Spi Santy 1972
Spi Santy 1972
Spi Santy 1972
L
Y
Max. strUctural depth
the periphery minimum dimensions will suffice, (and allowance for design) between working stress
provided that any section of the footing meets the and ultimate stress design, the new code is based on
requirements of the code. From the point of view ultimate strength only. Option is left, however, to
of construction, casting and vibrating concrete of the designer to apply the "straight line theory",
2500 psi quality and above, at slopes 1 : 2.5-1 : 3 very similar to the previously outlined WSD. It is
do not present any difficulties and certainly do not felt that foundations, more than other structural
elements, should be designed employing the more
conservative trend. It should be mentioned also
*Lecturer, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technion Israel
Institute of Technology. that ultimate strength design is generally backed by
tSenior Lecturer, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technion wide experimental programs, evidence of which for
Israel Institute of Technology. sloped structural elements in bending and shear is
53
54 A. Pisanty and M. Gellert
DESIGN P R O C E D U R E FOR
S L O P E D SPREAD FOOTINGS
* This study was originally performed according to the t Diagonal shear (and later shear) is checked for an angle
318-63 Code and later converted to conform to the new steeper than 45°, which proves realistic for deep beam effects
Code. and is on the safe side in general.
Automatic Design of Sloped Spread Footings 55
L = 0"04as L
V(D, - (17)
The maximum available development length:
Lm,~ = ½ [ a - ( b + 6 in.)] (18)
It is advisable to initiate with bars # 11 and to
decrease the diameter if necessary for compliance
with Lmax.
tgq~ = ] tg0~ = 0
Column Footing Pier Footing Edge Footing Footing Column Footing Pier Footing Footing Footing
load size size depth thickn, reinf, volume load size size depth reinf, volume
(Kips) fit-in.) (in.) (in.) (ft 3) (Kips) (It-in.) (in.) (in.) (ft 3)
tg~6 = ½ tg~b = 0
Column Footing Pier Footing Edge Footing Footing Column Footing Pier Footing Footing Foo-ing
load size size depth thickn, reinf, volume load size size depth reinfi volume
(Kips) fit-in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (ft a) (Kips) fit-in.) (in.) (in.) (ft 3)
for the reinforcement (to the bar centre). Additional ,,~ Concrete .
L=
£
25
I in. is given for bars larger than # 6. ,i, R e m f o r c e m e n l
forcement is omitted. 10
All parameters in the program are easily varied
and different basic data nested. Computer time is
extremely low--more than 60 footings are obtained /a
in one minute.
Footing's size, ft
30 per cent less than those in fiat footings, while the Eootrng'S size. ft
FOOting'S size, ft
other kinds.
Finally it is of interest to point out that com- Fig. 6(a), (b), (c), (d), (e). Average reduction o f concrete
parison between results obtained employing the and reinforcement quantities for various soll pressures.
new code and those using the 318-63 Code indicate
Automatic Design of Sloped Spread Footings 59
insignificant differences in structural depth averag- d~ footing depth at section diagonal tension to be
ing 1 in. and almost no difference in reinforcement. checked.
The only real difference lies in the fact that due to d2 footing depth at section shear to be checked.
more severe regulations for minimum embedment g edge thickness.
length in the new code, most o f the very small M bending moment.
footings are unreinforced. Some increase of V total shear, kips.
structural depth is obtained as well due to reduced j ratio of distance between centroid of com-
allowable shear (wide beam) stresses. pression and centroid of tension reinforcement
to the depth d.
L embedment length of reinforcing bars.
NOMENCLATURE
vc shear stress carried by concrete (also diagonal),
a side of the footing (square), ft. psi.
b side of the column (square), ft. As reinforcement area, in 2.
Q load carried by footing, kips. as area of reinforcing bar, in 2.
q soil pressure, psf. f~ specified compressive strength of concrete, psi.
~b angle of slope. fc allowable concrete stress, psi.
d distance from extreme compression fibre to f~ allowable stress in reinforcing steel, psi.
centroid of tension reinforcement fy yield stress of reinforcing steel, psi.
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, Proposed Revision of AC1 318-63, "Building Code Requirements
for Reinforced Concrete", ACIJ. Proc. 67, No. 2 (1970).
2. Discussion 67-8--"Discussion of a Report by ACI Committee 318--Discussion and
Committee Closure", ACIJ. Proc. 67, No. 9 (1970).
3. AC1 Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-63),
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, June 1963, 144 p.
4. ACI Committee 317, Reinforced Concrete Design Handbook SP-3, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, 1965, 271 p.
5. Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-63),
ACI Publication SP 10.
6. C. W. DUNHAM,Foundations of Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York (1962).
7. R.W. FtJaLONO, Design aids for square footings, ACIJ. Proc. 62, 363 (1965).
8. E. HENYE,Nomographs for design of rectangular spread footings, ACIJ. Proc. 66, 545
(1969).
9. J.P. KOnLV, Optimum design of concrete spread footing by computer, ACIJ. Proc. 65,
384 (1968).
10. M. S. McCORgAC, Square Footing Tables, Stress Publications., 208 p. Rockville,
Maryland, (1968).
11. C. RODRIOt~eZ, Design of isolated square column footing, ACIJ. Proc. 61, 889 (1964).
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: