Spi Santy 1972

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 7

Build. Sci. Vol. 7, pp. 53-59. Pergamon Press 1972.

Printed in Great Britain I 1(16"I)1 I (A3f~

Automatic Design of Sloped


Spread Footings
A. PISANTY*
M. GELLERTt

The design of sloped concrete spread footings, conforming to the proposed


requirements of the new AC1 Building Code 318-71 is presented. ,4 computer
program for automatic design is explained. Results are compared with flat
concrete spread footings, proving sloped .footings to be considerably more
economical for low soil pressures.

INTRODUCTION require special formwork. Furthermore, a minimum


slope is recommended as a good practice for
THE DESIGN of single spread footings is a very drainage of casual ground water from the top of the
frequently encountered, trial and error procedure footing.
generally involving the checking of several selected Efficient design may therefore provide sloped
values of footing dimensions and reinforcement spread footings, meeting the requirements of the
before satisfactory compliance with codes is codes while saving substantial amounts of con-
achieved. Attempts to facilitate design in the form crete and reinforcement (at the cost of a small
of homographs[8], design aids[7, 9, 11] and increase of footings' depth at the vicinity of the
tables[10] have been made. McCormac's tables[10] column only) (figure 1).
are by no means the most complete and detailed. The purpose of this paper is to outline a design
Sloped spread footings are mentioned occasionally procedure for the proportioning of sloped concrete
only and extensive treatment is rare[6] if at all. footings, accounting for slopes for which no special
For a variety of single spread footings (mainly formwork is required, conforming to provisions of
on low bearing capacity soil) their action as a the ACI Code.
structural element is dominated by the resistance The ACI Building Code treats the subject of
to shear failure, in close analogy to fiat concrete footings very extensively, therefore this work
slabs. Accordingly, sufficient structural depth at the follows its provisions. Regretfully, however, even
center of the footing providing for shear, diagonal in this code provisions for sloped footings are given
tension and bending moment, critical at the vicinity in a rather general and noncommittal way.
of the column, will provide efficient design. Along While the 318-63 code made clear distinction

L
Y
Max. strUctural depth

Fig. 1. Structural profiles of sloped footing vs. flat footing.

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

scarce, As a result, the straight line theory is and


adapted, along with other provisions of the new
Q = ( b + 6 in.) 2 0.30,L'+0.0862(f~-./~,'l (31
AC! Code.*
Results obtained through the developed com- f o r b _ > 22 in.
puter program clearly show the tendency of con-
The footing is assumed to acquire depth d (to be
siderable savings of concrete and reinforcement vs.
checked), a minimum edge thickness of 6 in. and
the quantities obtained for flat footings.
a flat area of 3 in. around the column for its future
formwork (figure 2).
S U M M A R Y OF THE PROVISIONS
FOR FOOTINGS IN THE ACI CODE

The code requires the following to be checked or


established:
1, Shear as a diagonal tension--sections 11.2.2 ~gm~6in~d
and 11.4.1 i . . . . . o .......... ~ - ~ - 3,n(reinf. cover)
2. Wide beam shear--sections 11.2.2 and 8.1.2.3
3. Bending moment--section 8.1.2
4. Development of reinforcement--section 12.5.1 Fig. 2. Footing section (initial contour).
5. Bearing on the top of the footing--sections
10.14 and 15.6.6 2. Diagonal shear (punching) is checked at a
6. Minimum edge thickness--section 15.9 distance ½dr from the face of the column where
7. Maximum tensile stress in plain concrete depth equals dz t (figure 3) by:
footings--section 15.7.2 q[a 2 - (b + d~ )z]
8. Angle of slope--section 15.3.1 2\/(.11.'). (4)
c~ = 4(b+d~)d,
9. Effective cross-section in compression--sec-
tion 8.1.2. I.

DESIGN P R O C E D U R E FOR
S L O P E D SPREAD FOOTINGS

In the following a design procedure, based on the


preceding provisions and some additional assump-
tions, for the proportioning of sloped concrete
square footings is presented.
The initial data assumed are: Column size--
t a " "1
Fig. 3. Section .[or shear (diagonal tension) checking.
b (in.): soil pressure--q (psf); column l o a d - - Q
(kips): maximum allowable slope of footings--
Equation (4) provides for dl. The slope angle is
~b~,~; allowable stress in reinforcement--J]. (psi)
obtained and checked:
and concrete strength in compression--J~' (psi).
The footing size is given by: dl - 6 in.
tg q5 ½[a-(b+dO] < tg qS.,~x (5)
a = (1) g is to be increased if the acquired slope exceeds the
allowable:
I. Provision for bearing is made by establishing
the minimum column size considered for every g = d~ - ½ [ a - ( b + d O ] tg ~b.~x (6)
footing as to comply with one of the following d--the depth of the footing at the face of the
relations (maximum 8 per cent reinforcement is column :
assumed) : d = g + ½ [ a - ( b + 6 in.)] tg q5 (7)
Q = 0-92. 1.5b 2 0"30J;' + 0.08bay; (2) At this stage the initial profile of the footing is
accomplished and left to be checked for bending
for b < 20 in. moment and shear (figure 3).

* 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

3. Bending moment at the face of the column:

Mm~x = ½qa (8)

The maximum bending capacity of the section at


the face of the column is checked assuming
f~ = 0.45f~' for width of (b + 6 in.) at the top.
At the neutral line:
B = b + 6 in. + 2kd cot q~ (9)
Fig. 5. Section for shear (wide beam) checking.
For B < a the bending moment capacity of the
section (figure 4a) is obtained by: The total shear force:
M = ½f~kd2[(b+ 6 in.)(1 - ½k) + ~kd cot q~(1-~k)]
V = ½qa[a-(b+2d2)] (14)
(io)
Width of the section where shear is to be checked:
B = b+2d2+2k2d2 cot ~ (15)
k2 is obtained considering the existing bending
Id moment at the section and its flexural capacity,
thus providing for the actual dimensions of the
section to be checked for shear.
B = aifk2d2+g >dz
(a)
The shear stress is given by:
Fig. 4(a). Effective cross-section in compression (B <=a). V
v~ = Bd2 < 1 "0 ~/(f'e) (16)
For B > a (figure 4b) M is given by:
M = ½f~kdZ[(b+6 i n . ) ( 1 - k k ) + ~ k d cot 4~(1-½k)] If dz proves unsatisfactory g should be increased.
When g reaches d, then d is increased.
I f COt ~ . . . .
-*Jc ~ t g - a t L - k ) ] 3 [ g + d ( l - k ) ] (11) 5. Development length is given by:

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.

THE COMPUTER PROGRAM


(b) The developed computer program is aimed to
Fig. (4b). Effective cross-section in compression (B > a). produce tables for square sloped spread footings,
supporting columns having square sections. Soil
pressure distribution is assumed uniform.
For the case Mm,x exceeding M, d is increased All parameters mentioned previously (q, q~. . . . f~,
until satisfactory flexural capacity is obtained. f'~ etc.) may be varied. For each footing size a series
The reinforcement area As: of ten (or more at request) values of column sizes
are provided, while the lowest size is established
Mm,x (12)
As jdfs from maximum bearing stresses considerations (but
not less than 6 in.).
4. Wide beam shear is checked for a section Concerning reinforcement, it is assumed that for
at a distance dz from face of column where depth economical design greatest possible diameter
is dz (figure 5): should be used. Therefore the program's initial
d2 = tg ~p(a-b)+2g (13) check is for # 11. Minimum bars' space of 4 in.
2(1 + t g qb) and maximum of 14 in. is assumed.
56 A. Pisanty and M. Gellert

Table I. Square Jbotings table. Sloped footings vs. flat footings


(fc' = 2500 psi f~ = 20 000 psi soil press. -- 5000 psf)
i i

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)

172"0 6-0 8 22 13 7 # 7 50'1 170"5 6--0 8 20 6 # 8 60.0


172"4 6-0 10 22 13 7 # 7 50-4 170"9 6-4) 10 19 6 # 8 57"0
172"7 6-0 12 20 13 7 # 7 48"2 171'4 6-0 12 18 6 # 8 54"0
172-7 6~ 14 19 13 7 # 7 47"1 171"8 6~ 14 18 6 # 8 54'0
173"1 6-0 16 18 12 7 # 7 44'4 172"3 6-0 16 17 7 # 7 51-0
173"5 6-0 18 17 12 7 # 7 43-2 172'3 6-0 18 16 7 # 7 48"0
173-4 6-0 20 16 12 7 # 7 42-0 172"7 6-0 20 15 7 # 7 45"0
173'6 6-0 22 15 12 7 # 7 40'6 173'2 6-0 22 15 7 # 7 45.0
173'8 6-0 24 15 11 6 # 7 39"4 173"6 6-0 24 14 7 # 7 42'0
173.9 6-0 26 14 12 7 # 7 39"3 173-6 6-0 26 14 6 # 7 42"0

232"5 7-0 8 26 15 7 # 8 79"1 230'2 7-0 8 23 8 # 8 93"9


233"0 7-0 10 25 15 7 # 8 77'9 230"9 7-0 10 22 8 # 8 89"8
233.4 7-0 12 24 14 7 # 8 74'3 231-5 7-0 12 22 8 # 8 89"8
233"6 7-0 14 23 14 7 # 8 73'0 232.1 7-0 14 21 8 # 8 85'7
233"9 7-0 16 22 14 7 # 8 71.7 232.7 7-0 16 20 8 # 8 81"7
234'4 74) 18 21 14 7 # 8 70-2 232.7 7-0 18 19 8 # 8 77"6
234'4 7-0 20 20 14 7 # 8 68'6 233.3 7-0 20 18 8 # 8 73-5
234"9 7-0 22 19 13 7 # 8 64.9 233'9 7-0 22 18 7 # 8 73"5
235"2 7-0 24 18 13 7 # 8 63-2 234"5 7-0 24 17 7 # 8 69"4
235.4 7-0 26 17 13 7 # 8 61.4 234'5 7-0 26 16 7 # 8 65'3

302-2 8-0 10 29 16 9 # 8 112-9 299-1 8-0 I0 26 8 # 9 138"6


303-2 8-0 12 27 16 8 # 9 109.2 299'9 8-0 12 25 8 # 9 133"3
303"5 8-0 14 27 16 9 # 8 109"8 299-9 8-0 14 24 8 # 9 127"9
303"4 8-0 16 26 15 9 # 8 105'0 300-7 8-0 16 23 8 # 9 122'6
304"0 8-0 18 24 16 9 # 8 103"9 301-5 8-0 18 22 8 # 9 117'3
304-3 8-0 20 24 15 9 # 8 101-5 302'3 8-0 20 21 8 # 9 111'9
304'6 8-0 22 23 15 9 # 8 99'6 303"1 8-0 22 21 8 # 9 111.9
305"3 8-0 24 22 15 9 # 8 97"5 303-1 8-0 24 20 8 # 9 106-6
305-3 8-0 26 21 14 9 # 8 92"6 303'9 8-0 26 19 8 # 9 101.3
306"0 8-0 28 20 14 9 # 8 90'4 304"7 8-0 28 19 9 # 8 101'3

381-1 9-0 12 31 18 9 # 9 156"4 375"6 9-0 12 28 10 # 9 188'9


381'4 9-0 14 30 17 9 # 9 150'4 376-6 9-0 14 27 10 # 9 182"2
381"7 9-0 16 30 17 9 # 9 151"1 377'6 9-0 16 26 10 # 9 175-4
382"6 9-0 18 28 17 9 # 9 146"2 378"6 9-0 18 25 10 # 9 168'7
382"9 9-0 20 27 17 9 # 9 143'9 379"6 9-0 20 25 10 # 9 168.7
382'8 9-0 22 27 16 9 # 9 140-8 379"6 9-0 22 24 10 # 9 161"9
383.6 9--0 24 25 16 9 # 9 135'4 380-6 9-0 24 23 10 # 9 155'2
384"0 9-0 26 25 16 9 # 9 136-0 381"7 9-0 26 22 10 # 9 148"4
384.5 9-0 28 24 16 9 # 9 133"4 382'7 9-0 28 22 9 # 9 148"4
385.3 9-0 30 23 16 9 # 9 130'7 382'7 9-0 30 21 9 # 9 141.7

467.1 10-0 12 35 19 11 # 9 210.4 459.9 10-0 12 31 10 # 10 258'3


467"5 10-0 14 34 19 11 # 9 208.1 461"2 10-0 14 30 10 # 10 250"0
468"6 10-0 16 33 19 11 # 9 205"6 462.4 10-0 16 29 10 # 10 241"6
469.0 10-0 18 32 18 11 # 9 198.2 463"7 10-0 18 28 10 # 10 233"3
469'4 10-0 20 31 18 11 # 9 195"6 463-7 10-0 20 28 I0 # 10 233'3
469"8 10~ 22 30 18 11 # 9 192-9 464'9 10-0 22 28 10 # 10 225-0
470-9 10-0 24 29 18 11 # 9 190-1 466"2 10-0 24 26 I0 # 10 216"6
471.3 10-0 26 28 18 I1 # 9 187"1 467.4 lifo 26 25 10 # 10 208-3
471.2 10~ 28 28 17 II # 9 183.3 468"7 10-0 28 25 10 # 10 208"3
472.2 10-0 30 26 17 11 # 9 176-4 468.7 10-0 30 24 10 # 10 200-0
Automatic Design o f Sloped Spread Footings 57

Table 2. Square footings table. Sloped footings vs. fiat footings


It" = 2500 l~Si f~ = 20 000 psi soil press. = 10 000 psf)

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)

348"8 6-0 10 30 21 7 # 8 74'4 347.8 6-0 10 26 8#8 78'0


349'4 6--0 12 28 20 7 # 8 70"5 348'2 6-0 12 25 8#8 75.0
349"8 6-0 14 27 19 7 # 8 67"8 348.7 6-0 14 24 8#8 72-0
350"2 6-0 16 26 18 9 # 7 65'2 349.1 6-0 16 23 10# 7 69"0
350'3 6--0 18 24 17 9 # 7 61-1 349.6 6-0 18 22 10# 7 66"0
350"7 6-0 20 24 17 8 # 7 61.4 350.0 6-0 20 21 10# 7 63"0
351"1 6-0 22 23 16 8 # 7 58.8 350"5 6-0 22 21 9#7 63"0
351'3 6-0 24 21 15 8 # 7 54-5 350"9 6-0 24 20 9#7 60.0
351"7 6-0 26 21 15 8 # 7 54"9 351"4 6--0 26 19 9#7 57.0
352-1 6-0 28 20 14 10 # 6 52"2 351'8 6-0 28 18 11# 6 54.0

473'3 7-0 12 33 23 8 # 9 111"0 471"6 7-0 12 30 8#9 122"4


473"2 7-0 14 32 22 8 # 9 •07"4 472'2 7-0 14 29 8#9 118-4
473'8 7-0 16 31 21 9 # 8 103"8 472"8 7-0 16 28 10# 8 114'3
474"6 7-0 18 29 20 I0 # 8 98"4 473-4 7-0 18 27 10# 8 110'2
475"1 7-0 20 29 20 9 # 8 98"9 474"0 7-0 20 26 10# 8 106"1
475-7 7-0 22 28 19 9 # 8 95-3 474-6 7-0 22 25 10# 8 102'0
475.9 7-0 24 26 18 9 # 8 89"7 475'2 7-0 24 24 10# 8 98.0
476"4 7-0 26 26 18 8 # 8 90"1 475"9 7-0 26 23 9#8 93.9
477-0 7-0 28 25 17 11 # 7 86"5 475"9 7-0 28 22 12# 7 89-8
477"2 7-0 30 23 17 11 # 7 82-6 476"5 7-0 30 21 12# 7 85-7

615'1 8-0 14 37 25 I0 # 9 160-0 612"7 8-0 14 33 11# 9 175.9


615'8 8-0 16 36 24 10 # 9 155"3 613"5 8-0 16 32 11# 9 170-6
616.9 8-0 18 35 24 10# 9 153'6 614"3 8-0 18 31 11# 9 165'3
617'6 8-0 20 34 23 10# 9 148-9 615-1 8-0 20 30 11# 9 159"9
617"5 8-0 22 33 22 9 # 9 144'2 615-9 8--0 22 29 10# 9 154"6
618-6 8-0 24 31 21 10 # 9 137"0 616'7 8-0 24 28 10# 9 149"3
619'3 8-0 26 31 21 9 # 9 137"6 617'5 8-0 26 27 10# 9 143"9
620'0 8-0 28 30 20 11 # 8 132'9 618'3 8-0 28 27 12# 8 143-9
620"3 8-0 30 28 19 11 # 8 125"5 619"I 8-0 30 26 12# 8 138.6
621"0 8-0 32 28 19 I1 # 8 126"1 619-9 8-0 32 25 12# 8 133"3

775"7 9-0 16 41 27 IOB 10 221"4 772-5 9--0 16 36 11 # 10 242.9


777'0 9-0 18 40 27 10# 10 219"4 773"5 9-0 18 35 11 # 10 236"2
776'9 9-0 20 39 26 10# 10 213"4 774"5 9-0 20 34 11 # 10 229'4
777"8 9-0 22 38 25 10# 10 207"5 775"5 9-0 22 34 11 # I0 229.4
779-1 9-0 24 36 24 12 # 9 198"5 776'5 9-0 24 33 13# 9 222-7
780"0 9-0 26 36 24 12 # 9 199"3 777.5 9-0 26 32 13# 9 215.9
779"9 9-0 28 35 23 11 # 9 193.4 778.6 9-0 28 31 13# 9 209-2
781'3 9-0 30 33 22 12 # 9 184'2 779.6 9-0 30 30 12# 9 202-4
782"2 9-0 32 33 22 11 # 9 185"0 779"6 9-0 32 29 12# 9 195.7
783"1 9-0 34 32 21 11 # 9 179.0 780'6 9-0 34 28 12# 9 188.9

953-4 10-0 18 45 30 10 # 11 301"6 948"7 10-0 18 40 11 # 11 333'3


954"6 10-0 20 44 29 12 # 10 294"3 949"9 10-0 20 39 13 # 10 325'0
955.7 104) 22 43 28 12 # 10 286"9 951"2 10-0 22 38 13 # 10 316-6
957"3 10-0 24 41 27 12 # 10 276"0 952"4 10-0 24 37 13 # 10 308'3
957"1 10-0 26 41 27 12 # 10 277"0 953"7 10-0 26 36 13 # 10 300-0
958-2 10-0 28 40 26 12 # 10 269"6 954"9 10-4) 28 35 13 # 10 291 "6
959'9 10-4) 30 38 25 12 # 10 258"5 956"2 104) 30 34 13 # 10 283 "3
961.0 10-0 32 38 25 11 # 10 259'5 957"4 104) 32 33 13 # 10 275.0
960.9 104) 34 37 24 11 # 10 252"1 958'7 10-0 34 32 13 # 10 266"6
962"6 104) 36 35 23 14 # 9 240'7 959'9 10-0 36 32 15# 9 266"6
58 A. Pisanty and M. Gellert

From the initial design load the footing's weight


is reduced and the footing redesigned. The process
is repeated until a tolerance of I in. is achieved,
Soft pressure 20001b/ft 2
A minimum concrete cover of 3 in. is provided 30

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

In the final stage the design of each footing is 20


#
completed by checking tensile stresses of concrete (a) .... :'

in flexure. For values lower than 1-6 ~,/(.f'~) rein- ', 5

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

Soil pressure=5000 ib/ft 2


EVALUATION AND COMPARISON 25
OF RESULTS
~'~ Concrele
20
Reinforcemenl z, , . . ' ' " ' ,. : ' ' ' ' ' "
Concrete and reinforcement quantities for sloped 2~ L `%
+~ L m

footings having a maximum slope of 1:3 (approx. (b)


"6
18.5 ° ) are compared with flat footings. The "8
:\
comparison indicates sharp reductions for low soil 2~
pressures which tend, however, to diminish for
higher soil pressures. For soil pressure of 2000 psf.
the concrete quantities approach average values of 4 ~ 8 L! !4 ¢ iB

30 per cent less than those in fiat footings, while the Eootrng'S size. ft

corresponding reduction of reinforcement ap-


proaches 20 per cent. For increased soil pressures,
concrete reduction tends to be less significant, until
it vanishes for 20 000 psf, while reinforcement is
approximately 10 per cent less, mainly due to the 15t ,'. Concrete Soil pressure =lOOO0 Ib/ft 2

increased footing depth at the centre of the footing, ,3 Reinforcement


Tables I and 2 provide a small range of the values ~O (C) ~ 0 ' "

obtained for soil pressures of 5000 and 10 000 psf.


DE
respectively compared with values for fiat footings
produced by the same computer program. 2 4 ~ 5 IC 12 4 Ig ,B
Figure 6(a-e) provides a graphical representation FoOtlng's size, ft
of the average reductions of concrete and reinforce- Soi} pressure= 1 5 0 0 0 I b / f t 2
ment quantities for five different values of soil
A Concrete
pressures. Reinforcement
(d) '~
(
~ ,s ~ , : :' ::~:'
CONCLUDING REMARKS
A procedure for the design of sloped spread 4 6 8 i,C* t2 4 t6 ~8
Footing's size, ft
footings is outlined following the provisions of the
SoJI pressure= 2 © O 0 0 ~b/f t z
proposed ACI Code 318-71. A computer program
performing the automatical design is explained. L5 L COncrete
} c Reinforcemen!
The tabulated values presented in this paper serve
(e) c , , ~
as an example and for comparison purposes. The
authors intend to produce tables covering a wide
range of footing sizes. Tables appear to be in many 0 LO ' £' £' "~ ~" '
ways preferable to nomographs and design aids of 2 4 6 8 I0 [2 14 J6 J5

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).

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

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:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy