×
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

Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

(OP)
I'm considering the design of a footing for a 25' tall, 24" OD process tower that only weighs 7500 pounds. It'll be on a large footing mainly due to the overturning effect of wind loading. However, I'm trying to figure out how to get the eccentric loading bearing pressure calculation to work out for the foundation. I have P=8k and M=30k-ft...overturning checks fine, but bearing pressure calcs are making this have a huge footing to get enough bearing contact. I know it has to have a huge footing since it's lightly loaded anyway, so just a little applied moment will create uplift under some of the footing. Is there any alternative to having such a massive footing for such a small tower?

I recently considered a similar footing but for a heavier similar tower. However, I think this smaller tower will have to have a larger footing due to the eccentric loading issue.

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

Deeper footing for counter weight? Can you account for fill on top of the footing?

I've never done something like your problem, besides poles which get smaller size but deep footings. This way lateral earth forces help handle the moment and don't add to the overall bearing capacity (4'dia x 12'deep)

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

(OP)
Am I understanding correctly that with an eccentric loading bearing calculation, that you don't consider the weight of soil or concrete or anything...just the applied vertical load and moment? So if my understanding is correct, a deeper footing wouldn't help in this case.

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

When checking the foundation for overturning, include the gross weight of concrete and soil above the concrete.
You can also allow uplift. Doing so complicates the problem considerably, but will allow smaller foundation sizes. On a small footing like that, you probably can't save enough concrete to pay for the extra engineering.

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

Let me clarify. If you make your footing thicker, say 24" as opposed to 12" then you get more self weight.

As for the soil, i typically do not account for it, i assume the top of my footing is exposed... However, under certain situations and checks if i can guarantee some conditions i have used some soil. If i have a footing that TOF is 10' below grade then soil is going to help out. will i rely on it for everything, no, but will it make feel better about being on the edge of the Kern or a FS of 1.45, yes. I am curious what over people think or do.

PS. i am not a geo/civil so my foundation design is limited. Please take what i say with a large grain of salt.

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

(OP)
JStephen, right, I included the foundation weight and soil weight when doing the overturning calculation. However, I don't think I can include those items when doing an eccentrically loaded bearing capacity calculation. I understand the footing surface doesn't have to be in 100% bearing contact, but the footing still has to be large even to get a small amount of bearing contact at the full wind loading.

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

(OP)
Just to clarify on everything I've said so far: if the footing has the weight of the tower (8000 pounds) spread over a 7'x7' footing, then that yields a uniform bearing pressure of 140 psf. But once you consider the effect of the wind load generating a moment on the footing, you can see it wouldn't take much for the footing to be mostly in uplift.

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

(OP)
Here is the KEY question I am considering and trying to conceptualize: how could I have this foundation with plenty of safety factor against overturning AT THE SAME TIME as it being completely in uplift?

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

If you have a 7'x7' footing that is 1' thick, you are adding an additional 7.4k of resisting dead load for global stability checks. When I run the numbers, it is close to being acceptable in my book.

However, in my part of the world, we usually try to provide a minimum 4' frost coverage on all exterior footings, including process equipment. By thickening the footing, you will increase resisting dead load as well, and work yourself back into good stable bearing pressures.

Spreadsheets are your friend for this one. You can generate a very simple one in a few minutes that allows you to rapidly adjusts your dimensions to determine what works best for your situation.

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

(OP)
BadgerPE, you said: "If you have a 7'x7' footing that is 1' thick, you are adding an additional 7.4k of resisting dead load for global stability checks. When I run the numbers, it is close to being acceptable in my book."

But you're speaking of the global stability check for overturning, not the eccentric loading bearing pressure calculation where you can't consider the weight of the foundation. OR can you include the weight of the foundation in the eccentric loading bearing pressure calculation?

I'm talking about the calculation P(vertical force)/A(area) +/- 6*eccentricity/L(length)

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

Yes. I am including the weight of the footing in my eccentric bearing pressure check. So P = 7.5+7.4 = 14.9k

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

(OP)
BadgerPE, I think I understand now and have resolved my confusion. With the standard bearing pressure calculation of P/A, when the engineer is using the soil's "allowable bearing capacity," this is the reduced value per a safety factor from the "net bearing capacity" (which is the ultimate bearing capacity reduced by ONLY the soil overburden, not anything about an assumed concrete weight - my misunderstanding!). So none of this is accounting for the weight of the concrete, so YES, that should be included in the eccentric load bearing pressure calculation. And so even in the standard bearing pressure calculation of P/A, the weight of the concrete should be included in the vertical load "P".

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

(OP)
Regarding what I said above, P/A does includes the weight of the concrete in the value of "P" (the vertical load), not just the applied load, right?

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

(OP)
Per the 6th edition of Braja Das' book "Principles of Foundation Engineering" page 129:

"The net ultimate bearing capacity is defined as the ultimate pressure per unit area of the foundation that can be supported by the soil in excess of the pressure caused by the surrounding soil at the foundation level. If the difference between the unit weight of concrete used in the foundation and the unit weight of soil surrounding is assumed to be negligible, then q_net = q_u - q"

I think this resolves my confusion. "Net" bearing capacity, like I said above, considers the max pressure the soil can support IN EXCESS of soil overburden at the foundation level. The above "net" bearing capacity calculation ASSUMES that the difference between the unit weight of concrete in the foundation AND the overburden soil is NEGLIGIBLE, since the "q" value is simply the depth x the unit weight of soil (and typically these values are fairly close). So, NO, the weight of the concrete cannot be added as part of the vertical load in the bearing pressure calculation, because this would be considering it twice in the calculation.

However, I still don't think there's any alternative for this foundation in my opening post than a huge footer. Plus, I'm still uncertain about the "key question" I mentioned above in the 8th post on this thread.

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

I find that adherence to kern rules etc makes these kinds of foundations painfully un-economic. My recommendation is shown below. You can work with either net or gross soil bearing pressures as long as you're consistent. I always convert to gross as I find that simpler conceptualize.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

(OP)
KootK, that's a great way to analyze the situation - thanks. Related to what you said, I figured I'd add the difference between soil and concrete unit weights as an additional vertical load, and that's helping to make my numbers more reasonable for a more reasonably-sized footing.

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check


Quote:

However, I still don't think there's any alternative for this foundation in my opening post than a huge footer. Plus, I'm still uncertain about the "key question" I mentioned above in the 8th post on this thread.

How big is huge?

Quote:

Here is the KEY question I am considering and trying to conceptualize: how could I have this foundation with plenty of safety factor against overturning AT THE SAME TIME as it being completely in uplift?

If it was completely in uplift, it would be floating away. Assuming a footing 7'x7'x1', weight of footing = 49x150 = 7350#, say 7000#.

W = 8000 + 7000 = 15,000
eccentricity e = 30/15 = 2'

Effective width of footing = (3.5-2)2 = 3'
Average pressure = 15000/7x3 = 714 psf
Maximum pressure = 1428 psf
1428 psf is a pretty low bearing pressure, so what is the problem?

BA

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

(OP)
BAretired, the point where I'm disagreeing is that you can't factor in the weight of the footing for a bearing pressure calculation - it's already assumed per the definition of "net bearing pressure" per the quotations I provided above from Braja Das. However, I think you can add the difference between the concrete and soil unit weights as an additional vertical load.

For those following the discussion, I am managing to make the 7x7 footing work. The wind load was a little conservative, and my applied moment was also originally a little off. This has been a helpful discussion!

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

As KootK mentioned, use gross bearing pressures. It is easier to follow.

As far as your "KEY" question, can you provide a pressure diagram showing how the footing is stable for OT, but is fully in uplift? We may not be on the same page with that one.

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

(OP)
BadgerPE, I fixed my problem. The overturning stability ratio came out around 3.5-4, and I was able to get 70% bearing contact. I realized I miscalculated the moment from the wind when I was doing the bearing contact pressure calculation, so it was higher than it should've been. That got my numbers to work out. And the conversation in this thread has been helpful to conceptualize, and gave some useful tips for understanding the relationship between overturning moment and eccentric loading bearing capacity. Thank you.

RE: Eccentric load bearing capacity VS overturning check

Quote ((OP))

BAretired, the point where I'm disagreeing is that you can't factor in the weight of the footing for a bearing pressure calculation - it's already assumed per the definition of "net bearing pressure" per the quotations I provided above from Braja Das. However, I think you can add the difference between the concrete and soil unit weights as an additional vertical load.

You are misreading the intent of what Das said. You must include the weight of concrete in your calculation. Why wouldn't you? That is the load that the soil/footing interface experiences. If the maximum resulting pressure exceeds permissible soil pressure plus overburden, you have to try again.

In the case at hand, I assumed that the top of footing was at grade. The maximum resulting pressure was found to be 1428 psf based on a moment of 30'k. If the moment was taken at grade, it should have been increased to account for the one foot footing thickness and I neglected that.

I'm pleased that you got your numbers to work out but you still need to understand the concept which Das discussed in his book. Read it again.

BA

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