You are on page 1of 54

Alexander Newman, P.E.

1
1
Foundations for Metal Building Systems
ASCE Web Seminar
Presented by Alexander Newman
Copyright 2007--2012 Alexander Newman
All rights reserved.
Reproduction of this material without a written permission
of the copyright holder is a violation of the U.S. law
2
Introduction
Some Reference Sources
A. Newman, Foundation and Anchor Design Guide for Metal
Building Systems, McGraw-Hill, 2013
A. Newman, Metal Building Systems: Design and
Specifications, 2
nd
ed. (McGraw-Hill, 2004)
2-day ASCE Seminar: Design and Strengthening of Shallow
Foundations for Conventional and Pre-engineered Buildings
ASCE Webinars Design of Anchor Bolts and Design of
Concrete Embedments for Shear and Tension
Alexander Newman, P.E.
2
3
Agenda
Introduction to metal building systems
The main issues
Tie rods
Hairpins
Moment-resisting foundations
Trench footings, mats
Slab with haunch
Foundations for Quonset Hut-type buildings
Q&A
Introduction
4
Introduction to Metal Building Systems
Two Main Types of MBS
Frame-and-purlin types: Concentrated reactions on
foundations
Single-slope rigid frames
Multiple-span rigid frames
Tapered beam
Trusses
Quonset Hut-Style:
Distributed reactions
Arrival and Departure Airfield
Control Facility, Pope AFB, NC
(USACE)
Alexander Newman, P.E.
3
5
Introduction to Metal Building Systems
Frame-and-Purlin System
RIGIDFRAME
COLUMN
GIRT
FRAME
WIDTH
CLEAR
SPAN
RIGIDFRAME
BRACING
ROOFSYSTEM
ROOFPURLIN
EAVESTRUT
ENDWALLFRAME
BAYSPACING
EAVE
HEIGHT
6
Main Issues
What Makes MBS Foundations Different From
Conventional?
Light weight => large net uplift
Large lateral reactions at columns
Alexander Newman, P.E.
4
7
Main Issues
Do Manufacturers Design Foundations?
MBMA Metal Building Systems Manual, Common Industry
Practices, Para. 3.2.2: Mfr is responsible only for providing
loads to Builder, not foundation or A.B. design.
8
Main Issues
Foundations Designed Before the Building
Some say, Foundation design is provided for bid purposes
only; the actual sizes to be determined by contractor using
similar details. But this introduces another party?
USACE TI 809-30, Metal Building Systems, Appendix
Alexander Newman, P.E.
5
9
Main Issues
Reliability and Redundancy vs. Cost
Establishing Size of Column Piers
10
Main Issues
Estimating reactions:
1. Mfrs tables (check code!)
see App. D of MBS book
2. Specialized software
3. General analysis software
4. Use reference books
(e.g., Kleinlogel, Rigid Frame
Formulas, 1964)
5. Asking a mfr
With reaction uncertainty, conservative approach makes sense
Alexander Newman, P.E.
6
11
Main Issues
What Loads Are We Designing For?
MBMA Metal Building Systems Manual App. A3 refers to
sources suggesting that only 70% of total wind load on frame
needs to be considered in foundation design (but 100% for
anchor bolts)
IBC 2009 ASD Basic Load Combinations include:
0.6D + W + H (H = lateral earth pressure)
0.6D + 0.7E + H
IBC 2012 ASD Basic Load Combinations include:
0.6D + 0.6W + H
0.6(D + F) + 0.7E + H
12
Main Issues
Wind and Seismic Loads + Dead
Using ASD Basic Alternative Load Combinations
IBC 2009 (D + L + w W)
IBC 2012 (D + L + 0.6w W),
must use only 2/3 of the minimum dead load likely to be in
place
For seismic, ASCE 7 Sec. 12.13.4 allows foundation design for
75% of M
OT
at the base, but IBC-09 and -12 do not allow it with
Basic Alternative Load Combinations.
Alexander Newman, P.E.
7
13
Main Issues
1/3 Stress Increase with Wind & Seismic Loads?
IBC-03 Para. 1616.1 allows soil stresses from wind and
seismic increased by 1/3 when alternate load combinations
used
IBC-06 does not?
Para. 1605.3.1.1: No stress increase for basic load combs.
Para. 1605.3.2: For alternate, stress increase is allowed
where permitted by the material chapter of this code or
the referenced standard. [None given.] Cannot use
reduction of OT allowed by Sec. 12.13.4 ASCE 7-05, when
checking OT, sliding, bearing.
=> 1/3 stress increase is probably not allowed in IBC-06
14
Main Issues
1/3 Stress Increase, Contd
IBC-09 and IBC-12 allow it
Section 1806.1 specifically permits a one-third stress
increase for alternative basic combinations using ASD that
include wind or seismic loads.
Applies to vertical foundation pressures and lateral
bearing pressures in IBC Table 1806.2, Presumptive Load-
Bearing Values.
How about other allowable values determined by geotech.
investigation?
Alexander Newman, P.E.
8
15
Main Issues
Avoid Fixed-Base Columns
16
Main Issues
Resisting Uplift
Ballast by soil
F.S. 1.5 for transient loads (Fig. 17 of NAVFAC 7.2),
or -- implied through load combinations?
- Count soil shear
resistance? (Neglected in
NAVFAC 7.2)
- Reduce in areas subject
to flooding
NAVFAC 7.2, Figure 17
Alexander Newman, P.E.
9
17
Main Issues
Design Example: Proportion Footing for Uplift
Problem: Size the interior foundation of multi-span rigid
frame, using basic IBC-12 load combinations for:
A
trib
= 60 x 25= 1500 ft
2
Loads: D = 3 psf,
S (design roof snow) = 30 psf
0.6Wuplift = 14 psf
Min. depth = 3 below floor, F
p
= 4000 psf
18
Main Issues
Design Example, Contd
Solution:
Compute loads
D = 3 x 1500 = 4500 lbs = 4.5 kips
S = 30 x 1500 = 45,000 = 45 kips
0.6W= 14 x 1500 = 21,000 lbs = 21 kips
Total downward (D + S) = 4.5 + 45 = 49.5 kips
Total uplift (0.6D + 0.6W) = 0.6 x 4.5 21 = 18.3 kips
Alexander Newman, P.E.
10
19
Main Issues
Design Example, Contd
Foundation weight, assuming ave. wt of soil, SOG, found. =
0.130 kips/ft
3
x 3 = 0.390 ksf
Net available soil pressure is 4.0 0.39 = 3.61 ksf
A
rq
for downward load is 49.5/3.61 = 13.71 ft
2
=> Could use 3.7 by 3.7 footing for downward load
20
Main Issues
Design Example, Contd
Find min. size for uplift from 0.6D
min, found
+ 0.6W = 0
D
min, found
= 18.3/0.6 = 30.5 kips, or 30.5/0.130 = 234.62 ft
3
of
ave. weight of ballast.
If depth of footing = 3, need min. square footing size of
(234.62/3)
1/2
= 8.84
Could use 8.0 by 8.0 footing, with depth = 234.62/(8)
2
= 3.66
Use 8.0 x 8.0footing, 3- 8 deep
Size controlled by uplift!
Alexander Newman, P.E.
11
21
Main Issues
Resisting Horizontal Reactions
22
Tie Rods
Tie Rods
Various designs
Alexander Newman, P.E.
12
23
Tie Rods
Common but Questionable Tie Rod Detail
24
Tie Rods
Problems with Tie Rods
Need mechanical connections and corrosion protection
ACI 318-08 and -11 Sec. 12.15.6: Splices in tension tie
members shall be made with a full mechanical or full
welded spliceand splices in adjacent bars shall be
staggered at least 30 in.
Sag under own wt. Turnbuckle tough to fit in sheath
A problem to use at pits, trenches
Elongate under load Use F
t
<<0.6F
y
Alexander Newman, P.E.
13
25
Tie Rods
Design Example: Tie Rod Elongation
Given: L = 120 ft, P = 36 kips, F
y
= 60 ksi
If F
t
= 36 ksi, A
rq
= 36/36 = 1.0 in
2
or one #9 bar.
This can damage frame, finishes. (2) #9 bars would halve that.
If F
t
= 24 ksi, A
rq
= 36/24 = 1.5 in
2
or (2) #8 bars (A = 1.58 in
2
)
=> Can use (2) #9 bars to reduce elongation
AE
PL
rod = A
side ea at movement or rod " 9 . 0 " 79 . 1
000 , 29 00 . 1
12 120 36
=


= A
26
Tie Rods
Tie Rods in Grade Beams
Determine bar area by controlling elongation
Alexander Newman, P.E.
14
27
Tie Rods
PT Tie Rods
Need concrete, or PT and
wind stresses are additive
(esp. @ base pl)
Cantilever-beam pier action
with passive pressure at
base
28
Tie Rods
PT Tie Rods, Contd
Tendon placed in center of grade beam
Beam and pier placed together
12-16 below floor
Corrosion-resistant coating
A 36k compressive force in 16 x16 => f
c
= 0.141 ksi
To reduce upward pressure on beam, place on soft material
or cardboard
Alexander Newman, P.E.
15
29
Hairpins
Hairpins: How They Work
Some take F
t
in rebar = 24 ksi and in WWF, 20 ksi
30
Hairpins
Hairpins, Contd
What if the slab is cut?
May be OK for smaller buildings
without joints or plumbing
Alexander Newman, P.E.
16
31
Hairpins
Design Example: Hairpins in SOG
Find length of hairpins L
hair
as follows:
Projected length of tensile crack ~ L
hair
x 1.41 x 2 = 2.82 L
hair
For a given A
wire
can find tension capacity per ft of width, T
all
E.g., for WWF 6x6-W1.4x1.4 (old 66-1010) A
wire
= 0.028 in
2
/ft
T
all
= 0.028 x 20 (ksi) x 2.82 L
hair
= 1.58 x L
hair
(kip)
If T = 10 kip, L
hair
= 10/1.58 = 6.33 ft
For #4 bars @18 o.c., A
bar
= 0.13 in
2
/ft and
T
all
= 0.13 x 24 (ksi) x 2.82 L
hair
= 8.80 x L
hair
(kip)
If T = 10 kip, L
hair
= 10/8.8 = 1.13 ft (but use min 5 ft)
Add to that development length of hairpin bar or hook
32
Hairpins
Hairpin Design Example, Contd
Find hairpin bar size for T = 10 kip:
A
hair
= 10(0.707)/24 ksi = 0.29 in
2
Use # 5 hooked hairpins ~ 7 ft long
Alexander Newman, P.E.
17
33
Moment-Resisting Footings
Moment-Resisting Footings
Resist OT and sliding
Different proportions than in retaining walls
(+) and (-)s
F.S. per CRSI
Design
Handbook:
Sliding 1.5
Overturning 2.0
At service loads
34
Moment-Resisting Footings
Forces Acting on Moment-Resisting
Foundations
Can use K
a
@ rotations > 0.1% H
Alexander Newman, P.E.
18
35
Moment-Resisting Footings
Active and Passive Pressure
Rankine formulas use fluid analogy:
P
a
= K
a
(h) K
a
= tan
2
(45
o
- /2)
P
p
= K
p
(h) K
p
= tan
2
(45
o
+ /2)

|
strength shear for
envelope failure
s ' Mohr from found
, friction ernal int
of angle = |
|
|
|

36
Moment-Resisting Footings
Active and Passive Pressure, Contd
Common values for drainable fill (sand, gravel free of fines):
For mixed grain sizes with fines, dense enough for low
permeability, all these increase. E.g.,
However, some codes provide design lateral loads directly
00 . 3 33 . 0 = = 30 =
p a
K K
o
|
69 . 3 271 . 0 35 = = =
p a
K K
o
|
Alexander Newman, P.E.
19
37
Moment-Resisting Footings
Active and Passive Pressure, Contd
ASCE 7-10 Table 3.2-1 (ASCE 7-05 Table 3-1), Design Lateral
Soil Load gives lateral pressures directly
E.g, Well-graded and poorly graded clean gravel &
gravel/sand mixes (GW and GP); silty gravels: 35 psf/ft
But use 60 psf/ft for relatively rigid walls, as when
braced by floors. Basement walls extending < 8 below
grade and supporting light floors are excepted.
38
Soil Lateral Load per IBC
Backfill Material (per ASTM D 2487)
Unified
Soil
Classifn
Design
active
pressure
(psf/ ft of
depth)
Design at-
rest
pressure
(psf/ ft of
depth)
Well- and poorly-graded clean gravels or
sands; gravel-sand mixes
GW, GP,
SW, SP
30 60
Silty sands, poorly graded sand-silt mixes SM 45 60
Clayey sands, poorly graded sand-clay
mixes; mixture of inorganic silt and clay;
inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity
SC,
ML-CL,
CL
60 100
Notes:
1. Table derived from IBC-12 Table 1610.1 (partial table is shown)
2. Design loads are for optimum densities add hydrostatic loading for saturated soil
3. Can design basement wall extending <8 below grade and supporting flexible floor
systems for active pressure
Alexander Newman, P.E.
20
39
Soil Passive Resistance per IBC
Material Lateral
bearing (psf/ft
below natural
grade)
Lateral
sliding
coefficient
of friction
Lateral
sliding
resistance
(psf)
Sandy gravel and/or gravel 200 0.35 --
Sand, silty sand, clayey sand,
silty gravel, clayey gravel
150 0.25 --
Clay, sandy clay, silty clay,
clayey silt, silt, sandy silt
100 -- 130 x
contact area
Notes:
1. Partial IBC-09, -12 Table 1806.2is shown
2. Total lateral sliding resistance =lateral bearing +lateral sliding
3. Increases may be permitted if data submitted and approved, but max. sliding
resistance for clay, sandy clay, silty clay, clayey silt = DL
4. Table values for lateral sliding resistance can be increased by the tabular value
for each additional ft of depth to a max of 15 times the tabular value.
40
Moment-Resisting Footings
Soil Friction: Simplified Method
F
res
= (W + P
v
) F > F.S. x P
h
~ 0.5 coefficient of friction, but perhaps not for slabs on
vapor barrier
Alexander Newman, P.E.
21
41
Moment-Resisting Footings
IBC Factors of Safety against OT and Sliding
IBC-09, -12: None for foundations, but Para. 1807.2.3
requires a factor of safety of 1.5 for both overturning and
sliding of retaining walls, without using the load
combinations of IBC Section 1605. Instead, 100% of the
nominal loads should be used (except 70% of seismic load);
consider some variable loads = 0.
Except use F.S. = 1.1 for EQ load
42
Moment-Resisting Footings
IBC Factors of Safety, Contd
SF against lateral sliding = (available soil resistance at
base)/(net lateral force applied to the retaining wall)
Net means passive pressure can be used?
CRSI Design Handbook: For retaining walls, F.S. against
sliding 1.5, overturning 2.0 at service loads
Alexander Newman, P.E.
22
43
Moment-Resisting Footings
Sliding Resistance With Shear Keys
General
method
Must be in
undisturbed
soil
NAVFAC DM-7.2
44
Moment-Resisting Footings
Can Passive Pressure and Soil Friction be
Combined?
The problem
IBC-06 Para. 1804.3, Lateral Sliding Resistance:
The resistance of structural walls to lateral sliding shall be
calculated by combining the values derived from the
lateral bearing and the lateral sliding resistance shown in
Table 1804.2 unless data to substantiate the use of higher
values are submitted for approval.
Alexander Newman, P.E.
23
45
Moment-Resisting Footings
Combining Passive Pressure & Soil Friction,
Contd
IBC-09, IBC-12 Para. 1806.3.1, Combined Resistance:
The total resistance to lateral loads shall be permitted to be
determined by combining the values derived from the
lateral bearing pressure and the lateral sliding resistance
specified in Table 1806.2.
The previous para. prefaces this, Where the presumptive
values of Table 1806.2 are used
46
Moment-Resisting Footings
Design Procedure
Alexander Newman, P.E.
24
47
Moment-Resisting Foundations
MRF Design Procedure
Depends on Eccentricity
Rely on passive pressure for
sliding only
M = F
h
x H + M
fix
48
Moment-Resisting Foundations
The Pressure Wedge Method
When P is beyond kern
Alexander Newman, P.E.
25
49
Design Example: Moment-Resisting Foundation
Design the moment-resisting foundation for an industrial building framed with a
metal building system. The primary framing consists of single-span rigid frames
with pin-base columns. The frames have an eave height of 18 ft., span 80 ft.,
and are spaced 25 ft. on centers. The frost depth is 3.5 ft. Each column is
supported by a 24-in square pedestal (pier), the top of which is 6 in. above the
adjacent soil. A continuous foundation wall, of the same depth as the column
footing, exists between the piers. The 6-in. slab on grade covers the interior of
the building. The column vertical loads are applied at the center of the pier. The
roof snow load is 30 psf. Use the frame reactions from the tables in the
Appendix. Assume the following material properties:
Soil weight: 120 lbs/ft
3
Concrete unit weight: 150 lbs/ft
3
Allowable bearing pressure of soil: 3 ksf.
Concrete 28-day compressive strength: f
c
= 4000 psi.
Assume soil is clean sand free of fines and use parameters from CRSI Design
Handbook:
= 30
o
, K
a
= 0.33, K
p
= 3.00, = 0.55.
50
Determine the design column reactions
The following column reactions are used for an 80-ft wide frame:
- Vertical: dead 4.8 kip, snow 30.9 kip
- Horizontal: dead 2.9 kip, snow 21.8 kip
-0.6xWind reactions on the right-side column, wind from right to left
(assume wind load = 0.6W for IBC load combinations) :
Horizontal: 13.6 kip (inward)
Vertical: 12.2 kip (uplift)
- 0.6Wind reactions on the left-side column, wind from right to left:
Horizontal: 3.1 kip (outward); vertical: 8.4 kip (uplift)
Design the foundation for the right-side column for the following controlling
load combinations:
1. Dead + Snow load. Vertical: 4.8 + 30.9 = 35.7 kips (downward);
horizontal: 2.9 + 21.8 = 24.7 kips (acting outward).
2. Dead + 0.6Wind load from right. Vertical: 4.8 - 12.2 = - 7.4 kips (uplift);
horizontal: 2.9 -13.6 = -10.7 kips (inward).
Alexander Newman, P.E.
26
51
Proportion the foundation
Establish the foundation size to resist overturning, sliding, and uplift. The
foundation size is determined by trial and error.
Case 1: Dead + Snow load
P = 35.7 kips (downward), F
H
= 24.7 kip (outward).
This case provides the largest horizontal force on the foundation. The force acts
in the direction away from the building. Try a footing 9 ft. long, 4 ft. wide and 2 ft.
thick, with 2 ft. by 2 ft. column pier.
W
3
P
W
1
W
2
Point of rotation
6
1-6
2-0
4-6 4-6
2-0 3-0 4-0
1-0 1-0
W
4
W
o
e
F
H
A
l
52
Alexander Newman, P.E.
27
53
54
Alexander Newman, P.E.
28
55
56
Alexander Newman, P.E.
29
57
58
ACI
Alexander Newman, P.E.
30
59
60
Alexander Newman, P.E.
31
61
62
Alexander Newman, P.E.
32
63
64
Alexander Newman, P.E.
33
65
66
Alexander Newman, P.E.
34
67
68
Alexander Newman, P.E.
35
69
Example of a similar footing
70
Trench Footings
Trench Footings
Need cohesive soils to support excavation
Alexander Newman, P.E.
36
71
Trench Footings
Trench Footings, Contd
Some local codes require
forming
Best to form the top 6
Uplift and horizontal
resistance similar to grade
beam (next)
72
Mats
Mats
Alexander Newman, P.E.
37
73
Deep Foundations
Deep Foundations
Pier and grade beam
Piles
74
Slab with Haunch
Slab with Haunch
Common sizes: 24-30 deep, 24 wide
May be wider and deeper at columns
Not for areas of expansive soils or deep frost lines
May not be enough wt or passive pressure Slab cracks!
A crack will almost surely occur in the floor slab at the point where the
grade beam starts. Metal Building Systems by Building Systems
Institute (an industry group), 1990.
Alexander Newman, P.E.
38
75
Forming Slab with a Haunch per USACE
USACE
76
Slab with Haunch
Slab with Haunch: General Approach
Using weight of footing to counteract eccentricity of load
Works for light load, heavy footing, little lateral load
Alexander Newman, P.E.
39
77
Slab with Haunch
Slab with a Haunch in MBS
For inward lateral load, weight of monolithically placed grade
beam is essential
Grade beam has to be reinforced to carry its weight
suspended
78
Slab with Haunch
Slab with a Haunch in MBS, Contd
For outward lateral load, contribution of grade beam for
resisting OT is minimal Need larger footing, rather than rely
on slab, or use ties in slab (next)
Authors of Metal Building Systems by BSI do not recommend counting
on the slab shearing resistance for stability.
Alexander Newman, P.E.
40
79
Slab with Haunch
Design Example: Slab with Haunch
80
Alexander Newman, P.E.
41
81
82
Alexander Newman, P.E.
42
83
84
Alexander Newman, P.E.
43
85
86
Alexander Newman, P.E.
44
87
88
Alexander Newman, P.E.
45
89
90
Alexander Newman, P.E.
46
91
92
Alexander Newman, P.E.
47
93
94
Alexander Newman, P.E.
48
95
96
Alexander Newman, P.E.
49
97
Foundations for Quonset Hut-Type
Buildings
Photo: Capt. R. Vaira, USAF
98
Foundations for Quonset Hut-Type Buildings
Foundation Reactions with or without Base
Moment
Alexander Newman, P.E.
50
99
Photo: Capt. R.
Vaira, USAF
100
Foundations for Quonset Hut-Type Buildings
Typical Foundation Types
Grade beam without footing
Wall foundation with footing
Downturned slab
Note: Do not place
unbalanced fill until
concrete is fully cured!
Alexander Newman, P.E.
51
101
Foundations for Quonset Hut-Type Buildings
Resisting Distributed Building Reactions
For vertical loads, start with minimum width and depth sized
as needed for uplift.
Use min. wall reinforcement to span over hard spots.
E.g., for 16 x 24 beam
A
min
= 0.0025x16x24 = 0.96 in
2
or 4 # 5 bars (2 top & 2 bot.)
Resist horizontal reactions by passive soil pressure, ties, or
rebars
102
Foundations for Quonset Hut-Type Buildings
Design Example: Using Passive Pressure for F
h
Given: Soil is sand free of fines, density 115 #/cu. ft.
F
h
= 500 #/ft
Solution:
F
h
= 500 = (115)(h
2
)(3.00 0.33), from where
2 ft. of embedment seems enough
00 . 3 ; 33 . 0 = = 30 =
p a
K K
o
|
embedment of ft h . min 8 . 1
) 33 . 0 00 . 3 ( 115 ) 2 / 1 (
500
=

=
Alexander Newman, P.E.
52
103
Foundations for
Quonset Hut-Type
Buildings
But Dont Forget
Eccentricity of
Load
104
Foundations for Quonset Hut-Type Buildings
Alexander Newman, P.E.
53
105
Foundations for Quonset Hut-Type Buildings
106
Foundations for Quonset Hut-Type Buildings
Design Example: Resisting Horizontal Reactions
by Rebars or WWF in SOG
Given:
F
h
= 1 kip/ft
f
c
= 3000 psi,
f
y
= 60,000 psi,
F
p, allow
= 4 ksf
Alexander Newman, P.E.
54
107
Foundations for Quonset Hut-Type Buildings
Design Example, Contd
Using rebars (F
t
= 24 ksi)
per ft of width
Can use #4 @18 (A = 0.133 in
2
)
Using WWF (F
t
= 20 ksi)
A
wire, rq
= 1 kip/(20 ksi) = 0.05 in
2
/ft
Can use 6x6-W2.9xW2.9 (old style 66-66) with A
wire
= 0.058 in
2
/ft
But remember the caveats about slab cutting, joints,
trenches
2
042 . 0
24
) 1 (
in
ksi
kip
A
rq
= =
108
Q & A
Alexander-Newman@Outlook.com

You might also like