×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

(OP)
I am designing the foundations for a pre-engineered metal building. Due to fill and other soil conditions, we are founding it on 3 foot diameter caissions drilled 12 feet or so to bedrock.  Grade beams span between the caissons.  Piers for the building columns are to be constructed on top of the caissons and integral with the grade beams.  

I have calculated that the caissons should have sufficient lateral load capacity to carry the loads from the building base plates, as well as the vertical loads.  The column foundation piers should transfer these loads to the caisson tops.  Do I still need to utilize hairpin bars in the floor slab, or cross ties between opposing column bases, to negate the lateral loads?  Is it ok to rely on the lateral load capacity of the caissons as calculated?  Additionally, it seems the grade beams extending 4 feet below grade also will offer a lot of excess lateral load capacity (safety factor) from passive resistance of the soil against them.

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

I will assume this is not "high" seismic where ties are required per code.  If the caisson is able to resist, then I would think there is no need to add the ties.  However, be sure to consider both load and what the deflection at the top of the caisson is.  PEMB have relativelty high outkick forces and if the foundation has movement at the baseplate, it will add additional stresses within members of PEMB that have already been designed with little to no additional capacity.

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

Hair pin bars are cheap insurance.   

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

I agree with Mike here...totally.  

Creep could still be a factor over time with the caissons and hairpins will help mitigate that.   

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto:  KISS
Motivation:  Don't ask

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

You have 4ft deep grade beams, or am I reading that incorrectly?

But no matter your foundation system, I agree with Mike.  

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

Oh, and there are two main reasons why you would ever need to use cross ties between the mainframes:

1.  No slab situation, such as a riding arena, and

2.  Lateral loads so high that hairpins cannot take the load.   

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto:  KISS
Motivation:  Don't ask

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

How big is this building anyway?  

The "grade beams extending 4 feet below grade", do seem like an overkill here.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto:  KISS
Motivation:  Don't ask

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

We do these foundations without hair pins all the time.  We have to deal with expansive clay soils and our geotechnical engineers typically object to hairpins or any connection between the slab elements and the perimeter foundation.  I am curious if you are relying on the fill in your lateral load calcs.  It always is a difficult to judge what to use for fill.

Brad

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

(OP)
Thanks All!  I will use the hairpins - as you noted, cheap insurance.

The grade beams carry only very light exterior wall loads, and are extended to 4 feet below grade for frost protection.  I am relying on the fill for the lateral load resistance, but using a relatively low allowable.

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

I have never been involved with a "PEMB", but have done lots of big industrial steel framed buildings.  I don't like the concept of tying the structural frames to non-structural slabs on ground.

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

You could allow the slab to float and tie across with a tie beam under the floor slab.  This is more expensive, but it satisfies hokie's concern.  

BA

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

Ties can be a problem in an industrial plant where they always seem to retorfit equipment every few years.  We did a reno project one year that involved a lot of underground piping in a PEMB with ties like BA suggests.  I have always sized piles to avoid ties since then.

Brad

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building


To think that hairpins from the foundation into the floor slab satisfies the support condition assumed by the PEMB designer can be risky in MHO.

I am investigating a foundation failure under a PEMB frame.  In the course of my investigation I modeled the PEMB frame, which is assumed to have pinned connections at the bottoms of the columns.  I applied the full design snow load + the dead load and recorded the maximum moments in the frame.  Then, I released one of the column's X-direction constraint (introduced a roller).  Surprisingly, the column deflected horizontally only a little over 3/8" (50 ft span).  But even more surprising was the increase in the positive moment in the roof beam - to 140% of the previous value.

The interior floor slab section connected to the foundation may offer enough drag resistance to the columns horizontal reaction.  Or it may not.  Then consider the amount of floor slab saw-cutting done to counteract slab shrinkage cracking - is there really continuity across the width of the building?  In my situation, 3/8" horizontal movement of the column is within the realm of jobsite construction tolerances and lack of quality control.  But ask yourself - can the roof frame safely sustain a 40% increase in positive moment?

If you're comfortable that the frame can sustain the moment increase caused by an outward movement at the bottom of the frame's column(s), then why worry about tying the foundation to the floor slab, or introducing a tie rod under the floor slab?

Guaranteed to elicit some interesting testimoney should a failure occur and the PEMB manufacturer wants to shed some liability.
 

Ralph
Structures Consulting
Northeast USA

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

RHTPE,
I do not find it surprising that you would find a 40% increase in positive moment if you substitute a roller support for a hinge support.  But the fact remains that a roller support is not realistic when the foundations are tied together by a tie beam or a tie slab.

BA

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

I find it incredible, although I have done no numbers myself, that the rafter moment in a 50' span portal increases by 40% due to 3/8" movement at the base.  However, I think a roller support is a better approximation than a pin if the only restraint is a non-structural floor slab.  Even if the restraint is a tension tie, elongation of the tie makes the support less than a pin.

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

Modelling one support as a roller, put in the tension tie in the frame model and see what happens.  

If you get too much spread and moment, increase the section of the tension tie.   

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto:  KISS
Motivation:  Don't ask

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

Perhaps a movement of only 3/8" is incredible, but the 40% change in moment is not.  With a pin-roller support, the positive moment is WL/8.  Dividing that by 1.4, the positive moment with hinged supports is WL/11.2 which means the negative moment is WL/28 all of which seems plausible.

I cannot agree that hairpin bars tied to a slab is more like a roller than a pin, but there is some strain in the tie, so it is somewhere between hinge and roller. If the piles are designed to resist the horizontal force without ties, there will also be lateral strain at the PEMB baseplates.

If the PEMB designer expects the foundation to resist horizontal forces without strain, he is making an unrealistic assumption.

BA

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building


BA - You are correct about the PEMB designer having perhaps unrealistic expectations of the foundation restraint condition for his columns.  But then, they seem to consistently toss that issue to others - their responsibility ends at the bottom of the columns' base plates.

I really wish a PEMB designer would toss in his/her 2 cents.  Both from their personal feelings and from the company's position.  It would be beneficial to those who do design the foundations to have this insight.

Remember, the 3/8" movement was from a very quick approximation of the building's frame.  I would really likt to have the members' fabrication drawings to do a better analysis, but the PEMB folks seem to be reluctant to share.
 

Ralph
Structures Consulting
Northeast USA

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

RHTPE,

If the foundation designer uses a tension tie either below the slab or within the slab, the unit strain e in the tie is E/σ where σ is the stress at working load.  For σ = 20,000 psi, e = 0.00069 and the total strain for a length of 50' is 0.41" which exceeds 3/8" by ten percent.  

I cannot believe that substituting a roller for one hinge would result in a lateral deflection as low as 3/8".  That would be one heck of a stiff frame.

BA

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

Thus why I found it incredible.

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building


My real point is that the PEMB designers provide loads applied to the foundation.  Do they assume perfectly pinned connections at the bottoms of the columns?  Or do they anticipate some outward movement at the bottoms of the columns, which in turn increases the positive moment in the roof beam?

It's my opinion that to assume no outward movement at the column bases is unrealistic in the real world.

Ralph
Structures Consulting
Northeast USA

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

RHTPE,

I agree, but it is a matter of scale.  If the tie elongation is only a small fraction of the horizontal deflection of a roller support, then neglecting it is not introducing significant error.  If your figure of 3/8" for roller deflection is correct, then the error would be very significant.

BA

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

I agree that pins should be assumed to displace, and I think that 3/8" or about 10mm is in the right order for a 50' span.  That is 18ksi in a tie across the building, assuming no slippage in any connections.  So perhaps the PEMB designer should be given a maximum displacement of the base. Zero displacement is not practically achievable.  I still think that you should check the 40% increase, Ralph...are you sure your support conditions were inputted correctly?  In the other thread, you said the difference was from "fixed" to roller.

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

Ralph, I am also suspicious about the small deflection increase as well as the moment increase caused by a 3/8" movement.  I changed the supports in one simple frame out of curiosity and my deflections increased to 0.38ft.   Did you try a forced displacement to model the foundation deviation?  I usually find that 1/4" is a reasonable maximum to use for a pile foundation.

Brad

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building


Hokie,  By fixed I meant fixed in the X direction.  I should have been clearer.  The OP stated:

Quote:

I have calculated that the caissons should have sufficient lateral load capacity to carry the loads from the building base plates, as well as the vertical loads.  The column foundation piers should transfer these loads to the caisson tops.
My only point in adding comments to this thread was to try to elicit some input from someone who designs PEMB frames.  I would, and I'm sure the OP would, like to know how much lateral movement a typical frame can accommodate before it becomes a design issue.  I think we all agree that no matter how it's approached, there will be some degree of lateral displacement of the column bases.

As far as my quick analysis goes, it was a very rough approximation using the geometry of the building I'm investigating.  First run was with the column bases pinned (both fixed in the X & Y directions, but free to rotate).  Next run was with the X-direction displacement released on one column base.  Now if the PEMB manufacturer would only release the fabrication drawing(s) for the frame ...
 

Ralph
Structures Consulting
Northeast USA

RE: Caisson foundations and ties for Pre-Engineered metal building

I have not seen any PEMB manufacturers that address deflection at the base. I've been tempted to force one to do so, but I think they are a relatively simple folk. Realistically, there are many things that affect deflection at the base.
 
1. Axial deflection of tie beam or rotation of spread footing.
2. Temperature axial deflection of tie beam and/or steel girder.
3. Bolt slip against over-sized holes.
4. Allowable tolerance in bolt placement.
5. Slight relaxation at bolted joints. (when there are no flange splice plates with slip critical bolts, the end plate bolt have to introduce some flexibility.
6. Variances in distance across the steel frame from manufacturing tolerances.

There are so many factors that affect movement at the supposedly pinned joints, the only thing you can guarantee is that it will most certainly deflect relative to the assumed distance. I assume there's a little moment re-distribution happening when a yield stress is significantly exceeded. These frames have worked well over a long time, so I say don't over-think it.

By the way, for your structural models, use springs of varying stiffness. Really, for any model that has a lot of fixed boundary conditions, you should always substitute springs for pinned connections to see how a little base deflection affects member forces. An inch or two here or there can really re-distribute forces in a frame. Just my opinion.

--Tony Krempin (TKE Engineering)

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources