Foundations For Process Vessels and Equipment Structures: Design Practices

ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page

XXIX-G 1 of 41
FOUNDATIONS FOR PROCESS VESSELS AND
EQUIPMENT STRUCTURES
DESIGN PRACTICES PROPRIETARY INFORMATION - For Authorized Company Use Only December, 2002
CONTENTS Changes shown by ➧
Section Page
SCOPE............................................................................................................................................................ 3
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................ 3
GLOBAL PRACTICES ............................................................................................................................ 3
OTHER REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 3
FOUNDATION TYPES.................................................................................................................................... 3
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 3
DEEP FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 3
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 4

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ....................................................................................................... 4
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES ............................................................................................................... 4
SIZE AND STRENGTH........................................................................................................................... 4
SPREAD FOOTINGS...................................................................................................................................... 4
BEARING CAPACITY............................................................................................................................. 4
Bearing Capacity - Theory and Equations ........................................................................................... 5
Bearing Capacity - Sands .................................................................................................................... 5
Bearing Capacity - Clays ..................................................................................................................... 6
Factors Influencing Bearing Capacity - Local Shear ............................................................................ 6
BEARING PRESSURE ........................................................................................................................... 6
SETTLEMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Types of Settlement ............................................................................................................................. 7
Differential Settlement.......................................................................................................................... 7
Settlement Versus Time....................................................................................................................... 8
Settlement - Sands .............................................................................................................................. 8
Settlement - Clays.............................................................................................................................. 10
Recommended Settlement Limits ...................................................................................................... 11
STRUCTURAL DESIGN ....................................................................................................................... 12
Shear Considerations ........................................................................................................................ 12
SHEAR CRITICAL SECTIONS..................................................................................................................... 13

BASE REINFORCING STEEL SIZE / DISTRIBUTION......................................................................... 13
Pedestal Design................................................................................................................................. 14
STABILITY............................................................................................................................................ 14
PILE FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 14

STATIC AXIAL CAPACITY ................................................................................................................... 14
Pile Point Capacity............................................................................................................................. 15
Friction Capacity ................................................................................................................................ 15
LATERALLY LOADED PILES............................................................................................................... 16
STRUCTURAL DESIGN ....................................................................................................................... 16
Pile Caps ........................................................................................................................................... 16
NEGATIVE SKIN FRICTION ................................................................................................................ 17
ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-G 2 of 41 FOUNDATIONS FOR PROCESS VESSELS AND

December, 2002 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION - For Authorized Company Use Only DESIGN PRACTICES
DRILLED PIERS............................................................................................................................................17
AXIAL CAPACITY .................................................................................................................................17
Design for Clay ...................................................................................................................................18
Design for Sand..................................................................................................................................18
LATERAL LOADS .................................................................................................................................19
Short-length Drilled Piers in Clay........................................................................................................19
Short-length Drilled Piers in Sand.......................................................................................................19
ANCHOR BOLTS ..........................................................................................................................................20

ANCHOR BOLTS FOR VERTICAL DRUMS AND TOWERS................................................................21
NOMENCLATURE.........................................................................................................................................22
APPENDIX.....................................................................................................................................................34
Example No. 1 - Tower on an Octagon Foundation............................................................................34
Example No. 2 - Rectangular Footing - Shear Check and Flexural Reinforcement Design................35
Example No. 3 - Axial Capacity Of Drilled Pier In A Mixed Soil Profile ...............................................38
Example No. 4 - Lateral Capacity of Drilled Piers Using Brom's Method............................................40
TABLES
Table 1 Recommended Maximum Settlements For Foundations .............................................25
Table 2 Design Parameters For Driven Piles In Cohesionless Siliceous Soil ...........................26
Table 3 Recommended Values Of A2 For Drilled Piers In Clay ................................................26
Table 4 Design Parameters For Drilled Shafts In Cohesionless Siliceous Soil .........................27
Table 5 Allowable Anchor Bolt Tension ....................................................................................27
FIGURES
Figure 1 Common Equipment And Support Structure Foundations ...........................................28
Figure 2 Bearing Capacity Factors For Spread Footings ...........................................................29
Figure 3 Bearing Pressures For Octagon Shaped Footings.......................................................30
Figure 4 Values For Use In Elastic Settlement Computations By The Elastic Formula..............31
Figure 5 Brom's Model For A Short-Length Pile In Cohesive Soil ..............................................32
Figure 6 Brom's Model For A Short-Length Pile In Cohesionless Soil........................................33
Revision Memo
12/02 Editorial Revision. Highlights of this revision are:
1. Included additional nomenclature to equations
2. Added Metric Units
3. Corrected editorial mistakes

XXIX-G 3 of 41
SCOPE
This subsection covers the structural analysis and design of foundations for process vessels and equipment. Machinery
foundations and foundations for tanks are covered in other subsections of this Design Practice.
REFERENCES
GLOBAL PRACTICES
GP 4-6-1 Reinforced Concrete Foundations, Anchor Bolts and Grout
GP 4-7-1 Piles and Sheet Piling
GP 4-1-1 Concrete Design and Construction
OTHER REFERENCES
ACl 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
ACl 340.1R, Design Handbook, Volume 1
ACl 349, Appendix B, Steel Embedments
Bowles, Joseph, Foundation Analysis and Design, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1988.
Federal Highway Administration, Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods, Dallas, ADSC: The International
Association of Foundation Drilling, 1988.
Poulos, H. G., Davis, E. H., Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1980.
➧ ASCE, Wind Loads and Anchor Bolt Design for Petrochemical Facilities, 1997.
FOUNDATION TYPES
Foundations are used to transmit loads from process equipment and structures to the underlying soil or rock. Foundations are
usually placed at some depth below the ground surface into firm, competent soil or rock. Common foundation types for process
equipment and structures are spread footings, piles, and drilled piers or caissons. Examples of these are shown in Figure 1.
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
➧ Shallow foundations include spread footings, combined footings and mats. A spread footing is a foundation that supports a single
load, such as a tall vertical pressure vessel or individual column of multi-column support structure. It generally consists of a pad
or base and a pedestal. The pedestal acts like a column and transfers loads to the pad. As its name suggests, spread footings
are used to “spread" loads so that the soil stress intensity (pressure) is reduced to a value that the soil can safely carry.
Spread footings are generally square or rectangular but they may also be circular or octagonal. Octagonal footings are widely
used to support vertical vessels and stacks with circular bases. Circular footings are rarely used because of difficulties in forming
them. The base of the spread footing is normally placed below the frost line and at a level where the soil or rock has adequate
strength and settlement characteristics.
Combined footings are special types of spread footings that are used to support two or more columns located in the same plane.
This type of footing is frequently used to support horizontal drums or heat exchangers.
Another type of shallow foundation is a mat foundation. A mat is a large concrete slab used to support two or more columns. Mats
are generally used when the base soil has low bearing capacity and/or the column loads are so large that more than 50 percent of
the area is covered by conventional spread footings.
DEEP FOUNDATIONS
Piles are structural members with small cross-sectional areas compared to their length. They are generally used when shallow
subsurface soils are too weak or too compressible to provide adequate support for the structure or process equipment. Piles
➧ transfer loads to deeper more suitable soil or rock. This transfer may be by vertical distribution of the load along the pile shaft,
using friction, or by a direct application of load to a lower stratum through “end-bearing" of the pile tip. However, except when the
pile penetrates an extremely soft soil to a solid base, load transfer is actually a combination of side resistance and point bearing.
Piles are usually constructed of steel, concrete, or timber.


Drilled piers are deep foundations which are constructed by drilling a hole, adding reinforcing, and back-filling the cavity with
concrete. Drilled piers with straight shafts are also sometimes referred to as drilled shafts, drilled caissons, or bored piles. If the
base is enlarged with an under-reaming tool, the foundation is referred to as a belled pier, belled caisson or an under-reamed
foundation.
Drilled piers are normally used as deep foundations, but they can also be used as a shallow foundation, particularly those with
enlarged bases. The diameter of drilled piers usually range between 1.5 ft (0.46m) and 12 ft (3.6m). Because they can be drilled
in large sizes, single large-diameter belled piers can sometimes be used in place of a group of driven piles.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
A soils investigation should be performed to obtain the appropriate soil parameters to aid in the selection, design, and construction
of the foundation system. In most cases, the investigation consists of making borings into the soil or rock underlying the site,
sampling, and then testing the samples in the laboratory or in the field to obtain the soil strength and other geotechnical
characteristics. A general reconnaissance of the area is also sometimes included as part of the investigation, noting such things
as drainage conditions and the presence old pipelines or abandoned foundations which may require removal or relocation. If the
site is in an area that is not heavily populated or industrialized, topographic and geologic maps available from government
agencies can be helpful in assessing the general environment around a site. Aerial photographs are often used to identify
landslide and fault zones, and buried stream channels, organic soils, etc., which are to be avoided if possible.
The process for conducting a site investigation as well as the sampling tools and tests are discussed in Section XXIX-B, Soil Data,
Site Preparation and Earthwork.
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES
The presence of underground facilities such as utilities, sewers, pipe conduit tunnels, etc., which might be impacted by or have
animpact on the foundation system needs to be considered. The zone of influence for a foundation is often approximated as
➧ occurring along a cone extending on a 1:1 slope downward and outward from the perimeter of the base of the foundation.
Generally, the placing of new foundations over underground facilities located within this zone is avoided unless it can be shown by
analysis that there will be no detrimental effects to both the underground facilities and the foundation system. Such an evaluation
should be performed by a specialist in this field and is beyond the scope of this Design Practice.
SIZE AND STRENGTH

Foundations are proportioned to provide adequate support to all applied loads without overstressing the surrounding soil.
Generally, the foundation's overall dimensions are governed by the strength and settlement characteristics of the soil and its
strength is governed by the distribution of internal forces considering the applied loads and interaction with the surrounding soil.
The subsequent sections of this Design Practice discuss these considerations for each foundation type.
SPREAD FOOTINGS
This section covers spread footings that support a single column or pedestal. The design and analysis of other types of shallow
foundations such as mats are usually carried out with the aid of a specialized computer programs and are not covered in this
Design Practice.
BEARING CAPACITY
The soil beneath a shallow foundation, such as a spread footing, must be capable of carrying the loads placed upon it without
shear failure, and resulting settlements must be tolerable for the particular process equipment or structure supported. The limiting
unit pressure that a soil can carry is referred to as “bearing capacity" and it is a function of the shear strength of the soil and
foundation size and depth.

XXIX-G 5 of 41
The shear strength of a soil is usually determined from the results of insitu and/or laboratory tests. The net ultimate bearing
capacity, qult, is the total unit pressure that the soil at a given depth can support in excess of the pressure that exists at that depth
due to weight of soil. This value is generally determined by a geotechnical engineer. The allowable bearing capacity, qall
represents the maximum bearing pressure that the foundation will be allowed to transmit to the soil. It is the value used by the
designer to establish the dimensions of a footing. It is obtained by dividing qult by a factor of safety:
qult
➧ qall = Eq. (1)
F.S.
The factor of safety used in bearing capacity analysis is generally 2.5 to 3.0 unless a special effort is made to define the loads or
soil strength parameters more accurately than standard practice. On clay soils, an increase in loading over a short period of time
will generally not cause any settlement, since changes in pore pressures will not occur rapidly. This is one reason a temporary
decrease in the factor of safety (e.g., 2.0) is sometimes allowed for transient loadings on clay soils.
Bearing Capacity - Theory and Equations

The bearing capacity, qult, of a soil is computed by the addition of three components, all of which are functions of the friction angle
f of the material. The components are:
1. The cohesion and friction of a weightless material carrying no surcharge.
2. The friction of a weightless material with the addition of a surcharge.
3. The friction of a material possessing weight and carrying no surcharge.
The bearing capacity equation is:
➧ qult = c Nc + γDf Nq + 1/2 γ B Nγ, for a continuous footing Eq. (2)
➧ where: qult = ultimate bearing capacity, ksf (kPa)

c = cohesion, ksf (kPa)
Df = depth of footing, ft (m)
γ =
3 3
unit weight of the soil, kips/ft (kN/m )
B = footing dimension, ft (m)
Nc, Nq, and Nγ = bearing capacity factors with respect to cohesion, surcharge, and unit
weight, respectively.
The bearing capacity equations for square and circular footings based on the theoretical equations adjusted empirically to fit test
data are given below:
➧ Square qult = 1.3 c Nc + γDf Nq + 0.4 γ B Nγ Eq. (3)
➧ Circular qult = 1.3 c Nc + γDf Nq + 0.3 γ B Nγ Eq. (4)
Figure 2 shows the values of Nc, Nq, and Nγ for different values of friction angle φ.
Bearing Capacity - Sands
The bearing capacity of sand depends on the angle of internal friction, φ, of the sand, and the location of the water table.
However, bearing capacity does not ordinarily govern the design of footings on sand, unless the sand is loose, or the footing is
very narrow. Settlement is ordinarily the controlling factor for footings on sand.
The value of φ is obtained either from a correlation of φ vs. standard penetration test (SPT-N values) or from direct shear or triaxial
tests. For most sands, c = 0, so the c Nc term drops out of the equation. If the groundwater table is at a depth equal to B below
the base of the footing, it does not affect bearing capacity. If it is located at the base of the footing, qult is reduced by 50%. The
reduction varies linearly to 0% at B below the footing. If the groundwater table is above the base of the footing, the buoyant unit
weight, should be included in the calculation of the surcharge.


Bearing Capacity - Clays
Bearing capacity often governs the design of footings on clay. For clays with an angle of internal friction φ, = 0, the bearing
capacity equation becomes: qult = c Nc + γDf Nq (i.e., Nγ = 0, see Figure 2). The γDf Nq term is usually very small compared to c
Nc and thus is often neglected.
Factors Influencing Bearing Capacity - Local Shear

One factor that controls bearing capacity in some cases is a phenomenon known as local shear. For loose sands or soft clays,
the failure paths in the soil may develop somewhat differently and cause localized shear under smaller loads than would be
expected using conventional bearing capacity theory. Bearing capacity factors for local shear and guidelines which are
sometimes used for local shear analysis are given on Figure 2 (dashed lines for local shear).
BEARING PRESSURE
The pressure distribution beneath most footings is rather indeterminate because of the interaction of the footing rigidity with the
soil type, state, and time response to stress. For this reason, it is common practice to assume a linear pressure distribution
beneath spread footings.
Footings are often subjected to both vertical loads and moments resulting from horizontal loads (e.g., wind loads). Application of
an overturning moment causes an increase in the applied bearing pressure under one end of the footing, and a decrease under
the other end.
The calculation of pressure on the soil beneath a foundation subjected to vertical load and overturning moment is directly
comparable to the calculation of stress in a structural member caused by axial force combined with bending. The combination of
vertical load (P) and overturning moment (M) is equivalent to the resultant vertical load acting at an eccentricity, e, from the
centroid of the footing, with e defined as:
M
➧ e = Eq. (5)
P
➧ when: e ≤ B/6 for a square or rectangular footing, the resultant vertical load acts within the middle 1/3 of
the base width B, and the soil beneath the footing is in full compression, ft (m)
e > B/6 then the soil under the footing will only be partially in compression, ft (m)
M = overturning moment, kip*ft (kN*m)
P = vertical load, kips (kN)
For the resultant located within the middle 1/3, the bearing pressure distribution is calculated as follows:
P æ 6e ö
➧ q = ç1 ± ÷ Eq. (6)
BL è L ø
➧ where: q = bearing pressure, ksf (kPa)

L = footing length, ft (m)
B = footing width, ft (m)
For the resultant located outside the middle 1/3:
qmin. = 0
2P
➧ qmax . = Eq. (7)
éæ L ö ù
3B êç ÷ − e ú
ë è 2 ø û
The soil pressure beneath a footing with moments applied about two axes (x and y) can be computed using the following if the soil
under the footing is fully in compression:

XXIX-G 7 of 41
P æ 6e x 6e y ö
➧ q = ç1 ± ± ÷ Eq. (8)
BL ç L B ÷ø
è
➧ where: ex = eccentricity of vertically applied footing load, about the x axis, ft (m)
ey = eccentricity of the vertically applied footing load, about the y axis, ft (m)
The calculation of the bearing pressure under octagon shaped footings is similar to that of square or rectangular footings, except
that the geometry for octagon footings is somewhat more complex. The nomograph shown on Figure 3 can be used to compute
the bearing pressures for octagon footings.
SETTLEMENT
Types of Settlement
Settlement accompanies an increase in the vertical stress in a soil deposit, and is usually due to loads placed on the deposit by fill
or foundations, or due to lowering of the groundwater level. It can be broken into three components, namely immediate or
distortional settlement, consolidation settlement, and secondary compression settlement. Distortional settlements occur almost
instantaneously under application of load, and are primarily due to distortion within the soil mass. They are generally not elastic,
but are calculated using elastic theory in some cases. Consolidation is a hydrodynamic process, occurring as water in the pores
of a saturated soil is expelled under the pressure applied by the surface loading. The rate of consolidation and the accompanying
settlement depend on the rate at which water can be expelled from the voids. Secondary compression settlements occur as the
soil skeleton yields or compresses under the action of an applied load.
The three components of settlement occur in both granular and cohesive soils. However, in granular soils, water moves out of the
voids almost instantaneously, and most of the settlement occurs as the load is applied. Because the settlements occur rapidly,
they are often estimated using empirical methods or elastic methods which predict total settlement and make no attempt to predict
the separate components.
For cohesive soils, distortional settlements are computed using elastic theory. Consolidation settlement occurs when a stress
increase causes an increased pressure in the pore fluid. As the fluid flows out of the soil pores consolidation settlement results
with its magnitude predicted by consolidation theory. Secondary compression is often of minor importance compared to
consolidation settlements and can be neglected in those cases. It can be expected to be significant primarily in organic soils such
as peats.
In foundation design, all components of settlement should be considered. In preparing Company specifications which deal with
settlement, it should be understood that any calculation of magnitude of settlement is only an estimate and should be treated as
such. Two factors should be kept in mind:
1. There are practical limitations in sampling and testing soils which lend a degree of uncertainty to design parameters
determined from tests.
2. Field conditions may be different from conditions used in predicting the rate of settlement. Such a prediction should serve as
a guideline for monitoring foundation performance, and should be recognized as an estimate. Rate of settlement can be
predicted with fair accuracy by a geotechnical engineer who has experience with the soil deposit being analyzed, or by
performing instrumented field load tests.
Differential Settlement
Calculated settlement-versus-load data as developed by most soils firms are for uniform settlements from uniformly applied
vertical loading. However, uniform settlement of a rigid foundation by itself is usually not an item of concern. The problem is
generally with the differential settlement that occurs over a large non-rigid foundation, or between separate foundations. This
influences superstructure design stresses and necessary flexibility in interconnected piping.
Differential settlement can develop from one or more of the following causes:
1. Reported variations in soil properties over large areas for which more than one set of data on settlement versus load are
provided.
2. Some degree of variation in soil properties over large areas even when conditions may appear sufficiently uniform to justify
only one set of data.
3. Variations in applied unit pressures, or variations in footing sizes subjected to the same unit pressure.
4. Variations in the soil reaction to the applied pressure, as a function of whether the footing is flexible or rigid and whether the
soil is cohesive, cohesionless or mixed.
5. Close spacing of footings, creating an overlap in the soil reaction forces (pressure bulbs).


6. The effects of vibratory or cyclic loading.

7. The effect of unbalanced forces, such as wind, earthquake or process surging.
8. The factor of time with respect to the amount of settlement that occurs during erection, water test (if any) and operation.
Since soil conditions are never perfectly uniform, predicted values of settlement can represent average conditions only. As such,
they may be inaccurate for large areas by 25 percent. Thus, it is possible that differential settlement over large areas can amount
to as much as 50 percent of the average value. Over short distances, the degree of variation is usually less, about 10 to 15
percent, with maximum differentials of 20 to 30 percent.
These are generalizations; each site must be studied on its own merits by examination of the reported soils data, calculations and
discussions with the soils consultant. Settlement calculated from theory generally errs on the conservative side when the soils are
relatively uniform. This is less likely to be true for soils that are variable; the judgment of the individual making the analysis is
important for proper assessment.
Within the confines of a building or equipment structure, variations in applied unit pressures, or variations in footing sizes
subjected to the same unit pressure, can create differential settlement that adversely affects stresses in framing members. For
buildings or other structures with a nominal degree of superstructure flexibility, the effects of differential settlement are generally
not critical when total settlements do not exceed 1.0 in. Concern exists with rigid wall materials and rigid framing when total
settlement values are higher, since stresses from differential settlement may be imposed that cannot economically or practically
be provided for in the design.
Although foundations, including paving slabs for materials storage, may be subjected to uniform loading, the soil reaction is not
uniform. This can lead to non-uniform settlement, with resulting objectionable bending when the footing or slab is large and lacking
in rigidity.
When two adjacent footings are closely spaced, the overlap of the soil reaction forces may be sufficient to create a tilting of the
footings towards each other. This is generally of little significance when total predicted settlements do not exceed 1.0 in. When a
number of footings are closely spaced, the settlement is greater than from isolated footings, due to the area loading effect that
creates an overall, larger and deeper pressure bulb of soil stresses. Unbalanced forces, such as wind and earthquake, can result
in a foundation tilt when the soil is cohesionless and only of moderate relative density. It can also occur even with somewhat
higher densities (70%) when there are large differences in applied pressure.
Settlement Versus Time

The rate of settlement for cohesive soils is commonly calculated based on consolidation tests of representative soil samples from
the site. Consolidation occurs when excess pressure in water occupying the voids in the soil is dissipated, as water is forced to
flow out of the loaded region. The surface displacements accompanying the volume change are called consolidation settlements.
The expelled pore water must go to the ground surface, or to some buried aquifer, or to adjacent non-loaded areas. The rate at
which the pore water escapes, and thus, the time rate of consolidation and settlement, are functions of the size of the pores
present and the actual path and distance the pore water must travel.
In cohesive soils, the pores are small so that settlement (consolidation) under loading is a function of time which may involve
many years.
In cohesionless soils, the pores are relatively large and settlement of soil at less than maximum density will occur rapidly during
loading.
In mixed soils, such a sandy or silty clay, clayey or silty sand, or stratified conditions involving layers of both cohesionless and
cohesive soils, the rate of settlement (consolidation) will be somewhere between the extremes of the previously indicated uniform
soil types.
The amount of settlement must always be related to appropriate design time periods, such as erection, testing and operation, with
the latter normally considered as the total settlement during the service life.
Settlement - Sands
Settlements in sands are normally calculated using an elastic method wherein a modulus is used; by conducting small-scale field
tests and adjusting for foundation size effects; or by empirical methods. Empirical methods can require a great deal of experience
to calculate settlements with reasonable accuracy, and are beyond the scope of this Design Practice. Regarding elastic methods,
two formulas are presented below.

XXIX-G 9 of 41
1 − µ2
➧ Settlement (S) = I q B Eq. (9)
E
➧ where: S = Settlement, ft (m)

I = an influence factor which depends on the geometry and stiffness of the foundation
2
q = unit pressure, kips/ft (kPa)
B = smallest dimension of the foundation, ft (m)
µ = Poisson's ratio
2
E = elastic modulus, kips/ft (kPa)
Reasonable values for E can sometimes be obtained from the following empirical formulas which use results from Standard
Penetration (SPT) and Cone Penetration tests.
➧ E = 10 (N + 15) ksf; N = SPT blow count Eq. (10)
➧ E = 3 qc (units of qc); qc is cone resistance Eq. (11)
A more accurate value for E can be obtained from the stress-strain curves for triaxial tests, or from plate load test data.
The settlement equation assumes that the soil is thick in comparison to the size of the foundation and thus contains no term for
the depth or thickness of the soil layer in question. For small foundations this assumption is generally valid; however, for large
foundations, use of this equation could overestimate settlements considerably. In cases where the foundation size is large in
comparison with the thickness of the compressible layer, the following equation is useful:
∆q
➧ S =L Eq. (12)
E
➧ where: L = thickness of the compressible stratum, ft (m)

∆q = average stress change over thickness L, kips/ft2 (kPa)
2
E = average modulus over thickness L, kips/ft (kPa)
In areas where relatively uniform sand deposits exist, field tests consisting of loading a plate and observing stress vs. deformation
characteristics are sometimes used to determine settlement. Typically a plate loading test utilizes a 1 ft (0.3m) square
“foundation." A common formula for computing settlement of the full-sized foundation ( a square shape is assumed) using the
data from 1 ft square plate test is provided below.
2
æ 2B ö
➧ S = S1 çç ÷÷ Eq. (13)
è B + 1ø
➧ where: S = settlement for the full-sized foundation at design bearing pressure, in (mm)
S1 = settlement of the plate loaded to that same pressure, in (mm)
B = width of the full-sized foundation, ft (m)
While this formula is well known and is commonly used, it often underestimates settlements, particularly for large foundations on
loose sand. A formula which appears to provide more accuracy is:
n
Sa / Ba æB ö
➧ = ç a÷ Eq. (14)
Sp / Bp ç Bp ÷
è ø
➧ where: Sa, Sp = settlement of footing (desired quantity) and plate measured, respectively, ft (m)
Ba, Bp = full-size footing and load plate dimension, respectively, ft (m)
n = coefficient depending on soil, with the following values in the absence of test values:


For clay: 0.03 to 0.05

For sandy clay: 0.08 to 0.10
For dense sand: 0.40 to 0.50
For medium dense sand: 0.25 to 0.35
For loose sand: 0.20 to 0.25
Settlement - Clays
Settlement in clays can be “immediate" in the case of unsaturated clays, or time-dependent in the case of saturated or nearly
saturated clays. Settlement in unsaturated clays (degree of saturation < about 90%) can be calculated using the elastic formula:
1 − µ2
➧ S = I qB Eq. (15)
E
➧ where: I = an influence factor which depends on the geometry and stiffness of the foundation
q = unit pressure, ksf (kPa)
B = smallest dimension of footing, ft (m)
E = elastic modulus, ksf (kPa)
which is the same formula as presented above for sands, with all terms in the formula as previously defined. Figure 4 gives
values of I, µ, and E for rough calculations. More accurate values of E can be obtained from the stress-strain curves from triaxial
tests. Time-dependent settlements are calculated using consolidation theory.
One of the most important parts of consolidation settlement analysis is the determination of the stress history of the clay, i.e.,
whether it is normally consolidated or overconsolidated. A normally consolidated clay is presently experiencing the maximum load
that it has ever experienced. In contrast, an overconsolidated clay has previously experienced a greater load than it is now
experiencing. Since consolidation is accomplished by squeezing water out of the soil voids under pressure, the water content of
the soil can be a preliminary indicator of behavior. The water content can be compared to the liquid limit and plastic limit obtained
in the Atterberg limits test. The closer the water content is to the liquid limit the more likely the clay is normally consolidated. A
water content close to the plastic limit generally indicates a soil which is overconsolidated. From the results of the consolidation
tests, the preconsolidation pressure is determined by the Casagrande Construction. The preconsolidation pressure is the best
estimate of the maximum load to which the clay has previously been loaded. Typically clays become overconsolidated by
previous loads which have been removed (e.g., glaciers, sand dunes), or by drying (desiccation).
Another important step in the calculation of consolidation settlements is the determination of the stress increase due to the load,
∆σ ′ . This is normally done using stress distribution charts based on the Boussinesq equations.
With a knowledge of preconsolidation pressure, the stress increase in the clay due to imposed loads, and parameters from the soil
tests conducted, consolidation settlements can be computed. Applicable equations are presented below.
For a normally consolidated clay,

Cc H σ′ + ∆σ′
➧ S = log o Eq. (16)
1 + eo σ′o
(
For an overconsolidated clay, where ∆σ ′ > σp′ − σo′ )
Cr H σp′ Cc H σ ′ + ∆σ ′
➧ S = log + log o Eq. (17)
1 + eo σo′ 1 + eo σp′

XXIX-G 11 of 41
(
For an overconsolidated clay, where ∆σ ′ < σp′ − σo′ )
Cr H σ′ + ∆σ′
➧ S = log o Eq. (18)
1 + eo σ′o
➧ where: S = settlement, ft (m)

Cc = compression index (measured in consolidation test)
Cr = recompression index (measured in rebound cycle of consolidation test)
eo = initial void ratio
H = thickness of layer, ft (m)
∆σ ′ = effective stress increase due to applied load, ksf (kPa)
σ′o = in situ effective stress, ksf (kPa)
σp′ = preconsolidation pressure (determined from consolidation test results using
Casagrande's construction) , ksf (kPa)
A common problem associated with consolidation settlement of clays is computation of settlement with time. This problem is
handled using the equation:
Tv 2
➧ cv = H Eq. (19)
t
➧ where: cv = coefficient of consolidation, ft/day (m/day)

Tv = time factor - related to degree of consolidation
t = time, days
H = length of flow path - usually 1/2 of the compressible layer thickness, ft (m)
In theory the development of consolidation settlement with time can be calculated. In reality, however, there are generally sand
seams or other extra drainage layers which are not encountered in the soils investigation or cannot be taken into account in the
calculations which will make the actual time rate of settlement faster than the calculated time rate of settlement.
Additional settlement, called secondary compression settlement, may occur after excess pore water pressures are completely
dissipated (after primary consolidation is complete). Secondary compression settlement is caused by shifting or deformation of
the soil skeleton. Fracture of some soil particles might also occur. Secondary compression settlement is generally only significant
in organic soils such as peat, or in deep deposits of soft clay. To calculate secondary compression settlement, the following
formula may be used.
t
➧ ρs = c log10 2 , Eq. (20)
t1
➧ where: ρs = secondary consolidation settlement, ft (m)

t2 = time at which secondary compression settlement is desired, days
t1 = time corresponding to 100% of primary consolidation, days
c = coefficient of secondary compression, ft (m)
c is determined from a consolidation test wherein a soil sample is loaded to the expected foundation pressure, and the load is held
for a long period of time.
It should be noted that even though lab test results are mentioned as input to the above equations laboratory test data can be
misleading. Better estimates of magnitude and rate of settlement usually result if field data from past projects can be used.
Recommended Settlement Limits

Recommended settlement limits are presented in Table 1 and guidelines based on experience are given below for piping,
buildings, structures and equipment. In each case, the discussion considers three types of soils: cohesionless, cohesive and
mixed.


Piping - Flexibility in piping should be provided for differential settlement between interconnected equipment items and buildings
not all on the same foundation, to accommodate the difference in predicted total settlement plus 0.25 times the average of the two
predicted values. This design settlement value may be reduced with certain soils, as noted below. The design settlement should
reflect any anticipated additional settlement expected in operation from vibratory or cyclic loading of the interconnected items.
Piping flexibility should be provided to cover settlement over the full service life of the connected building or equipment items,
unless economics favors installing a smaller degree of flexibility and making corrections in operation. However, such corrections
should not be scheduled during the first 5 years or so of plant operation, since this much time is needed to check actual versus
predicted settlement and to permit orderly scheduling of needed corrections.
1. For purely cohesionless soils and highly overconsolidated cohesive soils, for which settlement occurs coincident with load
application, the amount of settlement during equipment erection and testing is usually in the range of 40 to 80 percent of the
total. Hence, an incentive exists for separating this value from the settlement expected during operation when nominal
flexibility is not sufficient for the overall anticipated settlement.
2. For normally consolidated or slightly overconsolidated cohesive soils, the amount of settlement during equipment erection,
plus that for the short period of water testing, is usually small with respect to that occurring during the long-time period of
operation. Hence, piping flexibility must consider the total anticipated settlement.
3. With mixed soils, for which settlement with time falls between the above extremes, a study of the settlement versus time
predictions is necessary to determine whether exclusion of settlements during erection and testing would significantly reduce
the costs of piping flexibility requirements.
Buildings, Structures and Equipment - Recommended settlement limits for such items are listed in Table 1. These are not to be
used without judgment; the values are guides only. Comments concerning these recommendations are as follows:
1. For cohesionless soils, the recommended settlement limit is usually related to the erection condition, when the major portion
of the load is the erected weight. Pumps, compressors and turbo-generators are in this category; also ordinary buildings for
which the live load is a small percentage of the total load. For other items, for which the water-test or operating-fluid weight is
usually significant, settlement is given for the test / operating condition. In some cases the latter is coupled with the erection
settlement in order that the differential settlement on additional loading will not create undue stress increases in framing
members.
2. For cohesive soils, the operating condition will govern, since settlement during erection and water test will be small for the
time period involved.
3. With mixed soils, except for towers and drums, the operating condition should also govern, even though a larger portion of the
total settlement will occur during erection and water test than with purely cohesive soils. For towers and drums on mixed
soils, one should investigate whether water test or operation governs, since with some mixed soils the settlement due to
water test may be more than that which develops from use of the operating weight alone. This normally occurs when the
water test weight greatly exceeds the operating weight and soils are predominately cohesionless. In actuality, this represents
an unusual condition, since settlement on completion of water test with mixed soils rarely exceeds 70 percent of the total from
the operating weight alone. However, it merits investigation.
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Once the plan dimensions of the footing and its depth have been established based on allowable bearing and settlement
considerations, the contact pressures and other external loads are used to determine the thickness and reinforcement of the
foundation components. Being made primarily of concrete, these components, namely the pedestal and base, should be
designed in accordance with the latest revision of AC1-318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, for the most
unfavorable combination of factored loads per GP 4-1-3 and GP 4-6-1.
Shear Considerations
The thickness of the base of a single spread footing is generally governed by shear. Since such footings are subject to two-way
action, i.e., bend in two major directions, their performance in shear is much like that of flat slabs in the vicinity of columns.
However, in contrast to two-way floor and roof slabs, it is generally not economical to use shear reinforcement. Instead,
increasing the thickness of the base of a footing is made large enough to satisfy shear requirements. Increasing the base
thickness also has the beneficial effect of increasing the footing rigidity so that the assumption of linear bearing pressure is more
likely to be obtained.

XXIX-G 13 of 41
Two different types of shear strength are distinguished in footings: two-way, or punching, shear and one-way, or beam, shear.
Perimeter, bo , bo = 2 [(w + d) + (h + d)]

for Two-Way
Action
w+d
w
h h+d
d
d
2 d
d
2
Width, bw,
for Beam
Action
DP29Gf0
Octagon Rectangular
Footing Footing
The critical sections for shear are illustrated below:

The critical section perimeter for two-way punching shear, bo, completely encloses the column or pedestal and is located a
distance d/2 from the outside face; d is the depth from the top of the base of the footing to the lower steel reinforcement. The
critical section for beam shear, bw, is located a distance d from the face of the column or pedestal.
Tests of footings have shown that for punching type shear failures the shear stress computed on the critical perimeter area is
larger than in one-way action. The ACI allowables for beam and two-way action shear are as follows:
Customary Metric
➧ wide beam, vc = 2 ∅ f ′c = ∅ f ′c / 6 Eq. (21)
æ 4ö æ 2ö
➧ two-way, vc = çç 2 + ÷÷ ∅ f ′c / 6 = çç1 + ÷÷ ∅ f ′c / 6 Eq. (22)
è β ø è β ø
➧ where: vc = shear, lbs (N)

∅ = 0.85 for shear
β = pedestal length to width ratio; equals 1.0 for square, circular and octagon pedistals
f'c = concrete compressive shrength, psi (MPa)
An example of the calculation of the shear stress in the critical sections for a rectangular footing is shown in Example Problem
No. 2 in the Appendix.
SHEAR CRITICAL SECTIONS
BASE REINFORCING STEEL SIZE / DISTRIBUTION

➧ Factored soil pressures are used to calculate the moment, Mu, at the critical section in the base of spread footings. (see ACI-318-
02, par. 15.4). In most cases, the critical section is located at the face of the pedestal.


The calculated amount of reinforcing steel required must be distributed in the base according to ACI-318-02, par. 15.4. This
provision requires that reinforcement be uniformly spaced across the entire width, except for reinforcement in the short direction of
two-way rectangular footings. For this special case, ACI states that a portion of the total reinforcement must be distributed within
a bandwidth centered on the pedestal, with a dimension equal to the length of the short side. The remainder of the reinforcement
is to be equally spaced in the area outside the bandwidth. The minimum reinforcement required is governed by par. 10.5.1 of ACl-
318-02. Example 2 in the Appendix illustrates the application of ACI-318-02 par. 15.4.
Pedestal Design
The structural design of the pedestal principally involves determining the amount of vertical reinforcement necessary to transfer
tensile stresses into the footing. Vertical reinforcement should be designed on the basis of treating the pedestal as a column
member subjected to axial load and bending.
The following simplified equation can be used to determine the required area of an octagon pedestal steel:
1 æ 4M ö
➧ As = çç − W ÷÷ Eq. (23)
ft è Dp ø
➧ where: As = total area of vertical reinforcement, in2

Dp = diameter across the octagon formed by the reinforcement, ft
ft = allowable stress in pedestal reinforcement = 0.9 fy (USD), psi
fy = reinforcement yield stress, psi
M = factored moment at top of footing, lb-ft
W = vertical load at top of footing, lb.
A minimum of one vertical bar should be placed at each of the eight corners of an octagon pedestal. For pedestals larger than 6 ft
in diameter, additional bars are placed in each face.
The resultant axial forces and bending moments acting at the bottom section of a pedestal must be transferred to the footing by
compression in the concrete and tension in the reinforcement. With respect to the reinforcement, this is usually done by providing
dowels that are embedded in the footing and project into the pedestal.
The length of the dowels must be sufficient on both sides of the footing-pedestal intersection to provide the required development
length. If longitudinal bars are lapped to the dowels, the lap length must be at least that required for a lap splice in compression.
If bars of different sizes are lap-spliced, the splice length should be the larger of the development length of the larger bar or the
splice length of the smaller bar.
STABILITY
Foundations supporting tall equipment or structures subjected to significant horizontal loading must be designed for adequate
➧ stability against overturning and checked to ensure adequate resistance to sliding friction. Under the action of vertical loads and
overturning moments, the ratio of stabilizing moment to overturning moment shall not be less than 1.5 when wind or earthquake
load is considered. Vertical forces used to calculate the restoring moment include the weight of the equipment and structure, the
weight of contained fluid present at the time of maximum horizontal loading, and the weight of foundation concrete and soil
backfill. Buoyant unit weights for the foundation concrete and soil backfill should be used if the groundwater level for any design
condition is above the base of the foundation. Unfactored loads and weights are used to calculate the stability ratio.
The stability ratio applies directly to soil-supported footings and slabs. For pile-supported foundations, the stability ratio is
indirectly satisfied as long as the individual pile loads do not exceed their allowable tension on compression pile capacity.
PILE FOUNDATIONS
The design and analysis of pile foundations can be a complex process and should be undertaken only by experienced personnel.
This section covers the fundamental concepts and is not intended to be a detailed treatment of the subject.
Two methods are normally used for calculating the ultimate load capacity of piles: 1) the “static" approach uses measured soil
properties and soil-mechanics methods, and 2) the “dynamic" approach which uses pile-driving data (for driven piles).
STATIC AXIAL CAPACITY

Piles derive their support from friction along the sides of the pile, from bearing at the tip, or from a combination of the two. There
are various methods and procedures for calculating axial pile capacities; however, the general form of the pile capacity equation
is:

XXIX-G 15 of 41
➧ Q ultimate = QF + QB Eq. (24)
QF Q Eq. (25)
➧ Q allowable = + B
F.S. F.S.
Where Q allowable is the design capacity which is obtained by dividing the ultimate shaft frictional capacity, QF, and the ultimate
tip bearing capacity, QB, by appropriate factors of safety (F.S.), usually 2.0 for friction and 3.0 for bearing. An overall F.S. of about
2.5 is often desired.
Precise determinations of pile capacities are often difficult to obtain, as there exist a large number of different pile capacity
equations, and seldom do any two give the same computed capacity. For this reason, sometimes more than one equation is used
to estimate the pile capacity.
Pile Point Capacity

The ultimate tip bearing capacity is normally calculated in a manner similar to that used for determining the bearing capacity of
spread footings. It can be computed from the following equations:
➧ QB = Ab (c Nc + γDf Nq + 0.5 γ B Nγ) Eq. (26)
➧ where: QB = ultimate tip bearing capacity, kips (kN)

2
Ab = area of pile tip effective in bearing, ft (m)
c = cohesion of soil, ksf (kPa)
γDf = effective vertical stress (overburden) at pile tip, ksf (kPa)
γ =
3 3
unit weight of soil, kips/ft (kN/m )
B = pile diameter or width of base, ft (m)
Nc, Nq,
and Nγ = bearing capacity factors which are primarily functions of the angle of internal friction
∅ of the soil, the relative compressibility of the soil and the pile geometry. These
may be different than the bearing capacity factors given in Figure 2.
Friction Capacity
The skin friction resistance of piles in sand can be computed by:
➧ fs = K σ′z tan δ Eq. (27)
➧ where: fs = skin friction resistance, ksf (kPa)

K = dimensionless coefficient of lateral earth pressure (ratio of horizontal to vertical normal
effective stress)
σ′z = vertical effective stress in soil at point in question, ksf (kPa)
δ = friction angle between the soil and shaft
Shown in Table 2 are typical design parameters K and d for driven piles in cohensionless siliceous soil.


The ultimate skin resistance, QF, for the pile is computed by summing the skin resistances along the length of the pile according to
the following equation:
n
➧ QF = å fs A s Eq. (28)
1
➧ where: QF = ultimate skin resistance, kips (kN)

As = effective pile surface area on which fs acts; is commonly computed as perimeter x
embedment increment, ∆L, ft (m )
2 2
fs = unit skin friction for each embedment increment, ksf (kPa)

n = no. of soil strata
LATERALLY LOADED PILES

The method for analyzing lateral loaded piles that has been widely accepted is the p-y method. Where p is the soil pressure and y
is the lateral deflection of the soil associated with that pressure. In this method, piles are analyzed considering a nonlinear
relationship between soil pressure and soil deflection.
The application of a lateral load to a pile causes a soil reaction that acts in a direction opposite to the deflection. The magnitude of
the soil reaction is a function of the deflection, and the deflection is dependent on the soil reaction. Thus, the method involves the
solution of the soil-structure-interaction problem.
Computer programs such as COM624 are generally used to analyze piles using the p-y method. These programs divide the pile
into elements of discrete lengths and solve for displacements using finite difference equations. Internal shear and moments are
calculated from the displacement results.
The p-y method is dependent on being able to represent the response of the soil by an appropriate family of p-y curves. Various
methods exist for obtaining p-y curves. They are generally based on full-scale experiments and theory. Some p-y curve
recommendations have been programmed as subroutines to the computer program and to analyze the pile the user needs to only
input the loadings, the geometry and stiffness of the pile, and the soil properties.
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Piles are designed to resist the most unfavorable combination of axial and flexural load to which they are subjected. The loading
combinations and whether working or factored loads are used depends on the material of construction and governing design
code. Concrete piles are generally designed per ACI-318; steel piles to the AISC code, and timber piles are often designed to
ASCE Manual 17, Timber Piles and Construction Timbers.
Pile Caps
Unless a single pile is used, a cap is necessary to spread the vertical and horizontal loads and any overturning moments to all
piles in the group. The cap is usually constructed of reinforced concrete, poured on the ground, unless the soil is expansive.
The number and location of piles in a group is determined by successive approximation from the condition that the load on the
most heavily loaded pile does not exceed the maximum allowable pile reaction. The following equation can be used to
compute the load for each pile in a centrally loaded group:
Q My x M y
➧ Pp = + + x Eq. (29)
n lgy lgx
➧ where: Pp = Individual pile load, kips (kN)

Q = magnitude of the vertical load (including weight of cap, backfill etc.), kips (kN)
n = no. of piles
Mx, My = moments about the x and y axes respectively (at bottom of cap), kip*ft (kN*m)
x,y = distance from the centroidal Y and X axes to the pile of interest (+ or –), ft (m)
Igy
n
( )
= moments of inertia of the group about the Y centroidal axis = å xn2 , ft (m )
1
4 4
å (y ) , ft
n 4 4
2
Igx = moments of inertia of the group about the X centroidal axis = n (m )
1

XXIX-G 17 of 41
The thickness and reinforcement for concrete pile caps are determined using factored loads and related internal shears and
➧ moments. The thickness is usually governed by shear. Critical sections for shear and bending are specified in ACI-318-02,
Section 15. Some guidelines for the structural design of pile caps are provided below:
1. Pile caps should be reinforced for both positive and negative bending moments.
2. Pile caps should extend at least 6 in. (150 mm) beyond the outside face of exterior piles and preferably 10 in. (250 mm).
3. When pile heads are assumed to be fixed, they should extend into the pile cap at least 12 in. (300 mm).
4. Pile caps should be a minimum of 12 in. (300 mm) thick.
ACI-340.1R, ACI - Design Handbook - Volume 1, contains design aids for determining the minimum depth and reinforcement for
concrete pile caps.
NEGATIVE SKIN FRICTION

In order for soil friction on the sides of a pile to contribute positively to the capacity of the pile, the pile must be loaded such that
the pile moves downward relative to the surrounding soil. This is the normal case. In some cases, however, the surrounding soil
may move downward relative to the pile. This relative movement causes a negative skin friction, or downdrag, on the pile and has
the effect of reducing the structural load carrying capacity of the pile by increasing the axial load in the lower fixed portion of the
pile. Increased pile settlements may also result due to the axial shortening of the pile under the increased axial load. The most
common cause of negative skin friction is installing piles thru compressible fill before consolidation is complete. The consolidation
of the soil due to the weight of the fill can cause the downward movement of the soil and develop friction between the pile and the
moving soil. However, in order for significant negative skin friction forces to develop, a portion of the pile must be fixed against
vertical movement, e.g., the point is on rock or is in dense sand. Otherwise, the entire pile moves downward with the
consolidation effect and no negative skin friction forces develop.
The magnitude of negative friction for cohesive soils, Fn, may be taken as:
➧ Fn = p Lf Ca Eq. (30)
➧ where: FN = negitive skin friction, kips (kN)
Lf = depth of fill or soil which is moving vertically, ft (m)
Ca = adhesion of soil to pile surface, ksf (kPa)
p = perimeter of pile, ft (m)
For granular soils,
➧ Fn = 1/2 γ Lf2 K fp Eq. (31)
➧ where: FN = negitive skin friction, kips (kN)
K = pressure coefficient based on soil properties and engineering judgment
(Ka < K < Kp), K usually 0.5 to 1.0
fp = coefficient-of-friction; upper limit of tan φ for smooth piles (use 2 φ / 3). May use
tan φ for corrugated pipes and rough cast-in-place piles.
DRILLED PIERS
Drilled Piers are most frequently used to support heavy loads and minimize settlement, to support uplift loads; or to support lateral
loads. Because of the versatility of the methods of construction, they can be used in a wide variety of soils including clay and
sand.
AXIAL CAPACITY
Drilled piers resist axial loads in both end bearing and through skin friction along the shaft. Consequently, the general pile
capacity equation (see Eq. 1) is also normally used for computing the ultimate axial capacity of drilled pier. The allowable axial
capacity is generally determined by dividing the ultimate capacity by a factor of safety between 2.0 and 3.0.
The design of drilled piers requires the determination of parameters c and f for the soil. Most of the methods for the design of
drilled piers in clay, including the one presented in this Design Practice, are based on the use of the undrained strength of the
clay.


DRILLED PIERS (Cont)
Design for Clay

For the design of drilled piers in clays, where time dependent changes in in-situ strength are not significant, the ultimate value of
the unit skin friction, fs, is computed as follows:
➧ fs = αz Cu Eq. (32)
➧ where: fs = skin friction, ksf (kPa)
αz = a reduction factor, based primarily on experimental results from full-sized load tests
Cu = undrained strength of clay, ksf (kPa)
This equation shows that the unit load transfer in skin friction is a function of the factor αz and the undrained shear strength at
depth z. Although αz is believed to vary with depth, research done to date is insufficient to allow a precise prediction of αz. Table
3 shows recommendations for design. Note that there are zones where αz is assumed to be zero.
The total resistance, QF, can be computed by the following equation:
n
➧ QF = åf 1
s P Lz Eq. (33)
➧ where: QF = ultimate skin resistance, kips (kN)

fs = unit skin friction within each soil strata, ksf (kPa)
P = π x diameter of the drilled pier, ft (m)
Lz = the length of the pile within each soil strata, ft (m)
n = no. of soil strata.
The total end bearing resistance, QB, for drilled piers in clay is frequently calculated using the following equation:
➧ QB = Nc Cu Ab Eq. (34)
where: QB = total end bearing resistance, kips (kN)
Cu = average undrained shear strength of the clay ksf (usually computed over a depth of one to
two diameters below the base), ksf (kPa)
2 2
Ab = area of the base of the pile, ft (m )
Nc = 6.0 [1 + 0.2 ( L / Bb )] ≤ 9
L = penetration of shaft, ft (m)
Bb = diameter of the base of the pier, ft (m)
Design for Sand
The unit skin friction resistance, fs, for drilled piers in sand is primarily dependent on the angle of internal friction, φ, and the
vertical effective stress, σ′z , in soil at depth z. The following equation is frequently used for design:
➧ fs = K σ′z tan δ Eq. (35)
where: fs = unit skin friction resistance, ksf (kPa)

K = dimensionless coefficient of lateral earth pressure (ratio of horizontal to vertical normal
effective stress)
σ′z = vertical effective stress in soil at point in question, ksf (kPa)
Shown in Table 4 are typical design parameters K and δ for drilled shafts in cohensionless siliceous soil.
The ultimate skin resistance, QF, for the pier is computed by summing the skin resistances along the length of the pier according
to the following equation:
n
➧ QF = å fs A s L z Eq. (36)
1

XXIX-G 19 of 41
DRILLED PIERS (Cont)
The end bearing capacity, QB, for drilled piers can be computed using traditional bearing capacity equations. Because substantial
strain is often required to mobilize full end bearing for large diameter piers, the bearing capacity is established to limit base
settlement to 5 percent of the diameter rather than an ultimate failure criterion.
➧ QB = qb Ab Eq. (37)
➧ where: QB = end bearing capacity, kips (kN)

qb = ultimate bearing capacity (force / area); based on either ultimate yield or settlement
considerations (see Table 4), ksf (kPa)
2 2
Ab = area of the base of the pier, ft , m
LATERAL LOADS
The p-y method of analysis that was presented in the section on piles is equally applicable to drilled piers. Other techniques such
as Brom's Method, are also sometimes used to obtain approximations of the maximum lateral load for short-length drilled piers.
Short-length Drilled Piers in Clay

The Brom's model for the behavior of a short pile in cohesive soil is shown in Figure 5. Brom's method can be used to determine
the ultimate lateral load, Pt, that will produce total soil failure. The ultimate lateral soil resistance is taken as 9 Cu. In this method,
the soil resistance of the top 1.5 diameters is ignored because a wedge of soil can move up and out when the pile is deflected.
The allowable lateral load is established by dividing the ultimate load by an appropriate safety factor and the moment capacity of
the pile is then compared to the maximum moment computed in the pile.
For drilled piers that are unrestrained against rotation:
Pt
➧ Point of zero shear (see Figure 5) f = and g = L – 1.5 Bb – f Eq. (38)
9 Cu Bb
➧ where: f = point of zero shear, ft (m)

g = point of zero shear from the bottom of the pile, ft (m)
Pt = unit laterial load, kips (kN)
Cu = undrained shear strength, ksf (kPa)
Bb = shaft diameter, ft (m)
L = embedment length of pier, ft (m)
The ultimate lateral load (Pt) is found by solving the quadratic equation:
➧
Pt2
36 Cu Bb
æ
+ Pt ç e +
è
3
4
Lö
2ø
(
Bb + ÷ + Cu Bb 6.75 L Bb − 5.06 Bb2 − 2.25 L2 = 0 ) Eq. (39)
The maximum moment can be found using the following equation, kip*ft (kN*m):
➧ Mmax = Pt ( e + 1.5 Bb + 0.5 f ) Eq. (40)
For a drilled pier that is fixed against rotation:

➧ Pt = 9 Cu Bb ( L – 1.5 Bb ) Eq. (41)
Short-length Drilled Piers in Sand

The Brom's model for the behavior of the short piles in cohesionless soil that is unrestrained against rotation is shown in Figure 6.
Brom's assumes that the ultimate lateral resistance is equal to three times the Rankine passive pressure. The ultimate failure
load, Pt, can be determined from the following:
γ Bb L3 K p
➧ Pt = Eq. (42)
2 (e + L )


where: Pt = ultimate failure load, kips (kN)

æ φö
Kp = tan2 ç 45 + ÷
è 2ø
φ = angle of internal friction of soil
γ 3
= unit weigth of soil, kips/ft (kN/m
3)
e = vertical height above grade of horizotally applied load Pt, ft (m)
The point of maximum moment:

0.5
æ Pt ö
➧ f = 0.816 ç ÷ Eq. (43)
ç γ Bb Kp ÷
è ø
The maximum bending moment:
γ Bb f 3 K p
➧ Mmax = Pt (e + f ) − Eq. (44)
2
➧ where: Mmax =maximum bending moment, kip*ft (kN*m)
For a pier that is fixed against rotation at its top, the ultimate load, Pt, can be determined using the following:
➧ Pt = 1.5 γ L2 Bb Kp Eq. (45)
ANCHOR BOLTS
Anchor bolts resist the uplift from lateral loading and maintain equipment, such as vertical vessels, in an upright position. Their
number, size, length, and spacing are usually established during equipment design, but they are detailed on the foundation
drawing.
After the equipment or structure is erected and the grout under its base plate / ring has been placed, the nuts on the anchor bolt
are tightened until the bolts are in tension. The amount of tension applied varies, but it is common to tighten all anchor bolts to a
minimum of “snug-tight" plus 1/4 turn. The initial tension placed on anchor bolts does not increase the maximum bolt tension
caused by wind or earthquake. The induced bolt tension is an internal force which clamps tightly the base plate / ring to the
concrete. Both are under equal compression until the external load is applied, which must relieve the compression on the
concrete before the tension in the bolt can increase. After the external load overcomes all the compression on the concrete, the
stress in the bolt increases to the value it would have been had there been no initial tension.
Anchor bolts should be sized using allowable stresses given in the American Institute of Steel Construction Specification for the
Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings. No increase in allowable stresses should be taken when wind
or earthquakes are considered. Anchor bolt sizes determined by this method should have their diameters increased by 1/8 in. as
a corrosion allowance or, alternatively be galvanized for corrosion protection. Table 5 lists the allowable tensile loads for anchor
bolts. For bolts subjected to a combination of shear and tension the allowable tensile stresses should be modified as follows:
➧ 1. For A36 bolts Ft = 26 - 1.8 fv ≤ 19.1 ksi Eq. (46)
➧ 2. For A193 bolts, Ft = [(41.2)2 - 4.39 fv2)]0.5 ksi Eq. (47)
➧ where: Ft = allowable stress for a combination of shear and tension in an anchor bolt

XXIX-G 21 of 41
fv = bolt shear stress, ksi
ANCHOR BOLTS FOR VERTICAL DRUMS AND TOWERS

The base rings of vertical towers and drums should be secured to the foundation with at least 8 bolts, preferably 12 or more,
equally spaced around a circle. If N is the number of anchor bolts, and DB the bolt-circle diameter, the maximum bolt tension, T,
may be calculated form the following simplified formula:
4M P
➧ T = − Eq. (48)
DB N N
where: T = maximum bolt tension, kips (kN)

DB = bolt diameter, ft (m)
M = overturning moment, kip*ft (kN*m)
P = vertically applied load, kips (kN)
N = number of bolts
Note: Additional refinement in anchor-bolt analysis is not generally necessary.
The anchor bolts most commonly used in vessel foundations are made of steel rods with a hook or a mechanical anchorage at
one end (plate or nut) and threaded at the other. It is generally preferable, for ease in construction, that the anchor bolts should be
entirely in the pedestal. However, this is not always practicable. When the anchor bolts do extend into the footing, they are not
counted on to transfer any tension forces from the pedestal to the footing. All the tension at the pedestal base is presumed
carried by the pedestal verticals, which are designed accordingly. The transfer of this tension to the footing is accomplished by
proper embedment.
Embedment lengths for hooked anchor bolts and anchor bolts with end plates or nuts (plated bolts) should be determined in
accordance with ACl 318 and ACI 349, respectively. Close attention should be paid to edge distances, spacings, and in the case
of plated anchor bolts, overlapping shear cones.


NOMENCLATURE
➧
Ab = area of pile tip effective in bearing or area of the base of the pile
As = total area of vertical reinforcement or π x diameter of the drilled pier, or the effective pile surface area
on which fs acts; is commonly computed as perimenter x embenment increment, ∆L
B = footing dimension, or pile diameter, or width of base
Ba, Bp = full-size footing and load plate dimension, respectively
Bb = diameter of the base of the pier, or pile shaft diameter
bo = crictical section perimeter for punching shear
c = cohesion, or coefficient of secondary compression
Ca = adhesion of soil to pile surface
Cc = compression index (measured in consolidation test)
Cr = recompression index (measured in rebound cycle of consolidation test)
Cu = undrained strength of clay
Cu = average undrained shear strength of the clay (usually computed over a depth of one to two diameters
below the base)
cv = coefficient of consolidation
Db = bolt diameter
Df = pile tip depth, depth of footing
Dp = diameter across the octagon formed by the reinforcement
d = distance from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid of the tension reinforcement
E = elastic modulus
e = eccentricity of vertically applied footing load, vertical height above grade of horizotally applied load
ex,ey = eccentricity of vertically applied footing load, about the x axis, about the y axis
eo = initial void ratio
Fn = magnitude of negitive friction for cohesive soils
f = point of zero shear for drilled piers
f'c = concrete compressive strength
fp = coefficient-of-friction; upper limit of tan φ for smooth piles (use 2/3 φ). May use tan ∅ for corrugated
pipes and rough cast-in-place piles
fs = unit skin friction for each embedment increment, or the unit skin friction within each soil strata
ft = allowable stress in pedestal reinforcement = 0.9 fy (USD), psi
fv = bolt shear strength
fy = yield strength of reinforcement
g = point of zero shear for a drilled pier from the bottom of the pile
H = thickness of layer, or length of flow path - usually 1/2 of the compressible layer thickness
h = column width
I = an influence factor which depends on the geometry and stiffness of the foundation
Igx =
moments of inertia of the group about the X centroidal axis = å yn2
n
1
( )
Igy =
moments of inertia of the group about the Y centroidal axis = å xn2
n
1
( )
K = dimensionless coefficient of lateral earth pressure (ratio of horizontal to vertical normal effective
stress), or the pressure coefficient based on soil properties and engineering judgment (Ka < K < Kp), K
usually 0.5 to 1.0, or the dimensionless coefficient of lateral earth pressure (ratio of horizontal to
vertical normal effective stress)

XXIX-G 23 of 41
Kp = æ φö
tan2 ç 45 + ÷
è 2ø
L = footing length, or thickness of the compressible stratum, or penetration of shaft, or embendment length
of pier
Lf = depth of fill or soil which is moving vertically
Lz = the length of the pile within each soil strata
M = factored moment at top of footing, or overturning moment on a base ring
Mx, My = moments about the x and y axes respectively (at bottom of cap)
N = number of anchor bolts, or SPT blow count
Nc = 6.0 [1 + 0.2 (L/Bb)] ≤ 9
Nc, Nq, and Nγ = bearing capacity factors with respect to cohesion, surcharge, and unit weight, respectively, or the
bearing capacity factores which are primarily function of the ang of internal friction ∅ of the soil, the
relative compressibility of the soil and the pile geometry
n = coefficient depending on soil, or the number of piles, or the number of soil strata
P = vertical load, pile perimeter
Pt = unit laterial load, ultimate failure load
p = perimeter of pile
Q = magnitude of the vertical load (including weight of cap, backfill etc.)
QF = design capacity of a pile developed through friction
QB = design capacity of a pile developed through bearing
q = unit pressure
qb = ultimate bearing capacity (force / area); based on either ultimate yield or settlement considerations
(see Table 4).
qc = cone resistance from a penetration test
S, S1 = settlement, settlement for the full-sized foundation at design bearing pressure, settlement of the plate
loaded to that same pressure
Sa, Sp = settlement of footing (desired quantity) and plate measured, respectively
T = maximum bolt tension
Tv = time factor - related to degree of consolidation
t, t1,t2 = time, time corresponding to 100 % of primary consolidation, time at which secondary compression
settlement is desired
W = vertical load at top of footing, lb.
w = column width
x,y = distance from the centroidal Y and X axes to the pile of interest (+ or –)
αz = a reduction factore, based primarily on experimental results from full-sized load tests
ρs = secondary consolidation settlement
γ = unit weight of soil
γ = unit weight of soil
φ = angle of internal friction of soil
∅ = strength reduction factor
σ′o = in situ effective stress
σp′ = preconsolidation pressure (determined from consolidation test results using Casagrande's
construction)
σ′z = vertical effective stress in soil at point in question


∆q = average stress change over thickness L

∆σ ′ = effective stress increase due to applied load

XXIX-G 25 of 41
TABLE 1
RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM SETTLEMENTS FOR FOUNDATIONS (1)(2)
TOTAL SETTLEMENT, IN.

COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE & MIXED SOILS
ITEM TEST / OPERATION TOTAL
Exchangers
Shell and Tube Erection + 0.5 1.0 (9)
Max. 1.5
Air Fin with:
Steel supports 1.25 (3) 1.5
Concrete supports 1.0 (4) 1.25
Horizontal Drums, with
Steel saddles 2.0 (5) 1.5
Formed concrete saddles 2.0 (5) 1.5
Isolated Towers & Vertical Drums
< 50 ft above foundation. base 2.0 (6) 2.0 (6)
≥ 50 < 200 ft above foundation. base é h − 50 ù é h − 50 ù
2.0 – 0.67 ê (6) 2.0 – 0.67 ê (6)
ú ú
ë 100 û ë 100 û
≥ 200 ft above foundation. base 1.0 1.0
Framed Equipment Structure Supporting Multiple Items

Steel framing
Flexible Erection + 0.5 1.5
Max. 1.5 (7)
Rigid 1.0 1.25
Concrete framing 1.0 1.25
Either, with Mat 2.0 (8) 2.0 (8)
Notes:
(1) If feasible and economical, total allowable settlement greater than 1.0 in. should be avoided, since the greater the general settlement the
greater is the potential differential settlement.
(2) The purpose here is to limit piping flexibility to 0.5 in. with respect to test / operation.
(3) The purpose here is to limit stress increases in the framing due to differential settlement than can occur rapidly from unequal erection
loading when more than one framing bay is involved. With one bay the value can increase by 0.25 in.
(4) This value is less than in Note 3, due to the generally lower degree of flexibility of concrete framing. For one bay, the value can increase by
0.25 in.
(5) This value is higher than the value for cohesive and mixed soils, on the basis that should undesirable differential settlement occur in
erection or testing it can be corrected prior to operation.
(6) The purpose of having reduced settlement with height is to minimize tilt from differential settlement.
(7) The increment with respect to erection settlement is to minimize stress increases in the framing when water test creates non-uniform
loading of adjacent footings.
(8) When settlement cannot be within the indicated values for individual footings, a mat should be employed. However, if there are large
differences in column loads from uncontrolled water testing, unless the mat is made rigid then controlled water testing of all equipment will
be necessary to minimize tilting and framing stress increases.
(9) This value is low because of the normal limitations on piping flexibility, particularly with respect to close-coupled exchangers and buried
cooling water lines.


TABLE 2
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR DRIVEN PILES IN COHESIONLESS SILICEOUS SOIL(1)
SOIL-PILE LIMITING SKIN LIMITING

RELATIVE SOIL FRICTION
FRICTION ANGLE K FRICTION VALUES END BEARING
DENSITY φ (DEGREES) δ (DEGREES) kips/ft2 (kPa) kips/ft2 (MPa)
Very Loose 28 21 See Note (2) 1.0 (47.8) 40 (1.9)
Loose 29 - 30 21.5 - 22.5 See Note (2) 1.4 (67.0) 60 (2.9)
Medium 30 - 36 22.5 - 27 See Note (2) 1.7 (81.3) 100 (4.8)
Dense 36 - 41 27 - 31 See Note (2) 2.0 (95.7) 200 (9.6)
Very Dense 41 - 44 31 - 33 See Note (2) 2.4 (114.8) 250 (12.0)
(1) Where detailed information such as in situ cone tests, strength tests on high quality samples, model tests, or pile driving
performance is available, other values may be justified.
(2) K is generally dependent on the pile material and extent of soil displacement during driving. Shown below are commonly
used values.
Steel H-Piles: 0.8 open ended; 1.0 plugged

Steel Pipe Piles: 0.8 open ended; 1.0 plugged
Timber Piles (tapered): 1.0
Precast Square Piles: 1.15
TABLE 3
RECOMMENDED VALUES OF α2 FOR DRILLED PIERS IN CLAY
LIMITING VALUE OF LOAD TRANSFER, FSz

LOCATION ALONG DRILLED SHAFT VALUE OF αz
tsf (kPa)
From ground surface to depth along drilled shaft of 5 ft (1.5 m)(1) 0 – –
Bottom 1 diameter of the drilled shaft or 1 stem diameter above 0 – –

the top of the bell (if skin friction is being used)
All other points along the sides of the drilled shaft 0.55 2.75 (263)
Note:
(1) The depth of 5 ft may need adjustment if the drilled shaft is installed in expansive clay, or if there is substantial groundline deflection from
lateral loading.

XXIX-G 27 of 41
TABLE 4
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR DRILLED SHAFTS IN COHESIONLESS SILICEOUS SOIL(1)
SOIL-PILE LIMITING SKIN LIMITING(3)

RELATIVE SOIL FRICTION
FRICTION ANGLE K(2) FRICTION VALUES END BEARING
DENSITY φ (DEGREES) δ (DEGREES) kips/ft2 (kPa) kips/ft2 (MPa)
Very Loose 28 26.5 0.5 - 0.7 1.0 (47.8) 0 (0)
Loose 29 - 30 27.5 - 28.5 0.5 - 0.7 1.4 (67.0) 14 (0.7)
Medium 30 - 36 27 - 34 0.5 - 0.7 1.7 (81.3) 36 (1.7)
Dense 36 - 41 34 - 39 0.5 - 0.7 2.0 (95.7) 60 (2.9)
Very Dense 41 - 44 39 - 42 0.5 - 0.7 2.4 (114.8) 90 (4.3)

Notes:
(1) Where detailed information such as in situ cone tests, strength tests on high quality samples, model tests, or pile driving performance is
available, other values may be justified.
(2) K is generally depth dependent K = 0.7; Depth to base, L ≤ 25 ft
K = 0.6; 25 < L ≤ 40 ft
K = 0.5; L > 40 ft
(3) Based on limiting settlement to 5% of base diameter
TABLE 5
ALLOWABLE ANCHOR BOLT TENSION
NOMINAL DIAMETER ALLOWABLE TENSION

A-36 A-193
in. (mm) kip (mtons) kip (mtons)
5/8 (16) 5.9 (2.6) — —

3/4 (19) 8.4 (3.8) 18.2 (8.1)
7/8 (22) 11.5 1 (5.1) 24.8 (11.1)
1 (25) 15.0 (6.7) 32.3 (14.4)
1-1/8 (28.5) 19.0 (8.5) 41.0 (18.3)
1-1/4 (32) 23.4 (10.5) 50.6 (22.6)
1-3/8 (35) 28.4 (12.7) 61.2 (27.3)
1-1/2 (38) 33.7 (15.0) 72.8 (32.5)
1-3/4 (44.5) 45.9 (20.5) 99.1 (44.2)
2 (51) 60.0 (26.8) 129.4 (57.8)
2-1/2 (63.5) 93.8 (41.7) 201.7 (89.6)
3 (76) 135.0 (60.0) 290.5 (129.1)
4 (102) 240.0 (106.6) 516.5 (229.5)


FIGURE 1
COMMON EQUIPMENT AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS
Pedestal
Typical Cross Section
Bell may
Base
be Omitted
Spread Footings Drilled Pier
Grade
Butt Diameter
300 - 500mm 300 - 450mm Diameter
Pile may be Treated with Typical Cross Section

Wood Preservative (Fluted Shell)
250 - 900mm Diameter
Cross Section Typical Cross Section
Typical Cross Section

(Spiral Welded Shell)
Tip Diameter 150 - 250mm
Timber Pile Steel H-Pile Precast Concrete Pile
DP29Gf01

XXIX-G 29 of 41
FIGURE 2
BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS FOR SPREAD FOOTINGS
General Shear Failure: qd = c Nc + γDfNq + 0.5 γ BNγ
2
Local Shear Failure: q′d = c N′c + γDf Nq + 0.5 γ B N′γ
3
40°
Nq N′q N′γ
N′c Nγ
Nc
30°
20° φ = 45°, Nγ = 240

φ
Values of
10°
0°
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 20 40 60 80
Values of Nc and Nq 5.7 (5) 1.00 Values of Nγ
DP29Gf02
Chart Showing relation betweenφ and Bearing Capacity Factors
Notes:
(1) If N* < 5, use dashed curves.
(2) If N ≥ 30, use solid curves.
(3) If 5 < N < 30, use linear interpolation between dashed and solid curves.
(4) Use of 2/3 c for local shear; 2/3 φ is accounted for in dashed line factors.
(5) This applies to a base with a rough surface. 5.14 is often used for smooth surfaces.
* from SPT


FIGURE 3
BEARING PRESSURES FOR OCTAGON SHAPED FOOTINGS
y x Moment About X - X Axis Moment About Y - Y Axis

P P
q max = L q max = L - 0 .8
A A
K
q min = q max 1 + K, for K > 0 - 0 .7
x y q min = 0, for K < 0
10.0 - 0.6
D D +KD
P e P e - 0.5
9.0 q max q max - 0.4

-KD q min
- 0.3
8.0 - 0.2
- 0.1
7.0 0.0
K - Values
L - Values
K - Curve for Moment about X -X Axis
6.0 + 0.5
5.0 + 1.0
L - Curve for Moment about Y - Y Axis
4.0 + 1.5
3.0 + 2.0
L - Curve for Moment about X - X Axis
2.0 + 2.5
1.0 + 3.0
0 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18 .20 .22 .24 .26 .28 .30 .32 .34 .36 .38 .40
e / D Ratio
To Use Chart
1 Enter chart with e / D ratio.

DP29Gf03
2 Intersect K and appropriate L curves.
3 Read L - Values from left axis and K - Values from right axis.
4 Calculate maximum bearing pressure, q max, using land minimum bearing pressure, q min, using K.

XXIX-G 31 of 41
FIGURE 4
VALUES FOR USE IN ELASTIC SETTLEMENT COMPUTATIONS BY THE ELASTIC FORMULA
æ 1 − µ2 ö
S = IqBç ÷
ç E ÷
è ø
➧ INFLUENCE FACTORS FOR VARIOUS-SHAPED MEMBERS, Iw, Im, FOR FLEXIBLE AND RIGID FOOTINGS
FLEXIBLE RIGID
SHAPE
CENTER CORNER AVERAGE Iw Im
Circle 100 0.64 (edge) 0.85 0.88
Square 1.12 0.56 0.95 0.82 3.7
Rectangle:
L 1.36 0.68 1.20 1.06 4.12
= 1.5
B
= 2 1.53 0.77 1.31 1.20 4.38
= 5 2.10 1.05 1.83 1.70 4.82
= 10 2.52 1.26 2.25 2.10 4.93
= 100 3.38 1.69 2.96 3.40 5.06
TYPICAL RANGE OF VALUES FOR POISSON'S RATIO, µ
TYPE OF SOIL POISSON'S RATIO, µ
Clay, saturated 0.4 - 0.5

Clay, unsaturated 0.1 - 0.3
Sandy clay 0.2 - 0.3
Silt 0.3 - 0.35
Sand (dense) 0.2 - 0.4
Coarse (void ratio = 0.4 - 0.7) 0.15
Fine-grained (void ratio = 0.4 - 0.7) 0.25
Rock 0.1 - 0.4 (depends somewhat on type of rock)
RANGE OF VALUES FOR MODULUS OF ELASTICITY, Es, FOR SELECTED SOILS
SOIL Es, psi Es, MPa
Very soft clay 50 - 400 0.35 - 2.8

Soft clay 250 - 600 1.7 - 4.1
Medium clay 600 - 1,200 4.1 - 8.3
Hard clay 1,000 - 2,500 6.9 - 17.2
Sandy clay 4,000 - 6,000 27.6 - 41.4
Silty sand 1,000 - 3,000 6.9 - 20.7
Loose sand 2,000 - 8,000 13.8 - 55.2
Dense sand 7,000 - 12,000 48.3 - 82.8
Dense sand and gravel 14,000 - 28,000 96.5 - 193
Loess 2,000 - 8,000 13.8 - 55.2


FIGURE 5
BROM'S MODEL FOR A SHORT-LENGTH PILE IN COHESIVE SOIL
Shear Moment
Pt
Pt
1.5 Bb
L g
2
g
g
2
9 cu Bb 4.5 cu Bb g Mmax
Deflection, load, shear, and moment diagrams

for a short-length pile in cohesive soil that is unrestrained
against rotation (Brom's Model).
Shear Moment
My
Pt
1.5 Bb
g
2
g
g
2
pos
Mmax
4.5 cu Bb g
Deflection, load, shear, and moment diagrams

for a short-length pile in cohesive soil that is DP29Gf05
fixed against rotation at its top (Brom's Model).

XXIX-G 33 of 41
FIGURE 6
BROM'S MODEL FOR A SHORT-LENGTH PILE IN COHESIONLESS SOIL
Pt Shear Moment
3 γ BbL Kp Mmax
Deflection, load, shear, and moment diagrams DP29Gf06

for a short-length pile in cohesionless soil that is unrestrained
against rotation (Brom's Model).


APPENDIX
Example No. 1 - Tower on an Octagon Foundation

Compute the stability ratios and the bearing pressures for the octagon footing supporting the following process tower:
Tower Weights (P)

Erection weight of tower = 111.2 kN
Operating weight of tower = 166.8 kN
H Hydrotest weight of tower = 278 kN
(wind)
Foundation / Soil Weights:
P Soil: Unit weight = 18.8 kN / m3
Concrete Unit weight = 23.5 kN / m3
Base:
Dia = 6.2 m
h = 20 m Area = 0.8284D2 = 0.8284 (6.1 m)2 = 30.83 m2
Weight = 30.83 x 0.5 x 23.5 = 362.25 kN
0.21 m
Pedestal:
Area = 0.8284D2 = 0.8284 (1.85 m)2 = 2.84 m2
Weight = 2.84 x 1.23 x 23.5 = 82.09 kN
Soil:
(30.83 - 2.84) x 1.02 x 18.8 = 536.73 kN
1.52 m
0.5 m 1.85 m
DP29Gfa1
6.1 m
Resultant Loads at the top of the pedestal due to wind

H = 80.0 kN h = 20m
Overturning Moment (Mo) = 80.0 x 20 = 1,600 kN-m (Operating & Erection)
Overturning Moment (Mo) = 1/3(1600) = 533 kN-m (Hydrotest)
Stability Ratios MR/Mo
Restoring Moments (MR)
ΣM = MR
= (Vessel Weight + Foundation Weight + Soil Weight) x Dia/2
= (P+362.25 kN + 82.09 kN + 536.73 kN) x 3.05 m
= (P + 981.07 kN) x 3.05 m
TOTAL WEIGHT RESTORING MOMENT

LOAD CASE STABILITY RATIO
P (kN) MR (kN-m)
Erection 1,092 3,330 2.08
Operating 1,148 3,501 2.19
Hydrotest 1,259 3,840 7.20

XXIX-G 35 of 41
Bearing Pressures
TOTAL WEIGHT ECCENTRICITY qMAX** qMIN**

LOAD CASE e/D L-VALUE * K-VALUE*
P (kN) e (m) (kPa) (kPa)
Erection 1,092 1.46 0.240 3.2 -0.34 113.4 0
Operating 1,148 1.39 0.228 3.0 -0.31 111.7 0
Hydrotest 1,259 0.42 0.069 1.55 0.49 63.3 20.8

Notes:
* for moment about x-x axis (see Figure 4)
** gross bearing pressures
Example No. 2 - Rectangular Footing - Shear Check and Flexural Reinforcement Design
Confirm that the thickness of the base is adequate and determine the size and distribution of the flexural reinforcement for the
base.
P = 528 Kips
(Factored)
d = 18 in.
1 ft 4 ft
21 in.
1.5 ft
6 ft
q = 22 k / ft2
f ′c = 3,000 psi
fy = 60,000 psi DP29Gfa2
Check Beam Shear;

bw = 48 in. (length of shear plane)
νc = 2 ∅ fc′ = 2 (0.85 ) 3000 = 93.11 psi
av = bwd = 48 in. (18 in.) = 864 in.2 (area of shear plane)

Vc = νc av = 93.11 psi (864 in.2) = 80.45 kips (allowable shear in concrete)
➧ Vu = 22 kips/ft2 (3 ft - 1.5 ft/2 - 18/12 ft) 4 ft = 66 kips (factored shear in critical plane)
80.45 kips > 66 kips O.K.
Check Perimeter Shear:
bo = 2 [(18 in. + 18 in.) + (12 in. + 18 in.)] = 132 in.
av = bod = 132 in. (18 in.) = 2,376 in.2
1 .5
β = = 1.5
1 .0


æ 4ö æ 4 ö
νc = çç 2 + ÷÷ φ f ′c = ç 2 + ÷ (0.85 ) 3000 = 217.26 psi
è βø è 1 .5 ø
Vc = νc av = 217.26 psi (2,376 in.2) = 516.2 kips (allowable shear in concrete)

éæ 18 in. + 18 in. ö æ 12 in. + 18 in. öù
➧ Vu = (6 ft) (4 ft) – êç ÷ ç ÷ú (22 ksf) = 363.0 (factored shear)
ëè 12 ø è 12 øû
516.2 kips > 363.0 kips O.K.

Determine Reinforcement in Long Direction:
Mu = 22 k/ft2 (4 ft) (2.25 ft) (1.125 ft) = 222.75 kip-ft
= 2,673 kip-in.
Mu 2,673 kip − in.
required As = = = 2.90 in.2
φ fy (arm) * 0.90 (60 Ksi) (17.10)
* assume as 0.95 d = 17.10 in.

Check:
A s fy 2.9 (60)
a = = = 1.42 in.
0.85 f ′c b 0.85 (3) ( 48 )
1.42
arm = 18 – = 17.29
2
æ 17.10 ö
revised required As = 2.90 ç ÷ = 2.87 in.2
è 17.29 ø
Use 6 - #7 bars, As = 3.60 in.2

Determine Reinforcement in Short Direction:
Mu = 22 k/ft2 (6 ft) (1.5 ft) (.75 ft) = 148.5 kip-ft
= 1,782 kip-in.
Mu 1,782 kip − in.
required As = = = 2.04 in.2
φ fy (arm) * 0.90 (60 ksi) (16.15 in.)
* assume as 0.95 d′ = 0.95 (17) = 16.15 in.
Check:
A s fy 2.04 (60)
a = = = 0.67 in.
0.85 f ′c b 0.85 (3) (72)
0.67
arm = 17 – = 16.66 in.
2
æ 16.15 ö
revised required As = 2.04 ç ÷ = 1.98 in.2
è 16.66 ø
Use 6 - #6 bars, As = 2.64 in.2

Check min. reinforcement (Eg. = 0.002)
min. As = 0.002 (72) (18) = 2.59 in.2 does not govern

XXIX-G 37 of 41
ACI Bandwidth Requirement:

reinforcement in bandwidth 2 2
= = = 0. 8
total reinforcement α + 1 6/4 + 1
Number of bars in the 4 ft band = 0.8 (6) = 4.8 say 5. If one bar is placed on each side outside the 4 ft band, a total of 7 bars
would be required.
Use 7 - #6 bars
Reinforced Base of Footing #6

#6
Eq. Spaced
6 - #7 bars
5 - # 6 Bars @ e9" c/c
DP29Gfa3
4 ft


Example No. 3 - Axial Capacity Of Drilled Pier In A Mixed Soil Profile
Undrained Shear Strength (ksf)

and N Values
Soil Profile:
0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Clay
10
Sand N = 20
22
Clay
35
65
DP29Gfa4
Loading:
The working axial load is 300 tons.
Determine whether a 55 ft long drilled pier with a 3 ft diameter shaft and 9 ft diameter belled base has adequate capacity. Assume
a global F. S. = 2.5 and ignore settlement limitations.
Computation of Capacity:
Qu = QF + QB
4
Skin Friction: QF = å fs A s L z
i=1
fs = αz Cu (clay)
fs = K σ′z tan δ (sand)

XXIX-G 39 of 41
SHEAR STRENGTH OR
DEPTH UNIT SKIN ∆ QF
SOIL
INTERVAL Lz (ft)
AVERAGE VERTICAL EFFECTIVE αz(1) OR K tan δ FRICTION f (ksf) (tons)
STRESS (ksf) s
Clay 0-5 0.5 0 0 0
Clay 5 - 10 1.0 0.55 0.55 13.0
Sand 10 - 22 1.55(2) 0.30(3) 0.47 26.6
Clay 22 - 35 2.0 0.55 1.10 67.4
Clay 35 - 49 2.5 0.55 1.375 90.7
Clay 49 - 55 2.5 0 0 0
➧ QF = 197.7 tons
Notes:
(1) See Table 3
(2) σ′z = 0.12 ksf x 10 ft + (0.12 ksf – 0.062 ksf) x 6 ft = 1.548 ksf
(3) δ = 31.5°; K = 0.5 see Table 4
End Bearing Capacity:
QB = Nc Cu Ab
Nc = 6.0 [1 + 0.2 (L / Bb)] ≤ 9.0
= 6.0 [1 + 0.2 (55/9)] = 13.3 > 9.0; Use 9.0
Cu = 2.5 ksf (from soil profile)
π Bb2 π (9)2
Ab = = = 63.6 ft2
4 4
QB = (9.0) (2.5 ksf) (63.6 ft2)
= 715.5 tons
Ultimate Capacity:
∴ Qu = 197.7 + 715.5 = 913.2 tons
Allowable Capacity:
Qu 913.2
Q = = = 365 tons > 300 tons O.K.
F.S. 2 .5


Example No. 4 - Lateral Capacity of Drilled Piers Using Brom's Method
Pt Pt
2 ft
Clay: Sand:
14 ft
Cu = 1200 psf φ = 35°

γ = 120 pcf γ = 120 pcf
2 ft dia. 2 ft dia.
DP29Gfa5
Find the allowable lateral load for the drilled pier in clay and sand. Assume F.S. = 2.5 and pile is unrestrained
Pier in Clay
Pt2 æ 3 Lö
+ Pt ç e + Bb + ÷ + Cu Bb æç 6.75 L Bb − 5.06 B2 − 2.25 L2 ö÷
36 Cu Bb è 4 2ø è b ø
where: e = 2 ft
Cu = 1.2 ksf
Bb = 2 ft
L = 14 ft
Pt2
+ 10.5 Pt − 653 .4 = 0
86.4
Solve for root of quadratic equation: Pt = 58.46 kips

58.46
Allowable P = = 23.4 kips
2 .5
Maximum Moment in the pier at the ultimate lateral load

58.46
f = = 2.70 ft
9 (1.2) (2)
Mmax = 58.46 [2 + 1.5(2) + 0.5(2.70)] = 371.4 kip-ft

XXIX-G 41 of 41
Pier in Sand
γ Bb L3 K p
Pt =
2 (e + L )
where: e = 2 ft
L = 14 ft
γ = 120 – 62.4 = 57.6 pcf
Bb = 2 ft
Kp = tan2 (62.5) = 3.69
57.6 (2) (14)3 (3.69 )

Pt = = 36.45 kips
2 (2 + 14)
36.45
Allowable P = = 14.58 kips
2 .5
Maximum Moment in the pier at the ultimate lateral load

0.5
é 36,450 ù
f = 0.816 ê ú = 7.5 ft
ë 57.6 (2) (3.69 ) û
57.6 (2) (7.5 )3 (3.69 )

Mmax = 36,450 (2 + 7.55) – = 258.4 kip-ft
2

Foundations For Process Vessels and Equipment Structures: Design Practices

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

Foundations For Process Vessels and Equipment Structures: Design Practices

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ExxonMobil Proprietary

CIVIL WORKS Section Page

CONTENTS Changes shown by ➧

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 4

SHEAR CRITICAL SECTIONS..................................................................................................................... 13

PILE FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 14

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

XXIX-G 2 of 41 FOUNDATIONS FOR PROCESS VESSELS AND

ANCHOR BOLTS ..........................................................................................................................................20

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

XXIX-G 4 of 41 FOUNDATIONS FOR PROCESS VESSELS AND

SIZE AND STRENGTH

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

Bearing Capacity - Theory and Equations

➧ qult = c Nc + γDf Nq + 1/2 γ B Nγ, for a continuous footing Eq. (2)

➧ where: qult = ultimate bearing capacity, ksf (kPa)

➧ Square qult = 1.3 c Nc + γDf Nq + 0.4 γ B Nγ Eq. (3)

➧ Circular qult = 1.3 c Nc + γDf Nq + 0.3 γ B Nγ Eq. (4)

Bearing Capacity - Sands

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

XXIX-G 6 of 41 FOUNDATIONS FOR PROCESS VESSELS AND

Bearing Capacity - Clays

Factors Influencing Bearing Capacity - Local Shear

➧ where: q = bearing pressure, ksf (kPa)

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

XXIX-G 8 of 41 FOUNDATIONS FOR PROCESS VESSELS AND

6. The effects of vibratory or cyclic loading.

Settlement Versus Time

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

➧ where: S = Settlement, ft (m)

➧ E = 3 qc (units of qc); qc is cone resistance Eq. (11)

➧ where: L = thickness of the compressible stratum, ft (m)

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

XXIX-G 10 of 41 FOUNDATIONS FOR PROCESS VESSELS AND

For clay: 0.03 to 0.05

For a normally consolidated clay,

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

➧ where: S = settlement, ft (m)

➧ where: cv = coefficient of consolidation, ft/day (m/day)

➧ where: ρs = secondary consolidation settlement, ft (m)

Recommended Settlement Limits

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

XXIX-G 12 of 41 FOUNDATIONS FOR PROCESS VESSELS AND

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

Perimeter, bo , bo = 2 [(w + d) + (h + d)]

The critical sections for shear are illustrated below:

➧ wide beam, vc = 2 ∅ f ′c = ∅ f ′c / 6 Eq. (21)

➧ where: vc = shear, lbs (N)

SHEAR CRITICAL SECTIONS

BASE REINFORCING STEEL SIZE / DISTRIBUTION

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

XXIX-G 14 of 41 FOUNDATIONS FOR PROCESS VESSELS AND

➧ where: As = total area of vertical reinforcement, in2

STATIC AXIAL CAPACITY

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

➧ Q ultimate = QF + QB Eq. (24)

Pile Point Capacity

➧ where: QB = ultimate tip bearing capacity, kips (kN)

➧ where: fs = skin friction resistance, ksf (kPa)

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

XXIX-G 16 of 41 FOUNDATIONS FOR PROCESS VESSELS AND

➧ where: Mmax =maximum bending moment, kipft (kNm)