Handout

Alexander Newman, P.E.
Foundations for Metal Building Systems
ASCE Web Seminar

Presented by Alexander Newman
Copyright © 2007--2012 Alexander Newman

All rights reserved.
Reproduction of this material without a written permission
of the copyright holder is a violation of the U.S. law
Introduction
 Some Reference Sources
 A. Newman, “Foundation and Anchor Design Guide for Metal
Building Systems,” McGraw-Hill, 2013
 A. Newman, “Metal Building Systems: Design and
Specifications,” 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, 2014
 2-day ASCE Seminar: Design and Strengthening of Shallow

Foundations for Conventional and Pre-engineered Buildings
 2-day ASCE Seminar: Design of Anchors, Embedments, and
Foundations to Resist Horizontal and Vertical Forces
 ASCE Webinars Design of Anchor Bolts and Design of
Concrete Embedments for Shear and Tension
2
1
Introduction
 Agenda
 Introduction to metal building systems
 The main issues
 Tie rods
 Hairpins
 Moment-resisting foundations
 Trench footings, mats
 Slab with haunch
 Q&A
 Bonus material: Foundations for Quonset Hut-type buildings
Introduction to Metal Building Systems

 Two Main Types of MBS
 Frame-and-purlin types: Concentrated reactions on
foundations
 Single-slope rigid frames
 Multiple-span rigid frames
 Tapered beam
 Trusses
Arrival and Departure Airfield
 Quonset Hut-Style: Control Facility, Pope AFB, NC
(USACE)
Distributed reactions
2
Introduction to Metal Building Systems

 Frame-and-Purlin System
ROOF SYSTEM
ROOF PURLIN
EAVE STRUT
ENDWALL FRAME
RIGID FRAME
BRACING
EAVE
HEIGHT
CLEAR
SPAN
GIRT
RIGID FRAME
COLUMN FRAME
BAY SPACING WIDTH
Main Issues
 What Makes MBS Foundations Different From
Conventional?
 Light weight => large net uplift
 Large lateral reactions at columns

6
3
Main Issues
 Do Manufacturers Design Foundations?
 MBMA Metal Building Systems Manual, Common Industry
Practices, Para. 3.2.2: Mfr is responsible only for providing
loads to Builder, not foundation or A.B. design.
Main Issues
 Foundations Designed Before the Building
 Some say, “Foundation design is provided for bid purposes
only; the actual sizes to be determined by contractor using
similar details.” But… this introduces another party?
USACE TI 809-30, Metal Building Systems, Appendix
4
Main Issues
 Reliability and Redundancy vs. Cost
 Establishing Size of Column Piers
Main Issues
 Estimating reactions:
1. Mfr’s tables (check code!) –
see App. D of MBS book
2. Specialized software
3. General analysis software
4. Use reference books
(e.g., Kleinlogel, Rigid Frame
Formulas, 1964)
5. Asking a mfr
10
With reaction uncertainty, conservative approach makes sense
5
Main Issues
 What Loads Are We Designing For?
 MBMA Metal Building Systems Manual App. A3 refers to
sources suggesting that only 70% of total wind load on frame
needs to be considered in foundation design (but 100% for
anchor bolts)
 IBC 2009 ASD Basic Load Combinations include:
0.6D + W + H (H = lateral earth pressure)
0.6D + 0.7E + H
 IBC 2012 ASD Basic Load Combinations include:
0.6D + 0.6W + H
11
0.6(D + F) + 0.7E + H
Main Issues
 Wind and Seismic Loads + Dead
 Using ASD Basic Alternative Load Combinations
 IBC 2009 (D + L + w W)
 IBC 2012 (D + L + 0.6w W),
must use only 2/3 “of the minimum dead load likely to be in
place”
 For seismic, ASCE 7 Sec. 12.13.4 allows foundation design for
75% of MOT at the base, but IBC-09 and -12 do not allow it with
Basic Alternative Load Combinations.
12
6
Main Issues
 1/3 Stress Increase with Wind & Seismic Loads?
 IBC-03 Para. 1616.1 allows soil stresses from wind and
seismic increased by 1/3 when alternate load combinations
used
 IBC-06 does not?…
 Para. 1605.3.1.1: No stress increase for basic load combs.
 Para. 1605.3.2: For alternate, stress increase is allowed
“where permitted by the material chapter of this code or
the referenced standard.” [None given.] Cannot use
reduction of OT allowed by Sec. 12.13.4 ASCE 7-05, when
checking OT, sliding, bearing.
13
=> 1/3 stress increase is probably not allowed in IBC-06
Main Issues
 1/3 Stress Increase, Cont’d
 IBC-09 and IBC-12 allow it
 Section 1806.1 specifically permits a one-third stress
increase for alternative basic combinations using ASD that
include wind or seismic loads.
 Applies to vertical foundation pressures and lateral
bearing pressures in IBC Table 1806.2, Presumptive Load-
Bearing Values.
 How about other allowable values determined by geotech.
investigation?
14
7
Main Issues
 Avoid Fixed-Base Columns
15
Main Issues
 Resisting Uplift
 Ballast by soil
NAVFAC 7.2, Figure 17
 F.S. 1.5 for transient loads (Fig. 17 of NAVFAC 7.2),

or -- implied through load combinations?
- Count soil shear

resistance? (Neglected in
NAVFAC 7.2)
- Reduce in areas subject
16
to flooding
8
Main Issues
 Design Example: Proportion Footing for Uplift
 Problem: Size the interior foundation of multi-span rigid
frame, using basic IBC-12 load combinations for:
Atrib = 60’ x 25’= 1500 ft2
Loads: D = 3 psf,
S (design roof snow) = 30 psf
0.6W uplift = 14 psf
Min. depth = 3’ below floor, Fp = 4000 psf
17
Main Issues
 Design Example, Cont’d
 Solution:
Compute loads
D = 3 x 1500 = 4500 lbs = 4.5 kips
S = 30 x 1500 = 45,000 = 45 kips
0.6W = –14 x 1500 = –21,000 lbs = –21 kips
Total downward (D + S) = 4.5 + 45 = 49.5 kips
Total uplift (0.6D + 0.6W) = 0.6 x 4.5 – 21 = –18.3 kips
18
9
Main Issues

Foundation weight, assuming ave. wt of soil, SOG, found. =
0.130 kips/ft3 x 3’ = 0.390 ksf
Net available soil pressure is 4.0 – 0.39 = 3.61 ksf
Arq for downward load is 49.5/3.61 = 13.71 ft2
=> Could use 3.7’ by 3.7’ footing for downward load
19
Main Issues
Find min. size for uplift from 0.6Dmin, found + 0.6W = 0
Dmin, found = 18.3/0.6 = 30.5 kips, or 30.5/0.130 = 234.62 ft3 of
ave. weight of “ballast.”
If depth of footing = 3’, need min. square footing size of
(234.62/3)1/2 = 8.84’
Could use 8.0’ by 8.0’ footing, with depth = 234.62/(8)2 = 3.66’
 Use 8.0’ x 8.0’footing, 3’- 8” deep

Size controlled by uplift!
20
10
Main Issues
 Resisting Horizontal Reactions
21
Tie Rods
 Tie Rods
 Various designs
22
11
Tie Rods
 Common but Questionable Tie Rod Detail
23
Tie Rods
 Problems with Tie Rods
 Need mechanical connections and corrosion protection
 ACI 318-08 and -11 Sec. 12.15.6: “Splices in tension tie
members shall be made with a full mechanical or full
welded splice…and splices in adjacent bars shall be
staggered at least 30 in.”
 Sag under own wt. Turnbuckle tough to fit in sheath…
 A problem to use at pits, trenches
 Elongate under load… Use Ft <<0.6Fy
24
12
Tie Rods
 Design Example: Tie Rod Elongation
Given: L = 120 ft, P = 36 kips, Fy = 60 ksi
PL
rod 
AE
If Ft = 36 ksi, Arq = 36/36 = 1.0 in2 or one #9 bar.
36  120  12
rod   1.79" or movement 0.9" at ea side
1.00  29,000
This can damage frame, finishes. (2) #9 bars would halve that.
If Ft = 24 ksi, Arq = 36/24 = 1.5 in2 or (2) #8 bars (A = 1.58 in2)
=> Can use (2) #9 bars to reduce elongation
25
Tie Rods
 Tie Rods in Grade Beams
 Determine bar area by controlling elongation
26
13
Tie Rods
 PT Tie Rods
 Need concrete, or PT and
wind stresses are additive
(esp. @ base pl)
 Cantilever-beam pier action
with passive pressure at
base
27
Hairpins
 Hairpins: How They Work
 Some take Ft in rebar = 24 ksi and in WWF, 20 ksi
28
14
Hairpins
 Hairpins, Cont’d
 What if the slab is cut?
 May be OK for smaller buildings
without joints or plumbing
29
Hairpins
 Design Example: Hairpins in SOG
 Find length of hairpins Lhair as follows:
Projected length of tensile crack ~ Lhair x 1.41 x 2 = 2.82 Lhair
For a given Awire can find tension capacity per ft of width, Tall
E.g., for WWF 6x6-W1.4x1.4 (old 66-1010) Awire = 0.028 in2/ft
Tall = 0.028 x 20 (ksi) x 2.82 Lhair = 1.58 x Lhair (kip)
If T = 10 kip, Lhair = 10/1.58 = 6.33 ft
For #4 bars @18” o.c., Abar = 0.13 in2/ft and
Tall = 0.13 x 24 (ksi) x 2.82 Lhair = 8.80 x Lhair (kip)
If T = 10 kip, Lhair = 10/8.8 = 1.13 ft (but use min 5 ft)
Add to that development length of hairpin bar or hook
30
15
Hairpins
 Hairpin Design Example, Cont’d
 Find hairpin bar size for T = 10 kip:
Ahair = 10(0.707)/24 ksi = 0.29 in2
 Use # 5 hooked hairpins ~ 7 ft long
31
Moment-Resisting Footings
 Moment-Resisting Footings
 Resist OT and sliding
 Different proportions than in retaining walls
 (+) and (-)’s
F.S. per CRSI

Design
Handbook:
Sliding 1.5
Overturning 2.0
At service loads
32
16
 Forces Acting on Moment-Resisting
Foundations
 Can use Ka @ rotations > 0.1% H
33
 Active and Passive Pressure
 Rankine formulas use fluid analogy:

Pa = Ka (h) Ka = tan2  (45o - /2)
Pp = K  (h)
p Kp = tan2  (45o + /2)
 angle of
internal friction,
found from Mohr ' s
failure envelope
for shear strength
34
17
 Active and Passive Pressure, Cont’d

 Common values for drainable fill (sand, gravel free of fines):
  K a  0.33 K p  3.00
 For mixed grain sizes with fines, dense enough for low
permeability, all these increase. E.g.,
 35 K a  0.271 K p  3.69

 However, some codes provide design lateral loads directly…
35
 Active and Passive Pressure, Cont’d

 ASCE 7-10 Table 3.2-1 (ASCE 7-05 Table 3-1), Design Lateral
Soil Load gives lateral pressures directly
 E.g, Well-graded and poorly graded clean gravel &
gravel/sand mixes (GW and GP); silty gravels: 35 psf/ft
 But use 60 psf/ft for “relatively rigid walls, as when
braced by floors.” Basement walls extending < 8’ below
grade and supporting light floors are excepted.
36
18
 Soil Lateral Load per IBC

Unified Design Design at-
Backfill Material (per ASTM D 2487) Soil active rest
Classif’n pressure pressure
(psf/ ft of (psf/ ft of
depth) depth)
Well- and poorly-graded clean gravels or GW, GP, 30 60
sands; gravel-sand mixes SW, SP
Silty sands, poorly graded sand-silt mixes SM 45 60
Clayey sands, poorly graded sand-clay SC, 60 100

mixes; mixture of inorganic silt and clay; ML-CL,
inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity CL
Notes:
1. Table derived from IBC-12 Table 1610.1 (partial table is shown)
2. Design loads are for optimum densities… add hydrostatic loading for saturated soil
3. Can design basement wall extending < 8’ below grade and supporting flexible floor
37
systems for active pressure
 Soil Passive Resistance per IBC

Material Lateral Lateral Lateral
bearing (psf/ft sliding sliding
below natural coefficient resistance
grade) of friction (psf)
Sandy gravel and/or gravel 200 0.35 --
Sand, silty sand, clayey sand, 150 0.25 --

silty gravel, clayey gravel
Clay, sandy clay, silty clay, 100 -- 130 x
clayey silt, silt, sandy silt contact area
Notes:
1. Partial IBC-09, -12 Table 1806.2 is shown
2. Total lateral sliding resistance = lateral bearing + lateral sliding
3. Increases may be permitted if data submitted and approved, but max. sliding
resistance for clay, sandy clay, silty clay, clayey silt = ½ DL
4. Table values for lateral sliding resistance can be increased “by the tabular value
38 for each additional ft of depth to a max of 15 times the tabular value.”
19
 Soil Friction: Simplified Method

Fres = µ(W + Pv) F > F.S. x Ph
µ ~ 0.5 coefficient of friction, but perhaps not for slabs on
vapor barrier
39
 IBC Factors of Safety against OT and Sliding

 IBC-09, -12: None for foundations, but Para. 1807.2.3
requires a factor of safety of 1.5 for both overturning and
sliding of retaining walls, without using the load
combinations of IBC Section 1605. Instead, 100% of the
nominal loads should be used (except 70% of seismic load);
consider some variable loads = 0.
 Except use F.S. = 1.1 for EQ load
40
20
 IBC Factors of Safety, Cont’d
 SF against lateral sliding = (available soil resistance at

base)/(net lateral force applied to the retaining wall)
 “Net” means passive pressure can be used?
 CRSI Design Handbook: For retaining walls, F.S. against

sliding 1.5, overturning 2.0 at service loads
41
 Sliding Resistance With Shear Keys
 General
method
 Must be in
undisturbed
soil
NAVFAC DM-7.2
42
21
 Can Passive Pressure and Soil Friction be

Combined?
 The problem
 IBC-06 Para. 1804.3, Lateral Sliding Resistance:
The resistance of structural walls to lateral sliding shall be
calculated by combining the values derived from the
lateral bearing and the lateral sliding resistance shown in
Table 1804.2 unless data to substantiate the use of higher
values are submitted for approval.
43
 Combining Passive Pressure & Soil Friction,
Cont’d
 IBC-09, IBC-12 Para. 1806.3.1, Combined Resistance:
The total resistance to lateral loads shall be permitted to be
determined by combining the values derived from the
lateral bearing pressure and the lateral sliding resistance
specified in Table 1806.2.
 The previous para. prefaces this, “Where the presumptive
values of Table 1806.2 are used…”
44
22
 Design Procedure
45
Moment-Resisting Foundations
 MRF Design Procedure
Depends on Eccentricity
 Rely on passive pressure for
sliding only
 M = Fh x H + Mfix
46
23
Moment-Resisting Foundations
 The Pressure Wedge Method
 When P is beyond kern
47
 Design Example: Moment-Resisting Foundation

Design the moment-resisting foundation for an industrial building framed with a
metal building system. The primary framing consists of single-span rigid frames
with pin-base columns. The frames have an eave height of 18 ft., span 80 ft.,
and are spaced 25 ft. on centers. The frost depth is 3.5 ft. Each column is
supported by a 24-in square pedestal (pier), the top of which is 6 in. above the
adjacent soil. A continuous foundation wall, of the same depth as the column
footing, exists between the piers. The 6-in. slab on grade covers the interior of
the building. The column vertical loads are applied at the center of the pier. The
roof snow load is 30 psf. Use the frame reactions from the tables in the
Appendix. Assume the following material properties:
Soil weight: 120 lbs/ft3
Concrete unit weight: 150 lbs/ft3
Allowable bearing pressure of soil: 3 ksf.
Concrete 28-day compressive strength: f’c = 4000 psi.
Assume soil is clean sand free of fines and use parameters from CRSI Design
Handbook:
ϕ = 30o, Ka = 0.33, Kp = 3.00, µ = 0.55.
48
24
Determine the design column reactions

The following column reactions are used for an 80-ft wide frame:
- Vertical: dead 4.8 kip, snow 30.9 kip
- Horizontal: dead 2.9 kip, snow 21.8 kip
-0.6xWind reactions on the right-side column, wind from right to left
(assume wind load = 0.6W for IBC load combinations) :
Horizontal: 13.6 kip (inward)
Vertical: 12.2 kip (uplift)
- 0.6Wind reactions on the left-side column, wind from right to left:
Horizontal: 3.1 kip (outward); vertical: 8.4 kip (uplift)
Design the foundation for the right-side column for the following controlling
load combinations:
1. Dead + Snow load. Vertical: 4.8 + 30.9 = 35.7 kips (downward);
horizontal: 2.9 + 21.8 = 24.7 kips (acting outward).
2. Dead + 0.6Wind load from right. Vertical: 4.8 - 12.2 = - 7.4 kips (uplift);
horizontal: 2.9 -13.6 = -10.7 kips (inward).
49
Proportion the foundation

Establish the foundation size to resist overturning, sliding, and uplift. The
foundation size is determined by trial and error.
Case 1: Dead + Snow load

P = 35.7 kips (downward), FH = 24.7 kip (outward).
This case provides the largest horizontal force on the foundation. The force acts
in the direction away from the building. Try a footing 9 ft. long, 4 ft. wide and 2 ft.
thick, with 2 ft. by 2 ft. column pier.
3’-0” 2’-0” 4’-0”
P
1’-0” 1’-0”
FH
6”
W1 W2 W4 1’-6”
2’-0”
W3
e A
l
4’-6” Wo 4’-6” Point of rotation

50
25
51
52
26
53
54
27
55
56
28
57
ACI
58
29
59
60
30
61
62
31
63
64
32
65
66
33
67
Example of a similar footing
68
34
Trench Footings
 Trench Footings
 Need cohesive soils to support excavation
69
Trench Footings
 Trench Footings, Cont’d
 Some local codes require
forming
 Best to form the top 6”
 Uplift and horizontal
resistance similar to grade
beam (next)
70
35
Mats
 Mats
71
Deep Foundations
 Deep Foundations
 Pier and grade beam
 Piles
72
36
Slab with Haunch

 Slab with Haunch
 Common sizes: 24-30” deep, 24” wide
 May be wider and deeper at columns
 Not for areas of expansive soils or deep frost lines
 May not be enough wt or passive pressure… Slab cracks!
“A crack will almost surely occur in the floor slab at the point where the
“grade beam” starts.” Metal Building Systems by Building Systems
Institute (an industry group), 1990.
73
 Forming Slab with a Haunch per USACE
USACE
74
37
Slab with Haunch

 Slab with Haunch: General Approach
 Using weight of footing to counteract eccentricity of load

 Works for light load, heavy footing, little lateral load
75
Slab with Haunch

 Slab with a Haunch in MBS
 For inward lateral load, weight of monolithically placed grade
beam is essential
 Grade beam has to be reinforced to carry its weight
suspended
76
38
Slab with Haunch

 Slab with a Haunch in MBS, Cont’d
 For outward lateral load, contribution of grade beam for
resisting OT is minimal… Need larger footing, rather than rely
on slab, or use ties in slab (next)
Authors of Metal Building Systems by BSI “do not recommend counting
on the slab shearing resistance for stability.”
77
Slab with Haunch

 Design Example: Slab with Haunch
78
39
79
80
40
81
82
41
83
84
42
85
86
43
87
88
44
89
90
45
91
92
46
93
94
47
95
Q&A
Alexander-Newman@Outlook.com
96
48
Bonus Material: Foundations for

Quonset Hut-Type Buildings
97 Photo: Capt. R. Vaira, USAF
Foundations for Quonset Hut-Type Buildings

 Foundation Reactions with or without Base
Moment
98
49
Photo: Capt. R.
Vaira, USAF
99

 Typical Foundation Types
 Grade beam without footing
 Wall foundation with footing
 Downturned slab
Note: Do not place

unbalanced fill until
concrete is fully cured!
100
50

 Resisting Distributed Building Reactions
 For vertical loads, start with minimum width and depth sized
as needed for uplift.
 Use min. wall reinforcement to span over hard spots.
E.g., for 16” x 24” beam
Amin = 0.0025x16x24 = 0.96 in2 or 4 # 5 bars (2 top & 2 bot.)

 Resist horizontal reactions by passive soil pressure, ties, or
rebars
101

 Design Example: Using Passive Pressure for Fh
 Given: Soil is sand free of fines, density 115 #/cu. ft.
Fh = 500 #/ft
 Solution:
Fh = 500 = ½(115)(h2)(3.00 – 0.33), from where
 K a  0.33; K p  3.00
500
h  1.8 ft of min . embedment
(1/ 2)115(3.00  0.33)
2 ft. of embedment seems enough…
102
51
Foundations for
Quonset Hut-Type
Buildings
 …But Don’t Forget

Eccentricity of
Load
103
104
52
105
 Design Example: Resisting Horizontal Reactions

by Rebars or WWF in SOG
Given:
Fh = 1 kip/ft
f’c = 3000 psi,
fy = 60,000 psi,
Fp, allow = 4 ksf
106
53

 Using rebars (Ft = 24 ksi)
(1) kip
Arq   0.042 in 2 per ft of width
24 ksi
Can use #4 @18” (A = 0.133 in2)
 Using WWF (Ft = 20 ksi)
Awire, rq = 1 kip/(20 ksi) = 0.05 in2/ft
Can use 6x6-W2.9xW2.9 (old style 66-66) with Awire = 0.058 in2/ft
 But remember the caveats about slab cutting, joints,
trenches…
107
54

Handout

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

Handout

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alexander Newman, P.E.

Foundations for Metal Building Systems

ASCE Web Seminar

Copyright © 2007--2012 Alexander Newman

 2-day ASCE Seminar: Design and Strengthening of Shallow

Introduction to Metal Building Systems

 Multiple-span rigid frames

Introduction to Metal Building Systems

 Large lateral reactions at columns

USACE TI 809-30, Metal Building Systems, Appendix

 Reliability and Redundancy vs. Cost

 Establishing Size of Column Piers

 F.S. 1.5 for transient loads (Fig. 17 of NAVFAC 7.2),

- Count soil shear

 Design Example, Cont’d

 Use 8.0’ x 8.0’footing, 3’- 8” deep

F.S. per CRSI

 Rankine formulas use fluid analogy:

 Active and Passive Pressure, Cont’d

 35 K a  0.271 K p  3.69

 Active and Passive Pressure, Cont’d

 Soil Lateral Load per IBC

Clayey sands, poorly graded sand-clay SC, 60 100

 Soil Passive Resistance per IBC

Sand, silty sand, clayey sand, 150 0.25 --

 Soil Friction: Simplified Method

 IBC Factors of Safety against OT and Sliding

 Except use F.S. = 1.1 for EQ load

 SF against lateral sliding = (available soil resistance at

 “Net” means passive pressure can be used?

 CRSI Design Handbook: For retaining walls, F.S. against

 Can Passive Pressure and Soil Friction be

 Design Example: Moment-Resisting Foundation

Determine the design column reactions

Proportion the foundation

Case 1: Dead + Snow load

3’-0” 2’-0” 4’-0”

4’-6” Wo 4’-6” Point of rotation

Example of a similar footing

Slab with Haunch

 Forming Slab with a Haunch per USACE

Slab with Haunch

 Using weight of footing to counteract eccentricity of load

Slab with Haunch

Slab with Haunch

Slab with Haunch

Bonus Material: Foundations for

97 Photo: Capt. R. Vaira, USAF

Foundations for Quonset Hut-Type Buildings

Foundations for Quonset Hut-Type Buildings

Note: Do not place

Foundations for Quonset Hut-Type Buildings

E.g., for 16” x 24” beam

Amin = 0.0025x16x24 = 0.96 in2 or 4 # 5 bars (2 top & 2 bot.)

Foundations for Quonset Hut-Type Buildings

2 ft. of embedment seems enough…

 …But Don’t Forget

Foundations for Quonset Hut-Type Buildings

Foundations for Quonset Hut-Type Buildings

Foundations for Quonset Hut-Type Buildings

 Design Example: Resisting Horizontal Reactions

f’c = 3000 psi,

Fp, allow = 4 ksf