Foundation Verification Problems

RISAFoundation
Rapid Interactive Structural Analysis Foundations

Verification Problems

26632 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 210
Foothill Ranch, California 92610

(949) 9515815
(949) 9515848 (FAX)

www.risa.com

Copyright 2013 by RISA Technologies, LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of the contents of this
publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any means without the express written
permission of RISA Technologies, LLC.
We have done our best to insure that the material found in this publication is both useful and
accurate. However, please be aware that errors may exist in this publication, and that RISA
Technologies, LLC makes no guarantees concerning accuracy of the information found here or in
the use to which it may be put.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Verification Problem 1: Strip Footing Design .............................................................................................................. 3

Verification Problem 2: Square Spread Footing #1 ................................................................................................... 5
Verification Problem 3: Rectangular Spread Foot #1.............................................................................................. 7
Verification Problem 4: Pile Cap Shear .......................................................................................................................... 9
Verification Problem 5: Eccentrically Loaded Footing ......................................................................................... 13
Verification Problem 6: Cantilever Retaining Wall #1 .......................................................................................... 15
Verification Problem 7: Cantilever Retaining Wall #2 ........................................................................................... 17
Verification Problem 8: Rectangular Footing #2 ...................................................................................................... 19
Verification Problem 9: Square Footing #2 ................................................................................................................ 21
Verification Problem 10: Cantilever Retaining Wall #3 ........................................................................................ 23
Verification Problem 11: Pile Cap Design Example ................................................................................................. 25
Appendices
Appendix A10: Cantilever Retaining Wall #3 Calculations ....................................................................... A10.1
Appendix A11: Pile Cap Design Example Calculations ................................................................................ A11.1
Verification Overview
Verification Overview
Verification Methods
We at RISA Technologies maintain a library of hundreds of test problems used to validate the
computational aspects of RISA programs. In this verification package we will present a
representative sample of these test problems for your review and compare RISAFoundation to
textbook examples listed within each problem.
The input for these test problems was formulated to test RISAFoundations performance, not
necessarily to show how certain structures should be modeled and in some cases the input and
assumptions we use in the test problems may not match what a design engineer would do in a real
world application.
The data for each of these verification problems is provided. The files where these RISAFoundation
problems are located is in the C:\RISA\Examples directory and they are called Verification
Problem 1.fnd (2, 3, etc).
Verification Version
This document contains problems that have been verified in RISAFoundation version 5.0.2.
Verification Problem 1: Strip Footing Design

Design of a Wall Footing
This problem represents a typical design of a wall footing. The hand verification of this problem can
be taken directly from the 4th edition of Macgregor and Wights, Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and
Design (Example 161, p.802805).
Description/Problem Statement
A 12 in. thick concrete wall carries service dead and live loads of 10 kips per foot and 12.5 kips per
foot, respectively. The allowable soil pressure, qa, is 5 ksf at the level of the base of the footing,
which is 5 ft below the final ground surface. The wall footing has a strength of 3 ksi and fy = 60 ksi.
The density of the soil is 120 lb/ft3.Note that the text does not account for the selfweight of
the footing. Therefore, the RISA model has the density of the concrete material set to zero.

Figure 1.1 RISAFoundation Model View
Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually)
Value
RISAFoundation
Text Value
1
Factored Net Pressure, qnu (ksf)
6.19
6.19
% Difference
0
Vu (k/ft)
7.872
8.513
7.52
*Vc (k/ft)
9.613
9.374
2.59
Mu (k*ft/ft)
13.455
13.4
*Mn (k*ft/ft)
14.268
14.0
0.41
1.91
As min (in^2)
1.451
Table 1.1 Results Comparison
1.45
0.07
1The detail report for LC2 shows a Loading Diagram with 6.2 ksf on the toe end and 6.18 ksf on the
heel. The average of these values is used in the above table.

2The detail report shows a Vu Toe = 7.88 k/ft and a Vu Heel = 7.86 k/ft. The average of these values
is used in the above table.

3The value from the text is using a d = 8.5. RISAFoundation is being more exact and using d = 13
3 0.5/2 = 9.75. This produces a Vu = (1/12)*(259.75)*6.19 = 7.87 k/ft

4The value from the text is using d = 9.5 where RISAFoundation is being more exact and is using d
= 9.75. (9.75/9.5)*9.37 = 9.617 k/ft.
Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the textbook
design examples except in instances which are explained above.

Verification Problem 2: Square Spread Footing #1

Design of a Square Spread Footing
This problem represents a typical design of a square spread footing. The hand verification of this
problem can be taken directly from the 4th edition of Macgregor and Wights Reinforced Concrete
Mechanics and Design (Example 162, p.805810).
A square spread footing supports an 18 in. square column supporting service dead and live loads of
400 kips and 270 kips, respectively. The column is built of 5 ksi concrete and has eight No. 9
longitudinal bars with fy = 60 ksi. The footing has concrete of strength 3 ksi and Grade60 bars. The
top of the footing is covered with 6 in. of fill with a density of 120 lb/ft3 and a 6 in. basement floor.
The basement floor loading is 0.1 ksf. The allowable bearing pressure on the soil is 6 ksf. Load and
resistance factors are taken from ACI sections 9.2 and 9.3.


Solve the model and look at the detail report for the footing. Note that the text uses the net soil
bearing to calculate the size of footing. This size is used directly in RISAFoundation and thus the
soil overburden and selfweight are set to zero.
Comparison
Value
Soil Pressure, qu
(ksf)
RISAFoundation
Text Value
% Difference
7.311
7.31
11.6
Vu Punching (k)
804.591
804
0.07
*Vc Punching (k)
0.75*1128.747= 846.562
846
0.07
Vu OneWay (k)
204.254
204
0.12
*Vc OneWay (k)
0.75*411.134 = 308.352
308
0.11
Mu (k*ft)
954.34
954
0.04
7.763
8.41
7.73
As Required (in^2)
1To actually see this value, check the "Service" checkbox for LC 2 and solve the model. Then look at
the detail report in the Soil Bearing section. When viewing the rest of the results, uncheck this
checkbox and resolve.
2In RISAFoundation the V value is reported without the value. If the V value is multiplied by the
c
c
text then there is agreement.
3If you use RISAs value of A Required and calculate a new a, you will get a *M = 954.3 k*ft.
s
n
This value exceeds Mu. The As required by the text is using a back of the envelope calculation to
come up with As that is conservative in this case. When it comes to the calculation of *Mn RISA is
following ACI 31811 Section 10.5.3 in providing (4/3)*As required, whereas the text is not.
Conclusion
design examples except in instances which are explained above.

Verification Problem 3: Rectangular Spread Foot #1

Design of a Rectangular Spread Footing
This problem represents a typical design of a rectangular spread footing. The hand verification of
this problem can be taken directly from the 4th edition of Macgregor and Wights Reinforced
Concrete Mechanics and Design (Example 163, p.810812).
Note that the text uses the net soil bearing to calculate the size of footing. This size is used directly
in RISAFoundation and thus the soil overburden and selfweight are set to zero. This footing has
been designed assuming that the maximum width is 9 ft. Following the hand calculation from the
textbook the footing is found to be 9 wide by 13 8 long by 32 thick. The example assumes the
same net soil pressure of 7.31 ksf for both 162 and 163. However, (11.17 ft)2 = 124.77 ft2 and
13.666 ft * 9 ft = 123 ft2. Thus, the smaller footing in this example produces a slightly higher soil
pressure than the text.

Figure 3.1 RISAFoundation Detail Report View

The text example uses #8 bars in one direction and #5 bars in the other for the bottom steel. In
RISAFoundation this is not possible, so two footings have been created to verify the calculations.
Node N1 is using the #8 bars and node N2 is using #5 bars. When viewing the results in
RISAFoundation use the footing node numbers given in Table 3.1 below.
Comparison
Value
RISAFoundation
Text Value
% Difference
Vu OneWay (k) N1
250.23
247
1.31
*Vc OneWay (k) N1
0.75*331.263 = 248.45
248
0.18
Mu Long (k*ft) N1
1234.69
1217
1.45
As Min Long (in2) N1
6.221
6.22
0.02
As Provided Long (in2) N1
10.21 in2 (13 #8 bars)
11.1 in2 (14#8 bars)1
8.02
Mu Short (k*ft) N1
712.5
702
1.5
As Min Short (in2) N2
9.446
9.45
0.4
9.51 in2 (31 #5 bars; 25 9.61 in2 (31#5 bars; 25

are banded)
are banded)
0

1In the text approximate methods are used to determine A Reqd. We can see that the *M = 1330
s
n
k*ft. RISAFoundation is able to remove a bar and still produce a *Mn greater than Mu.
As Provided Short (in2) N2
Conclusion
design examples, except in the instances explained above.
Verification Problem 4: Pile Cap Shear

Design for Depth of Footing on Piles
This problem represents the design for a footing supported on piles. The hand verification of this
problem can be taken directly from PCAs Notes on ACI 31805 Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete (Example 22.7, p.2220).
Footing Size
Column Size
Pile Diameter

fc
Load per Pile:

PD

PL
=
=
=
=
8.5 x 8.5
16 x 16
12 in.
4000 psi
=
=
20 kips
10 kips

Note that RISAFoundation will not place top steel reinforcement in a pile cap unless there is tension
in the top face of the pile cap. For this reason a 1 kip*ft moment was added to the OL1 load
category. This is to force top steel, as this affects the pile punching shear checks. If there is no
reinforcement in the top then the program considers the cap unreinforced for punching shear
calculations.

Comparison
Value
Oneway Beam Shear
Capacity, Vn (kips)
Pedestal Punching
Shear Capacity, Vn
(kips)
Corner Pile Punching
Shear Capacity, Vn
(kips)
Comparison of Results (Units in kips)

RISAFoundation
Text Value
% Difference
180.629*0.75 = 135.471
135.4

0.05
320/1.004 = 318.732
319
0.08
141.913
217
NA3
1The program gives Vn explicitly, so the Phi was multiplied in here to get Phi*Vn.
2The Phi*Vn is not given explicitly. The program gives the demand and the code check, so the
calculation above shows what Phi*Vn is in RISAFoundation.

3A couple of things are occurring here. For one, we are transforming the round punching shear
perimeter into an equivalent square perimeter. Thus, this would create a difference. Second, and
more importantly, the punching shear capacity is based on the smallest possible shear perimeter,
bo. The PCA notes example assumes that the punching shear perimeter would occur all the way
around the pile, as shown in Figure 4.2 below.

Figure 4.2

In reality, however, the crack will perpetuate through a distance d from the edge of the pile. D/2
occurs at midway along the crack and is used for calculation purposes. However, the crack would
look like this in an elevation view, as shown in Figure 4.3.
10

Figure 4.3

Because of this the punching shear perimeter can not be taken as shown in the PCA notes. Instead
you really only have a partial perimeter because you will break out the corner before you get all the
way around. In RISA, including the square perimeter adjustment, it would look as shown in Figure
4.4.
Figure 4.4
11
Conclusion
design examples.
12
Verification Problem 5: Eccentrically Loaded Footing

Footing Under Biaxial Moment
This problem represents the case where a footing may be subjected to an axial force and biaxial
moments about its x and yaxes. This example comes from the Design of Reinforced Concrete
Structures, copyright 1985 Hassoun (Example 13.7, p.409413).
A 12 by 24 column of an unsymmetrical shed is subjected to an axial load PD = 220 kips and a
moment MD = 180 kft due to dead load, and an axial load PL = 165 kips and a moment ML = 140 kft
due to live load. The base of the footing is 5 ft. below final grade and the allowable soil bearing
pressure is 5 ksf. The footing has strength of 4 ksi and a steel yield of 40 ksi. Note that the text
does not account for the selfweight of the footing. Therefore, the RISA model has the
density of the concrete material set to zero.


13
Comparison
% Difference
Value
Method 1 Soil Pressure,
qn (ksf)
RISAFoundation
4.283
Text Value
(87.1/90)*4.42
= 4.2771
Method 1 Muxx (k*ft)
687.2
687.4
0.03
Method 1 Muzz (k*ft)

Method 2 Soil Pressure
Max, qn (ksf)
Method 2 Soil Pressure
Min, qn (ksf)
523.11
523.2
0.02
4.43
4.422
0.23
1.973
1.98
0.35
873.6
873
0.07
Method 2 Muxx (k*ft)

0.07
1The text book calculates a required area of 87.1 in^2. They then choose an area of 90 in^2. Thus,
their value has been adjusted.

2The text book example has an error. They state that 3.20 + 1.22 = 4.22 ksf when calculating q
for method 2. This should be 4.42 ksf.
max
Conclusion
design examples.
14
Verification Problem 6: Cantilever Retaining Wall #1

Design of a Cantilever Retaining Wall
This example comes from the Principles of Foundation Engineering, 3rd Edition by Das, copyright
1995. This is example A.8 on P798. In this problem we will compare the serviceability checks for a
retaining wall example to the output from RISAFoundation.
The cross section of a cantilever retaining wall is shown below. For this case, fy = 413.7 MN/m2 and
fc = 20.68 MN/m2.
Notes:
RISAFoundation uses Rankines method to calculate lateral soil pressure coefficients. This
example uses Coulombs method. Because of this the KLat Toe was set to 2.04.
The coefficient of friction in this example is calculated as: Tan (2/3*) = 0.237. This is the
value entered in the program.
The ultimate bearing pressure is in this example is calculated as 574.07, so this is entered as
the allowable bearing in the program.

15
Comparison
Value
Mresist Against
Overturning (kNm/m)
RISAFoundation
Text Value
% Difference
1030.034
1044.3 (1128.98)1
1.37
Moverturning (kNm/m)
Vresist Against Sliding
(kN/m)
379.047
0.05
147.278
379.25
433.17 171.39
106.67 = 155.12
5.04
Vsliding (kN/m)
Max Bearing Pressure
(kPa)
158.853
158.95
0.06
Bearing UC
189.23
189.2/574.07 =
.347
.3293
199.349
5.36
5.47
1The text book accounts for the sloping outer face of the wall, which RISAFoundation does not.
Also, the vertical portion of the soil force in the text is assumed to act at the edge of the heel. In
RISAFoundation we assume this force to act at the inside face of the wall. These differences would
equal 1128.98 11.79 2.6*28.03 = 1044.312 kNm/m.
2The text book assumes cohesion. RISAFoundation assumes cohesionless soil. They give a Vresist
= 111.5 + 106.7 + 215 = 433.17 kN/m. The 106.7 is a cohesion term that RISA doesnt account for.
The 215 comes passive pressure including cohesion. The cohesion term = 171.39 kN/m which RISA
doesnt account for. Accounting for these cohesion differences between RISAFoundation and the
text gives a value = 433.17 171.39 106.67 = 155.1 kN/m.
3The text uses the M
resist to calculate the bearing pressure. Because this is different, the pressure
calculation is different.
Conclusion
design examples after accounting for differences in calculation procedures.
16

Design of Reinforced Concrete Cantilever Retaining Walls
In this problem we will compare the serviceability checks for a retaining wall example to the output
from RISAFoundation. This example comes from Reinforced Concrete Design, Third Edition,
copyright 1992 by Spiegel and Limbrunner. This is design example 81 on P214.
Design Data: unit weight of earth we = 100 lb/ft3, allowable soil pressure = 4,000 psf, equivalent
fluid weight Kawe = 30 100 lb/ft3, and surcharge load ws = 400 psf. The desired factor of safety
against overturning is 2.0 and against sliding is 1.5.

17

Note: The shear key has been omitted from the RISAFoundation model, as this will affect the
calculations for sliding and overturning. The text example did not assume a key when performing
those calculations.
Comparison
Value
RISAFoundation
Text Value
%
Difference
M Resist (k*ft)
131.169
131.7
M Overturn (k*ft)
48.6
48.6
V Resist (kips)
10.008
9.855
1.55
V Slide (kips)
Max Soil Pressure
(ksf)
7.02
7.02
3.101
3.043
1.9
Mu of Heel (k*ft)
46.69
67.65
NA1
Vu Heel (k*ft)
11.22
20.82
NA1
Vn of Heel (kips)
18.301* (0.85/0.75) = 20.742
20.76
0.1
As Top (in2)
#7 Bars @ 8" oc
#7 Bars @ 8" oc
Mu of Toe (k*ft)
18.473
20.476
NA3
Vu of Toe (kips)
13.07
NA4
Vn of Toe (kips)
6.47
17.315* (0.85/0.75) =
19.62**
0.1
As Bot (in2)
#7 Bars @ 16" oc
19.64
#7 Bars @ 16"
oc
Mu Stem Base (k*ft)
63.4
63.431
0.05
Vu Stem Base (kips)
10.023 (LC2)
10.049
0.26
Vn of Stem (kips)
15.281*(0.85/0.75) = 17.318
17.391
0.42
As Stem (in2)
#8 Bars @ 9" oc
#8 Bars @ 9" oc
0

1In the text example the "relieving" moment due to the upward soil pressure on the heel is not
accounted for. This is accounted for in RISA.
2This value is being adjusted for the change in
shear from 0.85 to 0.75.
3In the text example the "relieving" moment due to the downward soil pressure on the toe is not
accounted for. This is accounted for in RISA.
4In the text example the shear location is taken as the face of wall. In RISA we are coming out a
distance "d" from the wall and check the shear at that location.
Conclusion
design example.
18
Verification Problem 8: Rectangular Footing #2

Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Footings
This problem represents a typical design of a rectangular spread footing. This example comes from
Reinforced Concrete Design, Third Edition, copyright 1992 by Spiegel and Limbrunner. This is
design example 104 on P310.
A concrete footing 4 ft. below the finished ground line supports an 18in. square tied interior
concrete column. The total footing thickness is 24 in. One dimension of the footing is limited to a
maximum of 7 ft.
Service DL
= 175 kips
Service LL
= 175 kips
fc (footing and column)
= 3000 psi
Steel Yield fy
= 60 ksi
Longitudinal column steel
= No. 8 bars
Soil Density
= 100 lb/ft3
= 5 ksf
Allowable Soil Pressure
Effective Allowable Soil Pressure
= 4.50 ksf

Note that the selfweight and overburden were input as zero and the allowable soil pressure was
added directly as 4.50 ksf.

19
Comparison
Value
RISAFoundation
Text Value
% Difference
Factored Soil Pressure, qu (ksf)
6.7391
6.74
0.01
Shear Demand, Vu twoway (k)
474.921
*666.031 =
566.13 (=0.85)2
475
0.02
566
0.02
Shear Capacity, Vn twoway (k)

Shear Demand, Vu oneway (k)
157.1
0.09
Shear Strength, Vn oneway (k)
157.246
*184.035 =
156.43 (=0.85)2
156.4
0.17
Bending Moment, Mu long direction (k*ft)
589.67
590
0.06
Bending Moment, Mu short direction (k*ft)
293.05
293
0.02
As required long direction (in2)
6.884
0.23
As required short direction (in2)
3.303
6.9
4.4/(4/3)
= 3.33
0.09
As required T & S (in2)
5.962
*1652.4 =
1156.68 (=0.70)4
5.96
0.03
1157
0.03
Footing Bearing Strength (in2)
Factored Bearing Load, Pu (k)

542.5
542.5
0.00

2In RISAFoundation the V value is reported without the value. If the V value is multiplied by the
c
c
text then there is good agreement.
3In the text they are multiplying by 4/3*A
s required as their value. RISAFoundation will do this as well
when actually reinforcing the footing, however, we also report the As required itself.
4In RISAFoundation the B value is reported without the value. If the B value is multiplied by the
c
c
text then there is good agreement.
Conclusion
design example.
20
Verification Problem 9: Square Footing #2

Design for Base Area, Depth, and Reinforcement of Footing
This problem represents a typical design of a square spread footing The hand calculation
comparison of this example comes from the PCA Notes for the ACI 31805 Example 22.1, 22.2 and
22.3 (all in one problem) on page 227.
Service Dead Load
= 350 kips
Service Live Load
= 275 kips
Service Surcharge
= 100 psf
Weight of Soil and Concrete above Footing Base
= 130 lb/ft3
Net Allowable Soil Pressure
= 3.75 ksf


Notes:
Because the example does not use the selfweight of the footing in the calculation and
instead just gives an average weight between the soil and concrete, the density of
21
concrete has been set to 0. The Overburden has also been set to zero. Thus, the
allowable soil pressure is simply added directly as 3.75 ksf.
The dfoot value for footings in RISAFoundation = footing thickness bottom cover 1*db.
The examples use a d = 28, thus the bottom cover is set to 4.
Comparison
Value
Ex 22.1: qs (ksf)
Ex 22.2 Shear Demand, Vu one way (k)
Ex 22.2 Shear Capacity, Vn one way (k)
Ex 22.2 Shear Demand, Vu two way (k)
Shear Capacity, Vn two way (k)
Ex 22.2 Bending Moment, Mu (k*ft)
Ex 22.3 As required (in2)
RISAFoundation
Text Value
% Difference
5.0891
5.1
0.22
242.564
243
0.18
*478.5 = 358.868
( = 0.75)2
359
0.04
778.014
780
0.25
*1082 = 811.593 (
= 0.75)2
812
0.05
1190.77
1193
0.12
9.6
1.08
9.704

2RISAFoundation presents the V value without . When you multiply V by you get agreement.
c
c

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the PCA Notes
design examples.

22
Verification Problem10: Cantilever Retaining Wall #3

Design of a Cantilever Retaining Wall
In this example we have a nonsloping backfilled retaining wall with a load surcharge and a water
table present. The wall and footing are not poured monolithically. Footing dowels occur at both
faces of the wall and are of the same size and spacing as the wall reinforcement. A load
combination of 1.0*DL+ 1.0*LL + 1.0*HL is used for the service LC and a load combination of 1.2*DL
+ 1.6*LL + 1.6*HL is used for the strength LC.
In this example RISAFoundations values are compared to the values obtained from a hand
calculation done for soil pressures, stability and all design aspects of the wall. This hand calculation
is located in Appendix A10
This problem comes from a hand calculation verification. It is testing all results for retaining wall
stability, soil pressure calculations and reinforcement design.


Note: The retaining wall is cantilevered and the base is not restrained against sliding.

23
Verification Problem10: Cantilever Retaining Wall #3
Comparison
This section is the tabular comparison of the RISAFoundation answers and the summary from the
detailed validation results.

ComparisonofResults(UnitsSpecifiedIndividually)1,2
Value
RISAFoundation
HandCalculation
%Difference
NA
KLatHeel
0.307
0.307
KLatHeelSat
0.333
0.333
KLatToe
3.255
3.255
OverturningSFMin/SF
0.659
0.659
SlidingSFMin/SF
1.176
1.176
UCMaxInt
1.664
1.678
0.834
ShearUCMax
0.624
0.627
0.478
DowelShearUCMax
0.455
0.455
qmax(ft)*
5.6
5.603
0.054
LsoilLength(ft)*
9.09
9.090
ShearUCHeel
0.746
0.746
MomentUCHeel
0.967
0.967
ShearUCToe
0.597
0.597
MomentUCToe
0.63
0.630
LateralEarthPressures
StabilityChecks
WallDesign
FootingSoilPressures
FootingDesign

1Note that the values shown here can be seen graphically by looking at the detail report for load
combination 2.
2See Appendix A10 for an in depth hand calculation.
Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the hand
calculated design example.

24
Verification Problem11: Pile Cap Design Example
Verification Problem 11: Pile Cap Design Example

Design of a Pile Cap
In this example we have a pile cap with 12 HP14x102 piles providing support. The piles have an 85
kip compression capacity, a 12 kip tension capacity and a 14 kip shear capacity. The pile cap is 42"
thick with a 6" pile embedment and made from 4 ksi lightweight concrete. A load combination of
1.0*DL+ 1.0*LL is used for the service LC and a load combination of 1.2*DL + 1.6*LL is used for the
strength LC.
In this example RISAFoundations values are compared to the values obtained from a hand
calculation done for all aspects of the pile cap. This hand calculation is located in Appendix A11.


25
Verification Problem11: Pile Cap Design Example
Comparison
This section is the tabular comparison of the RISAFoundation answers and the summary from the
detailed validation results.
ComparisonofResults(UnitsSpecifiedIndividually)1,2
Value
RISAFoundation
HandCalculation
%Difference
FlexuralChecks
Muxx(kft)
1432.03
1438
0.42
Muzz(kft)
937.13
932.8
0.46
Asminx(in^2)
13.835
13.835
Asminz(in^2)
10.13
10.13
Asflexxbot(in^2)
20.588
20.588
Asflexzbot(in^2)
15.075
15.075
UCMx
0.755
0.753
0.27
UCMz
0.445
0.488
8.81
0.719
0.719
220.284
220.284
Pile4PunchingUC
0.399
0.399
OneWayShearChecks
ShearCapacityVcx(kips)
1186.972
1187
ShearCapacityVcz(kips)
585.931
591.221
0.89
Vc(kips)
48.952
48.952
Vs(kips)
50.658
50.658
PunchingShearChecks
PedestalPunchingUC
Pile4PunchingCapacity
(kips)
PedestalShearCapacities

1Note that the values shown here can be seen graphically by looking at the detail report for the pile
cap.
2See Appendix A11 for an in depth hand calculation.
Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAFoundation calculations reasonably match the hand
calculated design example.
26
Appendix A10 Cantilever Retaining Wall #3 Calculations
_________________________________________________________________________
In this example we have a nonsloping back illed retaining wall with a load surcharge and a
water table present. Here we will calculate all soil pressures, design all aspects of the retaining
wall and check for overturning and sliding.
Input Parameters
The retaining wall is cantilevered and the base is not restrained against sliding. The wall and
footing are not poured monolithically. Footing dowels occur at both faces of the wall and are of
the same size and spacing as the wall reinforcement.
In this example we will use a load combination of 1.0*DL+ 1.0*LL + 1.0*HL for the service
LC and a load combination of 1.2*DL + 1.6*LL + 1.6*HL for the strength LC.
DLFactor 1.2
LLFactor 1.6
HLFactor 1.6
Geometry
Hwall = Hsoil
Hwall 16 ft
Ltoe 3.5 ft
Hwater 6 ft
Lheel 5.5 ft
twall 18 in
tfoot 18 in
Lwall 10 ft
Wkey 18 in
Dkey 18 in
Lkey 4.5 ft
Total length of wall
Lfoot Ltoe + Lheel + tfoot = 10.5 ft
Overall length of the footing
Offsetkey Lkey + Wkey Ltoe twall = 1 ft
The key offset from the interior face of wall

and the interior face of key.
Materials
kip
conc .15
3
ft
fc 4 ksi
A10.1
fy 60 ksi
Soil
0.5
Coef of friction w/soil
Soilallow 5 ksf
q 500 psf
w 62.4 pcf
m 115 pcf
m 32 deg
s 125 pcf
s 30 deg
SF 1.5
back ill angle
This is the safety factor

required for both sliding
and overturning.
Note: The moist soil properties

are also used for the toe soil.
A10.2
surcharge
Htoesoil 2 ft
Wall Reinforcing Properties

dbinside 0.75 in
dbhoriz 0.5 in
s 8 in
spacing of vertical bars
swallhoriz 10 in
spacing of horizontal bars
Numfaces 2
Two faces of reinforcement
dboutside 0.5 in
dbinside
2
Asinside
= 0.442 in
4
#6 bars interior.
dboutside
2
Asoutside = 0.196 in
4
#4 bars exterior
2 dbhoriz
2
Ashoriz = 0.393 in
4
coverinside 2 in
#4 bars horizontal each face
coveroutside 1 in
The outer bars are in the horizontal direction.
A10.3
Footing Reinforcing Properties

dbtop 0.75 in
stop 8 in
dbbot 0.75 in
sbot 8 in
dblong 0.5 in
slong 16 in
2
dbtop
2
Astop = 0.442 in
4
#6 bars at 8" spacing top
dbbot
2
Asbot = 0.442 in
4
#6 bars at 8" spacing bot
2 dblong
2
Aslong = 0.393 in
4
covertop 2 in
#4 bars at 16" spacing longitudinal each face
coverbot 3 in
A10.4
Calculations
This section breaks down all of the calculations that occur within RISAFoundation for
retaining wall design.
Force Calculations For Overturning, Sliding and Wall Design

Lateral Earth Pressure Coef icients
=0
m = 32 deg
s = 30 deg
2
2
cos () (cos ()) cos m
Kam cos () = 0.307
2
2
cos () + (cos ()) cos m
2
2
cos () + (cos ()) cos m
Kpm cos () = 3.255
2
2
cos () (cos ()) cos m
2
2
cos () (cos ()) cos s
Kas cos () = 0.333
2
2
cos () + (cos ()) cos s
Lateral Pressure Calculations (Service)
P1 Kam q = 153.629 psf

P2 Kam q + Hwall Hwater m = 506.977 psf
P3 Kas q + Hwall Hwater m = 550 psf
3
P4 P3 + Kas Hwater s w + Hwater w = 1.05 10 psf
3
P5 P4 + Kas tfoot s w + tfoot w = 1.175 10 psf
3
P6 P5 + Kas Dkey s w + Dkey w = 1.299 10 psf
A10.5
P7 Htoesoil m Kpm = 748.555 psf
3
P8 Htoesoil + tfoot m Kpm = 1.31 10 psf
3
P9 Htoesoil + tfoot + Dkey m Kpm = 1.871 10 psf
A10.6
Lateral Resultant Force Locations for Overturning
H1 Hwall + tfoot 0.5 = 8.75 ft

1
H2 Hwall Hwater
+ Hwater + tfoot = 10.833 ft
3
H3 Hwater + tfoot 0.5 = 3.75 ft
1
H4 Hwater + tfoot
= 2.5 ft
3
1
H5 Htoesoil + tfoot = 1.167 ft
3
A10.7
Lateral Force Summations for Overturning, Sliding and Wall Design

kip
LF1 P1 Hwall + tfoot = 2.689
ft
This value changes for all 3 calculations.
kip
LF1slide LF1 + P1 Dkey = 2.919
ft
kip
LF1wall P1 Hwall = 2.458
ft
This is the same value for all 3
1
kip
LF2 P2 P1 Hwall Hwater = 1.767 calculations.
2
ft
kip
LF3 P3 P1 Hwater + tfoot = 2.973 This value changes for all 3 calculations.
ft
kip
LF3Slide LF3 + P3 P1 Dkey = 3.567
ft
kip
LF3wall P3 P1 Hwater = 2.378
ft
1
kip
LF4 P5 P3
Hwater + tfoot = 2.342 This value changes for all 3
ft
2
calculations.
1
kip
LF4slide P6 P3
Hwater + tfoot + Dkey = 3.372
ft
2
1
kip
Hwater = 1.499
LF4wall P4 P3
ft
2
1
kip
LF5 P8 Htoesoil + tfoot = 2.292
2
ft
This value changes for all 3 calculations.
1
kip
LF5slide P9 Htoesoil + tfoot + Dkey = 4.678
2
ft
1
kip
LF5wall P7 Htoesoil = 0.749
2
ft
A10.8
Vertical Force Calculations (Service and Strength)

kip
w1 Hwall twall conc = 3.6
ft
kip
w2 tfoot twall + Ltoe + Lheel conc = 2.363
ft
kip
w3 Wkey Dkey conc = 0.338
ft
kip
w1f DLFactor w1 = 4.32
ft
kip
ft
kip
ft
kip
w4 Ltoe Htoesoil m = 0.805
ft
kip
ft
kip
qtotal q Lheel = 2.75
ft
kip
qtotalf LLFactor qtotal = 4.4
ft
kip
w5 Lheel Hwall Hwater m = 6.325
ft
kip
ft
kip
w6 Lheel Hwater s = 4.125
ft
kip
ft
A10.9
Vertical Force Centroids

twall
D1 Ltoe +
= 4.25 ft
2
Lfoot
= 5.25 ft
D2
2
Wkey
D3 Lkey + = 5.25 ft
2
Ltoe
= 1.75 ft
D4
2
Lheel
= 7.75 ft
D5 Ltoe + twall +
2
D6 D5 = 7.75 ft
Stability Checks
Overturning
This check is taken from the base of the toe of the footing.
ft
MR1 w1 D1 + w2 D2 + w3 D3 + w4 D4 = 30.884 kip
ft
ft
MR2 w5 D5 + w6 + qtotal D6 + LF5 H5 = 104.975 kip
ft
ft
MR MR1 + MR2 = 135.858 kip
ft
ft
MOT H1 LF1 + H2 LF2 + H3 LF3 + H4 LF4 = 59.667 kip
ft
MR
OSF = 2.277
MOT
SF
UCOT = 0.659
OSF
This retaining wall passes the overturning check because it has greater than a 1.5 safety factor.
A10.10
Sliding
This check is taken from the bottom of key elevation.
kip
FSlide LF1slide + LF2 + LF3Slide + LF4slide = 11.625
ft
kip
R w1 + w2 + w3 + w4 + w5 + w6 + qtotal = 20.305
ft
Total vertical force
kip
FFriction R = 10.153
ft
1
kip
LF8 P9 Htoesoil + tfoot + Dkey = 4.678
2
ft
The forces resisting sliding are due to both
kip
FResist FFriction + LF5slide = 14.831 friction and passive pressure on the toe
ft
side of the footing.
FResist
SafetyFactorSliding
= 1.276
FSlide
SF
UCSliding = 1.176
SafetyFactorSliding
This retaining wall fails the sliding check because it has less than a 1.5 safety factor.
A10.11
Designing the Wall Stem

The wall stem was poured separately from the footing. Where the wall is poured the footing
has not been intentionally roughened. Footing dowels occur at both faces of the wall and are
of the same size and spacing as the wall reinforcement.
Lwall = 10 ft
Hwall = 16 ft
Asinside = 0.442 in
Asoutside = 0.196 in
Ashoriz = 0.393 in
twall = 1.5 ft
#6 bars interior.
coverinside = 2 in
#4 bars exterior
#4 bars horizontal each face
coveroutside = 1 in
s = 8 in
swallhoriz = 10 in
Numfaces = 2
The outer bars are in the horizontal direction.
Axial and Bending Design (per foot)

These are the centroid heights of each portion of load.
Hwall
H1wall = 8 ft
2
Hwall Hwater
H2wall Hwater + = 9.333 ft
3
Hwater
= 3 ft
H3wall
2
Hwater
= 2 ft
H4wall
3
Htoesoil
= 0.667 ft
H5wall
3
A10.12
Pu 0 kip
Mwalls LF1wall H1wall + LF2 H2wall + LF3wall H3wall + LF4wall H4wall LF5wall H5wall
ft
Mwalls = 45.787 kip
ft
HLFactor = 1.6
ft
Mwallf HLFactor Mwalls = 73.26 kip
ft
dbinside
dcant twall coverinside dbhoriz
= 15.125 in
2
dboutside
= 1.75 in
dprime coveroutside + dbhoriz +
2
Asinside fy
Asoutside fy
= 0.975 in
= 0.433 in
awall
aprime
0.85 fc s
0.85 fc s
awall
Asinside fy dcant
2 12
Mnwall
12
s
ft
Mnwall = 48.501 kip
ft
This is the moment capacity in the wall not considering

compression reinforcement
A10.13
wall 0.9
ft
PhiMnwall wall Mnwall = 43.651 kip
ft
Note: The program takes into account

compression reinforcement as well, so the
program reported value is a little larger
(44.029).
Mwallf
BendingInteraction
= 1.678
PhiMnwall
Reinforcement Provided Checks (for entire wall)

Horizontal Reinforcement
Hwall
BarsHoriz1 Numfaces
= 38.4
swallhoriz
The total number of horizontal bars in the wall.
BarsHoriz round BarsHoriz1 = 38

Ashoriz
2
Asprovh BarsHoriz
= 7.461 in
2
As provided (H)
Asprovh
4
rhoprovh
= 1.799 10
12 Hwall twall
Rho Provided (H)
rhominh .002
Rho min (H)
Asminh rhominh Hwall twall = 6.912 in
As min (H)
Inside Face Vertical Reinforcement
Lwall
BarsVertInt1
= 15
s
The total number of interior vertical bars in the wall.
BarsVertInt round BarsVertInt1 = 15

Asprovint BarsVertInt Asinside = 6.627 in
Asprovint
4
rhoprovint
= 2.557 10
Lwall twall 12
A10.14
Int As Provided (V)
Int rho Provided (V)
Outside Face Vertical Reinforcement
Lwall 12
BarsVertExt1 = 180
s
The total number of exterior
vertical bars in the wall.
BarsVertExt round BarsVertExt1 = 180

Asprovext BarsVertExt Asoutside = 35.343 in
Asprovext
rhoprovext
= 0.001
Lwall twall 12
Ext As Provided (V)
Ext rho Provided (V)
Total Vertical Reinforcement

rho min (V)
rhominv .0015
Asminv rhominv Lwall 12 twall = 38.88 in
As min (V)
Shear Design
Concrete check:
Hwater dcant
Hwall dcant
kip
Vwallds1 LF1wall + LF3wall
+ LF2 = 5.91
ft
Hwall
Hwater
2
2
P4 P3 Hwater dcant
P7 Htoesoil dcant
kip

Vwallds2

= 0.833
ft
2
Hwater
Htoesoil
For the concrete check we are using the shear force at a distance d from the base.
kip
Vwallds Vwallds1 + Vwallds2 = 6.743
ft
kip
Vwalldf HLFactor Vwallds = 10.788
ft
Vc 2
4
lbf
fc dcant = 2.2958 10
ft
A10.15
lbf
fc 4000
4
in
v 0.75
4
lbf
PhiVcwall v Vc = 1.7219 10
ft
Vwalldf
= 0.627
ShearConcInteraction
PhiVcwall
Steel Check (shear friction)

In this example the wall is not poured monolithically with the footing.
All code references are per the ACI 31811.
kip
Vwallbases LF1wall + LF2 + LF3wall + LF4wall LF5wall = 7.353
ft
kip
Vwallbasef HLFactor Vwallbases = 11.765
ft
in
Asinside + Asoutside 12
Here we are using the As of the wall
2
ft
in
Avf
= 0.957 reinforcing, as the dowels from the
foundation match the wall r/f.
s
ft
fy = 60 ksi
conc 0.6
This assumes that the surface of the footing where

the wall is poured is not intentionally roughened.
1
Vn Avf fy conc = 113.056 kip
m
Equation 1125
Per Section 11.6.6 fy must be taken <= 60 ksi.
in
lwall 12
ft per foot distance
2
in
Ac twall lwall = 216
fc 4 ksi
ft
twall = 18 in
The equations below are based on section 11.6.5. Note that the provisions are different in the
ACI 31802 and ACI 31805 and come from section 11.7.5.
A10.16
kip
Vn1 0.2 fc Ac = 172.8
ft
kip
Vn2 480 psi + 0.08 fc Ac = 172.8
ft
kip
Vn4 0.2 fc Ac = 172.8
ft
kip
Vn3 1600 psi Ac = 345.6
ft
kip
Vn5 800 psi Ac = 172.8
ft
Vnrough min Vn , Vn1 , Vn2 , Vn3
kip
Vnsmooth min Vn , Vn4 , Vn5 = 34.459
ft
Vwallbasef
SteelConcInteraction = 0.455
v Vnsmooth
Designing the Footing

Soil Pressure Calculation (for Footing Design)
kip ft
MOTS HLFactor H1 LF1 + H2 LF2 + H3 LF3 + H4 LF4 = 95.467
ft
MRS1 DLFactor w1 D1 + w2 D2 + w3 D3 + w4 D4 + w5 D5 + w6 D6
MRS2 LLFactor qtotal D6 + HLFactor LF5 H5
kip ft
MRS MRS1 + MRS2 = 172.625
ft
kip
RS DLFactor w1 + w2 + w3 + w4 + w5 + w6 + LLFactor qtotal = 25.466
ft
MRS MOTS
xRS = 3.03 ft
RS
Lfoot
e1S
xRS = 2.22 ft
2
Lfoot
= 1.75 ft
LbasesoilS 3 xRS = 9.09 ft
A10.17
Lfoot
qmaxS if e1S <
= 5.603 ksf
6
R
6 RS e1S
S
+

2
L
Lfoot
foot
else
4 RS

3 Lfoot 2 e1S
A10.18
Lfoot
qminS if e1S <
= 0 ksf
6
R
6 RS e1S
S

2
L
Lfoot
foot
else
0 ksf
Design of the Heel (Shear)

covertop = 2 in
dbtop = 0.75 in
dblong = 0.5 in
stop = 8 in
slong = 16 in
Astop = 0.442 in
Aslong = 0.393 in
dbtop
dheel tfoot covertop
= 15.625 in
2
Because the footing will tend to shear off as

shown here, the shear check should occur at
the face of wall.
A10.19
kip
qtotalf = 4.4
ft
kip
w5f = 7.59
ft
kip
w6f = 4.95
ft
kip
Vuheel1 w5f + w6f + qtotalf + DLFactor conc tfoot Lheel = 18.425
ft
LsoilheelS LbasesoilS Ltoe twall = 4.09 ft
LbasesoilS Ltoe twall
qmaxheelS qmaxS = 2.521 ksf
LbasesoilS
1
kip
Vuheel2 LsoilheelS qmaxheelS = 5.155
2
ft
kip
Vuheel Vuheel1 Vuheel2 = 13.27
ft
Vuheel1 is the total downward shear force on the heel. Vuheel2 is the total upward shear force on
the heel. Because the net force is downward, the location of the shearing is con irmed.
A10.20
lbf
fc 4000
4
in
kip
Vcheel 2
fc dheel = 23.717
ft
kip
PhiVcheel v Vcheel = 17.788
ft
Vuheel
ShearheelInteraction = 0.746
PhiVcheel
Design of the Heel (Moment)
Lheel
1
kip ft
Muheel Vuheel1
Vuheel2 LsoilheelS = 43.642
3
ft
2
12 in
Astop fy
stop
= 0.975 in
aheel
0.85 12 in fc
fc 4 ksi
2
Astop
in
Astop1 = 0.442
1 ft
ft
aheel
12 in
kip ft The reinforcement spacing
Mnheel Astop1 fy dheel
= 50.157 is at 8" oc, so the moment
stop
ft
2
capacity is normalized to
be per foot.
wall = 0.9
kip ft
PhiMnheel wall Mnheel = 45.142
ft
Muheel
= 0.967
BendheelInteraction
PhiMnheel
A10.21
Design of the Toe (Shear)

coverbot = 3 in
dbbot = 0.75 in
dblong = 0.5 in
sbot = 8 in
slong = 16 in
Asbot = 0.442 in
Aslong = 0.393 in
dbbot
dtoe tfoot coverbot
= 14.625 in
2
Because the footing will tend to shear off

as shown above, the shear check should
occur at a distance d from the face of
wall.
A10.22
LbasesoilS Ltoe + dtoe qmaxS

qtoedS = 4.197 ksf
LbasesoilS
1
kip
VutoeOT Ltoe dtoe qtoedS + qmaxS qtoedS = 11.179
2
ft
Ltoe dtoe
kip
VutoeR w4f + DLFactor conc tfoot Ltoe
= 1.246
ft
Ltoe
2
lbf
fc 4000
4
in
kip
Vutoe VutoeOT VutoeR = 9.933
ft
kip
PhiVctoe v Vctoe = 16.649
ft
Vutoe
SheartoeInteraction = 0.597
PhiVctoe
A10.23
Vctoe 2
kip
fc dtoe = 22.199
ft
Design of the Toe (Moment)

LbasesoilS Ltoe qmaxS
qtoefaceS = 3.446 ksf
LbasesoilS
Ltoe 1
2
MutoeOS Ltoe qtoefaceS

+ Ltoe qmaxS qtoefaceS Ltoe
2 2
3
kip ft
MutoeOS = 29.916
ft
Ltoe
kip
VutoeRbend VutoeR
= 1.911
ft
Ltoe dtoe
Ltoe
kip ft
MutoeR VutoeRbend
= 3.344
ft
2
kip ft
Mutoe MutoeOS MutoeR = 26.571
ft
12 in
Asbot fy
sbot
atoe = 0.975 in
0.85 12 in fc
fc 4 ksi
2
Asbot
in
Asbot1 = 0.442
1 ft
ft
atoe
12 in
kip ft
Mntoe Asbot1 fy dtoe
= 46.844
sbot
ft
2
kip ft
PhiMntoe wall Mntoe = 42.16
ft
Mutoe
= 0.63
BendtoeInteraction
PhiMntoe
A10.24
wall = 0.9
Appendix A11 Pile Cap Design Calculations

_______________________________________________________________________________
In this example we have a pile cap with 12 HP14x102 piles providing support. The piles have an 85 kip
compression capacity, a 12 kip tension capacity and a 14 kip shear capacity. The pile cap is 42" thick with a
6" pile embedment and made from 4 ksi lightweight concrete. A load combination of 1.0*DL+ 1.0*LL is used
for the service LC and a load combination of 1.2*DL + 1.6*LL is used for the strength LC.
Geometry, Materials and Criteria

Lcap 183 in
Wcap 134 in
tcap 42 in
fy 60 ksi
fc 4 ksi
0.75
Hped 24 in
N 12
Number of Piles
Lped 24 in
dpile 14 in
Side Dimension of Pile
Wped 24 in
dbar 0.75 in
Diameter of reinforcement
lx 49 in
l1z 24.5 in
l2z 73.5 in
embed 6 in
kip
conc .11
3
ft
Distance from c/l of pedestal to c/l of piles in the x direction.

Distance from c/l of pedestal to c/l of 1st piles in the z direction.
Distance from c/l of pedestal to c/l of 2nd piles in the z direction.
Wped
wx lx = 37 in
2
Distance from piles centroid to face of pedestal in x

direction.
Wped
w1z l1z = 12.5 in
2
Distance from 1st piles centroid to face of pedestal in

z direction.
A11.1
Wped
w2z l2z = 61.5 in
2
Distance from 2nd piles centroid to face of pedestal in

z direction.
Effective Depth Calculations (for bending)

c 1.5 in
Cover (top and bottom)
d tcap embed c dbar = 33.75 in
Distance from the top of cap to centroid of

bottom reinforcement
dtop tcap embed = 36 in
Distance from the top of cap to the top of the

piles
Applied Loads
Pd 250 kip
Vx 20 kip
Pl 350 kip
Vz 40 kip
tcap
Mx Vz Hped +
= 150 kip ft
2
tcap
Mz Vx Hped +
= 75 kip ft
2
wped Hped Lped Wped conc = 0.88 kip
wcap Lcap Wcap tcap conc = 65.562 kip
Ptot Pd + Pl + wped + wcap = 666.442 kip

Pile Forces (Service)
We will assume the individual pile forces are correct and use the RISAFoundation output.
Ppile1 54.1593 kip

Ppile2 56.6083 kip
Ppile3 59.0573 kip
Ppile4 61.5062 kip
Ppile5 51.8634 kip
Ppile6 54.3124 kip
Ppile7 56.7613 kip
Pu1 76.1068 kip

Pu2 80.0252 kip
Pu3 83.9435 kip
Pu4 87.8619 kip
Pu5 72.4333 kip
Pu6 76.3517 kip
Pu7 80.2701 kip
A11.2
Ppile8 59.2103 kip

Ppile9 49.5675 kip
Ppile10 52.0164 kip
Ppile11 54.4654 kip
Ppile12 56.9144 kip
Pu8 84.1884 kip

Pu9 68.7599 kip
Pu10 72.6782 kip
Pu11 76.5966 kip
Pu12 80.515 kip
Pile Cap Flexural Design

For the lexural design we are simply taking the worst case moment at either face of the
pedestal and checking against that. To do this I simply compare the pile forces for each side of
the pedesal and take the worst case forces.
Wcap Wped
wucapresistx 1.2 Lcap tcap conc = 32.292 kip
2
Lcap Lped
wucapresistz 1.2
Wcap tcap conc = 34.178 kip
2
Lcap Lped
Mux Pu3 + Pu7 + Pu11 w1z + Pu4 + Pu8 + Pu12 w2z wucapresistx
4
3
Mux = 1.438 10 kip ft
Wcap Wped
Muz Pu1 + Pu2 + Pu3 + Pu4 wx wucapresistz = 932.815 kip ft
4
Here are the calculations for minimum steel for both temperature and shrinkage and lexure.
Asminx .0018 Lcap tcap = 13.835 in
Asminz .0018 Wcap tcap = 10.13 in
lbf
200
Lcap d
2
2
in
Asflexxbot
= 20.588 in
fy
Asreqdxbot 6.226 in
lbf
200
Wcap d
2
2
in
Asflexzbot
= 15.075 in
fy
Values given in the program
Asprovxbot 12.812 in
Asprovxbot fy
ax
= 1.235 in
0.85 Lcap fc
ax
3
PhiMnx 0.9 Asprovxbot fy d = 1.91 10 kip ft
2
Mux
UCMx = 0.753
PhiMnx
Asreqdzbot 9.609 in
Values given in the program
Asprovzbot 14.137 in
A11.3
Asprovzbot fy
az
= 1.862 in
0.85 Wcap fc
az
3
PhiMnz 0.9 Asprovzbot fy d = 2.088 10 kip ft
2
Muz
UCMz = 0.488
PhiMnx
In the x direction the Asreqd (and even 4/3 Asreqd) is less than the minimum
temperature and shrinkage steel, the program uses that minimum.
In the z direction the 4/3*Asreq'd is greater than the As S&T, thus we use
9.609*4/3 = 12.812 in ^2.
Pedestal Punching Shear Check

Effective depth of slab for pedestal punching.
db d = 33.75 in
L1 Wped + db = 57.75 in
Side dimensions for the shear perimeter.
L2 Lped + db = 57.75 in
Pupileped Pu1 + Pu2 + Pu3 + Pu4 + Pu5 + Pu8 + Pu9 + Pu10 + Pu11 + Pu12 = 783.109 kip
This value represents the sum of the factored axial forces in piles outside of the
pedestal punching shear perimeter.
wucapped 1.2 Wcap Lcap L1 L2 tcap conc = 67.975 kip

This is the selfweight of the pile cap that is outside of the pedestal punching
shear perimeter.
Pupunch Pupileped wucapped = 715.134 kip

Muxped 1.6 Mx = 240 kip ft
Muzped 1.6 Mz = 120 kip ft
Force in the pedestal.
bo 2 L1 + L2 = 231 in
Punching shear perimeter.
L1
c1 = 28.875 in
2
This is the distance from centroid to extreme iber.
A11.4
3
2
Ac bo db = 7.796 10 in
Ac is the perimeter area of the shear cone.
Wped + db db
db Wped + db
db Lped + db Lped + db
6
4
Jc + +
= 4.704 10 in
6
6
2
Jc is the polar moment of inertia and this equation can be found in the commentary to section
11.11.7.2 of the ACI 31811.
0.4
Pupunch Muxped c1 Muzped c1
+ + = 0.102 ksi
umax
Ac
Jc
Jc
This is the critical punching shear stress, combining the axial and moment forces transmitted
through the pedestal. Punching equations can be found in the commentary to section 11.11.7.2
of the ACI 31811. Note that here we are combining the stresses due to the moments to get the
worst case stress at a corner of the pedestal punching shear perimeter.
2
lbf
fc 4000
4
in
3
PhiVcpunch 0.75 4
fc bo db = 1.479 10 kip
PhiVcpunch
PhiVny
= 0.142 ksi
bo d b
umax
Punchcodecheck
= 0.719
PhiVny
Pile Punching Shear Check

Here we will do a punching shear check for pile 4, the worst case one. The program looks at
each pile and calculates a punching shear perimeter for Interior, Edge and Corner scenarios
and chooses the smallest value for the check.
For round piles, we calculate an equivalent square dimension such that the perimeter of both
are equal.
dpile = 14 in
dtoppunch tcap embed = 36 in
dtoppunch
Lpile 11 in + dpile + = 43 in
2
Because there is no top reinforcement in the pile cap, the slab is considered unreinforced for
pile punching. Because of this our Phi factor is now 0.55 and we essentially take 2/3 of the
original strength (thus 4 goes to 8/3). The ratio of 2/3*(0.55/0.75) is 0.4888. In the program
we use a blanket 50% reduction.
A11.5
0.55
bo1 2 Lpile = 86 in
8
fc bo1 dtop = 215.389 kip
PhiVcpunch
3
If we were to calculate it exactly.
0.75 4
fc bo1 dtop
PhiVcpunch2
= 220.284 kip
2
This is the value the

program reports.
Pu4 = 87.862 kip

Pu4
Puratio = 0.399
PhiVcpunch2
One Way Shear Check

w1z = 12.5 in
d = 33.75 in
wx = 37 in
d = 33.75 in
Because in the x direction w > d, the critical location is at a distance d from the pedestal. This
means that we need to calculate the weight of the pile cap resisting the shear at this location.
Wcap Wped
wucapresistxshear d Lcap tcap conc = 10.397 kip

2
Vux Pu1 + Pu2 + Pu3 + Pu4 wucapresistxshear = 317.54 kip

Because in the z direction w < d, the critical location is at the face of the pedestal.
Because of this we can use the wucapresistz that we used for the moment calculation.
Vuz Pu3 + Pu4 + Pu7 + Pu8 + Pu11 + Pu12 wucapresistz = 459.197 kip
3
Mux = 1.438 10 kip ft
Muz = 932.815 kip ft
dz > wz, therefore the critical location for shear at the face of the pedestal.
Asprovidedz 12.8122 in
Asprovidedz
provz
= 0.002833
Wcap d
Asprovidedx Asminx = 13.835 in

Asprovidedx
= 0.00224
provx
Lcap d
A11.6
Shear strength in the x direction

dz > wz, therefore the critical location for shear at the face of the pedestal and CRSI Design
Handbook equation 132 on P.1326 is used .
Mux
= 1.114
Vuz d
Mu/Vu*d must be less than or equal to 1.0, so use 1.0.
MVratio 1
lbf
(3.5 2.5 MVratio) 1.9
fc + 2500
provz MVratio = 262.46 psi
cx
2
w1z
in
fc = 632.456 psi
cmax 10
3
Vc_x cx Wcap d = 1.187 10 kip
Shear strength in the z direction

dz < wz, therefore the critical location for shear is at a distance d from the face of the pedestal
and ACI 31811 Equation 115 is used.
Muz
= 1.044
Vux d
Mu/Vu*d must be less than or equal to 1.0, so use 1.0.
MVratio 1
cz1 1.9
lbf
fc + 2500
provx MVratio = 95.725 psi
2
in
Vc_z1 cz1 Lcap d = 591.221 kip
A11.7
Pedestal Design
Inputs
dpedlongbar 1 in
dpedshearbar 0.5 in
coverped 1.5 in
dpedlongbar
dped Wped coverped dpedshearbar
= 21.5 in
2
Wped = 24 in
= 0.75
Concrete Shear Capacity

Vcped 2
fc Wped dped = 48.952 kip
Steel Shear Capacity

2
d
2
pedshearbar
Asv 2
= 0.393 in
4
spedshear 10 in
Asv fy dped
Vs1 = 50.658 kip
spedshear
Vsmax 8
fc dped Wped = 261.078 kip
Vs min Vs1 , Vsmax = 50.658 kip

Combined Bending and Axial Forces
Puped 1.2 Pd + 1.6 Pl + 1.2 Hped Wped Lped conc = 861.056 kip
Muxp 1.6 Vz Hped = 128 kip ft
Muvp 1.6 Vx Hped = 64 kip ft
For this pedestal the interaction diagram actually produces a worst case code check at the top of
the pedestal. Thus, the axial force in the pedestal is not including the pedestal selfweight and
the moment at the top is zero in both directions.
A11.8

Foundation Verification Problems

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Foundation Verification Problems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RISAFoundation

Rapid Interactive Structural Analysis Foundations

Verification Problem 1: Strip Footing Design .............................................................................................................. 3

Verification Problem 1: Strip Footing Design

Verification Problem 1: Strip Footing Design

heel. The average of these values is used in the above table.

Verification Problem 1: Strip Footing Design

is used in the above table.

3 0.5/2 = 9.75. This produces a Vu = (1/12)*(259.75)*6.19 = 7.87 k/ft

= 9.75. (9.75/9.5)*9.37 = 9.617 k/ft.

Verification Problem 2: Square Spread Footing #1

Verification Problem 2: Square Spread Footing #1

Verification Problem 2: Square Spread Footing #1

*Vc Punching (k)

*Vc OneWay (k)

Verification Problem 3: Rectangular Spread Foot #1

Verification Problem 3: Rectangular Spread Foot #1

Verification Problem 3: Rectangular Spread Foot #1

*Vc OneWay (k) N1

As Min Long (in2) N1

As Provided Long (in2) N1

10.21 in2 (13 #8 bars)

11.1 in2 (14#8 bars)1

As Min Short (in2) N2

9.51 in2 (31 #5 bars; 25 9.61 in2 (31#5 bars; 25

Verification Problem 4: Pile Cap Shear

Verification Problem 4: Pile Cap Shear

Verification Problem 4: Pile Cap Shear

Comparison of Results (Units in kips)

calculation above shows what Phi*Vn is in RISAFoundation.

Verification Problem 4: Pile Cap Shear

Verification Problem 4: Pile Cap Shear

Verification Problem 5: Eccentrically Loaded Footing

Verification Problem 5: Eccentrically Loaded Footing

Verification Problem 5: Eccentrically Loaded Footing

Method 1 Muxx (k*ft)

Method 1 Muzz (k*ft)

Method 2 Muxx (k*ft)

their value has been adjusted.

for method 2. This should be 4.42 ksf.

Verification Problem 6: Cantilever Retaining Wall #1

Verification Problem 6: Cantilever Retaining Wall #1

Verification Problem 6: Cantilever Retaining Wall #1

Verification Problem 7: Cantilever Retaining Wall #2

Verification Problem 7: Cantilever Retaining Wall #2

Verification Problem 7: Cantilever Retaining Wall #2

18.301* (0.85/0.75) = 20.742

Mu Stem Base (k*ft)

Vu Stem Base (kips)

Verification Problem 8: Rectangular Footing #2

Verification Problem 8: Rectangular Footing #2

fc (footing and column)

Longitudinal column steel

Allowable Soil Pressure

Effective Allowable Soil Pressure

Verification Problem 8: Rectangular Footing #2

Factored Soil Pressure, qu (ksf)

Shear Demand, Vu twoway (k)

Shear Capacity, Vn twoway (k)

Shear Strength, Vn oneway (k)

Bending Moment, Mu long direction (k*ft)

Bending Moment, Mu short direction (k*ft)

As required long direction (in2)

As required short direction (in2)

3 0.5/2 = 9.75. This produces a Vu = (1/12)(259.75)6.19 = 7.87 k/ft