begins with the well-known P  sin Φ H  H
Timoshenko equation:
Differentiating once to obtain the slope:
d2y M
2
=− (B1) dy
=
Ma 1 − Φ cos(Φ − Φx / H )  +
d x EI  
dx PH sin Φ
where Mb  Φ cos( Φx / H )  ∆
1 −  + (B6)
M = Ma + Py – (Ma + Mb + P∆)x/H (B2) PH  sin Φ  H
dy ∆
Substituting (B2) into (B1): When x = 0, = θa +
dx H
dy ∆
d2y P M Ma + Mb + P∆ x When x = H , = θb +
+ y=− a + (B3) dx H
d2x EI EI EI H
Then, θ a and θ b after some algebra may be expressed as:
Letting Φ2 = P/(EI/H2), the solution for Eq. (B3) is Ma sin Φ − Φ sin Φ Mb sin Φ − Φ
θa = +
( EI / H ) Φ 2 sin Φ ( EI / H ) Φ 2 sin Φ
y = C1 sin Φ  + C2 cos Φ  −
x x Ma
+ Ma sin Φ − Φ Mb sin Φ − ΦcosΦ
 H  H P θb = +
( EI / H ) Φ 2 sin Φ ( EI / H ) Φ 2 sin Φ
Ma + Mb + P∆ x
(B4) ∆ Mb
P H =− − (9)
H κb
Applying the boundary conditions of zero deflection at Note that from rotational compatibility at moment
x = 0 and y = ∆ at x = H gives
equilibrium at end B:
C1 = (Ma cosΦ + Mb)/(PsinΦ) ∆ Mb
θb = − −
H κb
and

C2 = Ma/P

14 PCI JOURNAL
 APPENDIX C — NOTATION
A = cross-sectional area of column Ma = factored moment at top end A of column
Aab = total area of anchor bolts in tension Mb = factored moment at bottom end B of column
B = width of footing m×n= rectangular array of piles [see Fig. 3(f)]
D = distance between centers or centroids of piles P = applied axial load at column base
De = embedment length of piles Pp = applied axial load at pile head
Dp = total pile length S = surface tension reaction of supporting soil
D = average depth (taken herein as De /2) Spe = shaft friction area of pile (i.e., area of each pile
d = diameter of piles embedded in surrounding soil)
Cp = empirical coefficient of soil surrounding piles = Lper De
(see Table 1) r = radius of gyration of column cross section
Cs = empirical coefficient of soil surrounding piles x1 = distance from face of column to center of anchor
= (0.93 + 0.16 De / d )Cp bolts (positive if anchor bolts are outside column,
E = Young’s modulus of the column material and negative if they are inside)
Ebp = modulus of elasticity of base plate x2 = distance from face of column to base plate an-
Eab = modulus of elasticity of anchor bolts chorage
Es = Young’s modulus of supporting soil or medium w = width of column in the direction of bending
Ef = Young’s modulus of reinforced concrete footing α = soil parameter representing variation of shaft
E = eccentricity of applied axial load at column base friction stress along embedded pile (see Fig. 5)
= M/P β = coefficient of sliding friction
f c′ = compressive strength of concrete ∆ = total drift of column at top end A with respect to
g = assumed length over which elongation of tension its base B
anchor bolts takes place νs = Poisson’s ratio of supporting soil or medium
H = column height κb = rotational stiffness of end connection at column
hf = footing vertical depth base B
I = column moment of the inertia λ = soil parameter representing the ratio of axial load
Ibp = moment of inertia of the base plate carried by pile toe (i.e., by bearing at bottom of
If = footing moment of inertia = LB3/12 the pile) to total applied axial load at pile head
K = effective length factor of column γf = flexibility coefficient of footing
kro = coefficient of elastic reaction of rock for toe- γbp = flexibility coefficient of base plate
bearing piles (Fig. 4a) γab = flexibility coefficient of anchor bolts
ks = coefficient of subgrade reaction (according to γ = specific weight of soil at depth De
Vesic14) φ = angle of internal friction of surrounding soil (for
kso = coefficient of elastic reaction of bearing soil at clay varies from 16 to 26 degrees)
bottom end of friction pile Φ = stability parameter = [P/(EI/H 2)]1/2
kss = coefficient of elastic reaction of surrounding soil θf = rotation of footing
of friction pile θbp = rotation of base plate
L = length of footing θab = rotation caused by elongation of anchor bolts
M = overturning moment at column base Ψa = alignment chart coefficients [(EI/H)c /(EI/L)g] at A
Mf = overturning moment at footing-soil interface Ψb = alignment chart coefficients [(EI/H)c /(EI/L)g] at B

November-December 2002 15