Foundation Verification Problems

RISAFoundation

Rapid Interactive Structural Analysis – Foundations

Verification Problems

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

(949) 951‐5815
(949) 951‐5848 (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
i
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 RISAFoundation’s 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.

1
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 Wight’s, Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and
Design (Example 16‐1, p.802‐805).
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 self‐weight 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 % Difference
Factored Net Pressure, qnu (ksf) 6.19
1 6.19 0
Vu (k/ft) 7.872 8.513 7.52
φ*Vc (k/ft) 9.613 9.374 2.59
Mu (k*ft/ft) 13.455 13.4 0.41
φ*Mn (k*ft/ft) 14.268 14.0 1.91
0.07
As min (in^2) 1.451 1.45
Table 1.1 – Results Comparison
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.
3
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)*(25‐9.75)*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.

4
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 Wight’s Reinforced Concrete
Mechanics and Design (Example 16‐2, p.805‐810).
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 Grade‐60 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 self‐weight are set to zero.
5
Comparison

Soil Pressure, qu
(ksf) 7.311 7.31 11.6
Vu Punching (k) 804.591 804 0.07

φ*Vc Punching (k) 0.75*1128.747= 846.562 846 0.07
Vu One‐Way (k) 204.254 204 0.12

φ*Vc One‐Way (k) 0.75*411.134 = 308.352 308 0.11
Mu (k*ft) 954.34 954 0.04
As Required (in^2) 7.763 8.41 7.73

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 re‐solve.
2In RISAFoundation the V value is reported without the φ value. If the V value is multiplied by the
c c
text φ then there is agreement.
3If you use RISA’s value of A Required and calculate a new “a”, you will get a φ*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 φ*Mn RISA is
following ACI 318‐11 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.

6
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 Wight’s Reinforced
Concrete Mechanics and Design (Example 16‐3, p.810‐812).
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 self‐weight 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 16‐2 and 16‐3. 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.
7
Comparison
Vu One‐Way (k) ‐ N1 250.23 247 1.31
φ*Vc One‐Way (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
As Provided Short (in2) ‐ N2 are banded) are banded) 0

1In the text approximate methods are used to determine A Req’d. We can see that the ф*M = 1330
s n
k*ft. RISAFoundation is able to remove a bar and still produce a ф*Mn greater than Mu.
Conclusion
design examples, except in the instances explained above.
8
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 PCA’s Notes on ACI 318‐05 Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete (Example 22.7, p.22‐20).
Footing Size = 8.5’ x 8.5’
Column Size = 16” x 16”
Pile Diameter = 12 in.
f’c = 4000 psi
Load per Pile:
PD = 20 kips
PL = 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.

9
Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units in kips)
One‐way Beam Shear
Capacity, φVn (kips) 180.629*0.75 = 135.471 135.4 0.05
Pedestal Punching
Shear Capacity, φVn
(kips) 320/1.004 = 318.732 319 0.08
Corner Pile Punching
Shear Capacity, φVn
(kips) 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 y‐axes. This example comes from the Design of Reinforced Concrete
Structures, copyright 1985 Hassoun (Example 13.7, p.409‐413).
A 12” by 24” column of an unsymmetrical shed is subjected to an axial load PD = 220 kips and a
moment MD = 180 k‐ft due to dead load, and an axial load PL = 165 kips and a moment ML = 140 k‐ft
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 self‐weight of the footing. Therefore, the RISA model has the
density of the concrete material set to zero.


13
Comparison
% Difference
Value RISAFoundation Text Value
Method 1 Soil Pressure, (87.1/90)*4.42
qn (ksf) 4.283 = 4.2771 0.07
Method 1 Mu‐xx (k*ft) 687.2 687.4 0.03
Method 1 Mu‐zz (k*ft) 523.11 523.2 0.02

Method 2 Soil Pressure
Max, qn (ksf) 4.43 4.422 0.23
Method 2 Soil Pressure
Min, qn (ksf) 1.973 1.98 0.35
Method 2 Mu‐xx (k*ft) 873.6 873 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
max
for method 2. This should be 4.42 ksf.
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
f’c = 20.68 MN/m2.
Notes:
‐ RISAFoundation uses Rankine’s 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*φ) = 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

Mresist Against
Overturning (kN‐m/m) 1030.034 1044.3 (1128.98)1 1.37
Moverturning (kN‐m/m) 379.047 379.25 0.05

Vresist Against Sliding 433.17 – 171.39 –
(kN/m) 147.278 106.67 = 155.12 5.04
Vsliding (kN/m) 158.853 158.95 0.06

Max Bearing Pressure
(kPa) 199.349 189.23 5.36
189.2/574.07 =
Bearing UC .347 .3293 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 kN‐m/m.
2The text book assumes cohesion. RISAFoundation assumes cohesion‐less soil. They give a Vresist
= 111.5 + 106.7 + 215 = 433.17 kN/m. The 106.7 is a cohesion term that RISA doesn’t account for.
The 215 comes passive pressure including cohesion. The cohesion term = 171.39 kN/m which RISA
doesn’t 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 8‐1 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 0
M Overturn (k*ft) 48.6 48.6 0
V Resist (kips) 10.008 9.855 1.55
V Slide (kips) 7.02 7.02 0
Max Soil Pressure
(ksf) 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
ϕVn 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 0
Mu of Toe (k*ft) 18.473 20.476 NA3
Vu of Toe (kips) 6.47 13.07 NA4
17.315* (0.85/0.75) =
ϕVn of Toe (kips) 19.62** 19.64 0.1
#7 Bars @ 16"
As Bot (in2) #7 Bars @ 16" oc oc 0
Mu Stem Base (k*ft) 63.4 63.431 0.05
Vu Stem Base (kips) 10.023 (LC2) 10.049 0.26
ϕVn 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 ϕ
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 10‐4 on P310.
A concrete footing 4 ft. below the finished ground line supports an 18‐in. 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
f’c (footing and column) = 3000 psi
Steel Yield fy = 60 ksi
Longitudinal column steel = No. 8 bars
Soil Density = 100 lb/ft3
Allowable Soil Pressure = 5 ksf
Effective Allowable Soil Pressure = 4.50 ksf

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

19
Comparison
Factored Soil Pressure, qu (ksf) 6.7391 6.74 0.01
Shear Demand, Vu two‐way (k) 474.921 475 0.02
ϕ*666.031 =
Shear Capacity, ϕVn two‐way (k) 566.13 (ϕ=0.85)2 566 0.02
Shear Demand, ϕVu one‐way (k) 157.246 157.1 0.09
ϕ*184.035 =
Shear Strength, ϕVn one‐way (k) 156.43 (ϕ=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 6.9 0.23
4.4/(4/3)
As required short direction (in2) 3.303 = 3.33 0.09
As required T & S (in2) 5.962 5.96 0.03
ϕ*1652.4 =
Footing Bearing Strength (in2) 1156.68 (ϕ=0.70)4 1157 0.03
Factored Bearing Load, Pu (k) 542.5 542.5 0.00

2In RISAFoundation the V value is reported without the φ value. If the V value is multiplied by the
c c
text φ 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 φ value. If the B value is multiplied by the
c c
text φ 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 318‐05 Example 22.1, 22.2 and
22.3 (all in one problem) on page 22‐7.
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 self‐weight 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
Ex 22.1: qs (ksf) 5.0891 5.1 0.22
Ex 22.2 Shear Demand, Vu one way (k) 242.564 243 0.18
φ*478.5 = 358.868
Ex 22.2 Shear Capacity, φVn one way (k) (φ = 0.75)2 359 0.04
Ex 22.2 Shear Demand, Vu two way (k) 778.014 780 0.25
φ*1082 = 811.593 (φ
Shear Capacity, φVn two way (k) = 0.75)2 812 0.05
Ex 22.2 Bending Moment, Mu (k*ft) 1190.77 1193 0.12
Ex 22.3 As required (in2) 9.704 9.6 1.08

2RISAFoundation presents the V value without φ. When you multiply V by φ 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 non‐sloping back‐filled 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 RISAFoundation’s 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.

Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually)1,2
Value RISAFoundation Hand Calculation % Difference
Lateral Earth Pressures NA
KLat Heel 0.307 0.307 0
KLat Heel Sat 0.333 0.333 0
KLat Toe 3.255 3.255 0
Stability Checks
Overturning SF Min/SF 0.659 0.659 0
Sliding SF Min/SF 1.176 1.176 0
Wall Design
UC Max Int 1.664 1.678 0.834
Shear UC Max 0.624 0.627 0.478
Dowel Shear UC Max 0.455 0.455 0
Footing Soil Pressures
qmax (ft)* 5.6 5.603 0.054
Lsoil Length (ft)* 9.09 9.090 0
Footing Design
Shear UC Heel 0.746 0.746 0
Moment UC Heel 0.967 0.967 0
Shear UC Toe 0.597 0.597 0
Moment UC Toe 0.63 0.630 0

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 RISAFoundation’s 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.
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually)1,2
Value RISAFoundation Hand Calculation % Difference
Flexural Checks
Muxx (k‐ft) 1432.03 1438 0.42
Muzz (k‐ft) 937.13 932.8 0.46
Asminx (in^2) 13.835 13.835 0
Asminz (in^2) 10.13 10.13 0
Asflexx bot (in^2) 20.588 20.588 0
Asflexz bot (in^2) 15.075 15.075 0
UC Mx 0.755 0.753 0.27
UC Mz 0.445 0.488 8.81
Punching Shear Checks
Pedestal Punching UC 0.719 0.719 0
Pile 4 Punching Capacity 220.284 220.284 0
(kips)
Pile 4 Punching UC 0.399 0.399 0
One Way Shear Checks
Shear Capacity Vcx (kips) 1186.972 1187 0
Shear Capacity Vcz (kips) 585.931 591.221 0.89
Pedestal Shear Capacities
Vc (kips) 48.952 48.952 0
Vs (kips) 50.658 50.658 0

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 ≔ 16 ⋅ ft Hwall = Hsoil Ltoe ≔ 3.5 ⋅ ft Wkey ≔ 18 ⋅ in
Hwater ≔ 6 ⋅ ft Lheel ≔ 5.5 ⋅ ft

Dkey ≔ 18 ⋅ in
twall ≔ 18 ⋅ in tfoot ≔ 18 ⋅ in
Lkey ≔ 4.5 ⋅ ft
Lwall ≔ 10 ⋅ 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
γconc ≔ .15 ⋅ ―― fc ≔ 4 ⋅ ksi fy ≔ 60 ⋅ ksi
3
ft
A10.1
Soil
μ ≔ 0.5 Coef of friction w/soil β≔0 back ill angle Htoesoil ≔ 2 ⋅ ft
Soilallow ≔ 5 ⋅ ksf q ≔ 500 ⋅ psf surcharge
γw ≔ 62.4 ⋅ pcf
γm ≔ 115 ⋅ pcf
ϕm ≔ 32 ⋅ deg
γs ≔ 125 ⋅ pcf
ϕs ≔ 30 ⋅ deg
SF ≔ 1.5 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
Wall Reinforcing Properties
dbinside ≔ 0.75 ⋅ in
s ≔ 8 ⋅ in spacing of vertical bars
dbhoriz ≔ 0.5 ⋅ in
swallhoriz ≔ 10 ⋅ in spacing of horizontal bars
dboutside ≔ 0.5 in
Numfaces ≔ 2 Two faces of reinforcement
2
π ⋅ dbinside 2
Asinside ≔ ―――― = 0.442 in #6 bars interior.
4
2
π ⋅ dboutside 2
Asoutside ≔ ――――= 0.196 in #4 bars exterior
4
2
2 ⋅ π ⋅ dbhoriz 2
Ashoriz ≔ ―――― = 0.393 in #4 bars horizontal each face
4
coverinside ≔ 2 ⋅ in 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
π ⋅ dbtop 2
Astop ≔ ―――= 0.442 in #6 bars at 8" spacing top
4
2
π ⋅ dbbot 2
Asbot ≔ ―――= 0.442 in #6 bars at 8" spacing bot
4
2
2 ⋅ π ⋅ dblong 2
Aslong ≔ ――――= 0.393 in #4 bars at 16" spacing longitudinal each face
4
covertop ≔ 2 in 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
β=0 ϕm = 32 deg ϕs = 30 deg
⎛ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
2 2 ⎞
⎜ cos (β) − (cos (β)) − ⎛⎝cos ⎛⎝ϕm⎞⎠⎞⎠ ⎟
Kam ≔ cos (β) ⋅ ――――――――――― = 0.307
⎜ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
2 2 ⎟
⎝ cos (β) + (cos (β)) − ⎛⎝cos ⎛⎝ϕm⎞⎠⎞⎠ ⎠
⎛ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
2 2 ⎞
⎜ cos (β) + (cos (β)) − ⎛⎝cos ⎛⎝ϕm⎞⎠⎞⎠ ⎟
Kpm ≔ cos (β) ⋅ ――――――――――― = 3.255
⎜ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
2 2 ⎟
⎝ cos (β) − (cos (β)) − ⎛⎝cos ⎛⎝ϕm⎞⎠⎞⎠ ⎠
⎛ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
2 2 ⎞
⎜ cos (β) − (cos (β)) − ⎛⎝cos ⎛⎝ϕs⎞⎠⎞⎠ ⎟
Kas ≔ cos (β) ⋅ ―――――――――――= 0.333
⎜ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
2 2 ⎟
⎝ cos (β) + (cos (β)) − ⎛⎝cos ⎛⎝ϕs⎞⎠⎞⎠ ⎠
Lateral Pressure Calculations (Service)
P1 ≔ Kam ⋅ q = 153.629 psf
P2 ≔ Kam ⋅ ⎛⎝q + ⎛⎝Hwall − Hwater⎞⎠ ⋅ γm⎞⎠ = 506.977 psf
P3 ≔ Kas ⋅ ⎛⎝q + ⎛⎝Hwall − Hwater⎞⎠ ⋅ γm⎞⎠ = 550 psf
3
P4 ≔ P3 + Kas ⋅ Hwater ⋅ ⎛⎝γs − γw⎞⎠ + Hwater ⋅ γw = ⎛⎝1.05 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ psf
3
P5 ≔ P4 + Kas ⋅ tfoot ⋅ ⎛⎝γs − γw⎞⎠ + tfoot ⋅ γw = ⎛⎝1.175 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ psf
3
P6 ≔ P5 + Kas ⋅ Dkey ⋅ ⎛⎝γs − γw⎞⎠ + Dkey ⋅ γw = ⎛⎝1.299 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ psf
A10.5
P7 ≔ Htoesoil ⋅ γm ⋅ Kpm = 748.555 psf
3
P8 ≔ ⎛⎝Htoesoil + tfoot⎞⎠ ⋅ γm ⋅ Kpm = ⎛⎝1.31 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ psf
3
P9 ≔ ⎛⎝Htoesoil + tfoot + Dkey⎞⎠ ⋅ γm ⋅ 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 ―― This value changes for all 3 calculations.
ft
kip
LF1slide ≔ LF1 + P1 ⋅ Dkey = 2.919 ――
ft
kip
LF1wall ≔ P1 ⋅ ⎛⎝Hwall⎞⎠ = 2.458 ――
ft
1 kip This is the same value for all 3

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
⎝2⎠ ft calculations.
⎛1⎞ kip
LF4slide ≔ ⎛⎝P6 − P3⎞⎠ ⋅ ⎜―⎟ ⋅ ⎛⎝Hwater + tfoot + Dkey⎞⎠ = 3.372 ――
⎝2⎠ ft
⎛1⎞ kip
LF4wall ≔ ⎛⎝P4 − P3⎞⎠ ⋅ ⎜―⎟ ⋅ Hwater = 1.499 ――
⎝2⎠ ft
1 kip
LF5 ≔ ―⋅ P8 ⋅ ⎛⎝Htoesoil + tfoot⎞⎠ = 2.292 ―― This value changes for all 3 calculations.
2 ft
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 ⋅ γconc = 3.6 ―― kip
ft w1f ≔ DLFactor ⋅ w1 = 4.32 ――
ft
kip
w2 ≔ tfoot ⋅ ⎛⎝twall + Ltoe + Lheel⎞⎠ ⋅ γconc = 2.363 ――
ft kip
w2f ≔ DLFactor ⋅ w2 = 2.835 ――
kip ft
w3 ≔ Wkey ⋅ Dkey ⋅ γconc = 0.338 ―― kip
ft w3f ≔ DLFactor ⋅ w3 = 0.405 ――
ft
kip kip
w4 ≔ Ltoe ⋅ Htoesoil ⋅ γm = 0.805 ―― w4f ≔ DLFactor ⋅ w4 = 0.966 ――
ft ft
kip kip
qtotal ≔ q ⋅ Lheel = 2.75 ―― qtotalf ≔ LLFactor ⋅ qtotal = 4.4 ――
ft ft
kip kip
w5 ≔ Lheel ⋅ ⎛⎝Hwall − Hwater⎞⎠ ⋅ γm = 6.325 ―― w5f ≔ DLFactor ⋅ w5 = 7.59 ――
ft ft
kip kip
w6 ≔ Lheel ⋅ Hwater ⋅ γs = 4.125 ―― w6f ≔ DLFactor ⋅ w6 = 4.95 ――
ft ft
A10.9
Vertical Force Centroids
twall
D1 ≔ Ltoe + ―― = 4.25 ft
2
Lfoot
D2 ≔ ―― = 5.25 ft
2
Wkey
D3 ≔ Lkey + ――= 5.25 ft
2
Ltoe
D4 ≔ ―― = 1.75 ft
2
Lheel
D5 ≔ Ltoe + twall + ―― = 7.75 ft
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 ―― Total vertical force
ft
kip
FFriction ≔ R ⋅ μ = 10.153 ――
ft
1 kip
LF8 ≔ ―⋅ P9 ⋅ ⎛⎝Htoesoil + tfoot + Dkey⎞⎠ = 4.678 ――
2 ft
kip The forces resisting sliding are due to both

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 twall = 1.5 ft
2
Asinside = 0.442 in #6 bars interior. coverinside = 2 in
2
Asoutside = 0.196 in
#4 bars exterior coveroutside = 1 in
2
Ashoriz = 0.393 in #4 bars horizontal each face
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
H3wall ≔ ――― = 3 ft
2
Hwater
H4wall ≔ ――― = 2 ft
3
Htoesoil
H5wall ≔ ――― = 0.667 ft
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
dprime ≔ coveroutside + dbhoriz + ――― = 1.75 in
2
Asinside ⋅ fy Asoutside ⋅ fy
awall ≔ ―――― = 0.975 in aprime ≔ ―――― = 0.433 in
0.85 ⋅ fc ⋅ s 0.85 ⋅ fc ⋅ s
⎛ awall ⎞
Asinside ⋅ fy ⋅ ⎜dcant − ―― ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ 12
Mnwall ≔ ――――――――⋅ ―
12 s
ft
Mnwall = 48.501 kip ⋅ ― This is the moment capacity in the wall not considering
ft compression reinforcement
A10.13
ϕwall ≔ 0.9
ft Note: The program takes into account

PhiMnwall ≔ ϕwall ⋅ Mnwall = 43.651 kip ⋅ ― compression reinforcement as well, so the
ft
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
BarsHoriz ≔ round ⎛⎝BarsHoriz1⎞⎠ = 38 The total number of horizontal bars in the wall.
Ashoriz 2
Asprovh ≔ BarsHoriz ⋅ ――― = 7.461 in As provided (H)
2
Asprovh −4
rhoprovh ≔ ――――― = 1.799 ⋅ 10 Rho Provided (H)
12 ⋅ Hwall ⋅ twall
rhominh ≔ .002 Rho min (H)
2
Asminh ≔ rhominh ⋅ Hwall ⋅ twall = 6.912 in As min (H)
Inside Face Vertical Reinforcement
Lwall
BarsVertInt1 ≔ ―― = 15
s
BarsVertInt ≔ round ⎛⎝BarsVertInt1⎞⎠ = 15 The total number of interior vertical bars in the wall.
2
Asprovint ≔ BarsVertInt ⋅ Asinside = 6.627 in Int As Provided (V)
Asprovint −4
rhoprovint ≔ ――――― = 2.557 ⋅ 10 Int rho Provided (V)
Lwall ⋅ twall ⋅ 12
A10.14
Outside Face Vertical Reinforcement
Lwall ⋅ 12
BarsVertExt1 ≔ ―――= 180
s
BarsVertExt ≔ round ⎛⎝BarsVertExt1⎞⎠ = 180 The total number of exterior
vertical bars in the wall.
2
Asprovext ≔ BarsVertExt ⋅ Asoutside = 35.343 in Ext As Provided (V)
Asprovext
rhoprovext ≔ ――――― = 0.001 Ext rho Provided (V)
Lwall ⋅ twall ⋅ 12
Total Vertical Reinforcement
rhominv ≔ .0015 rho min (V)
2
Asminv ≔ rhominv ⋅ Lwall ⋅ 12 ⋅ twall = 38.88 in As min (V)
Shear Design
Concrete check:
Hwall − dcant ⎛ Hwater − dcant ⎞ kip

Vwallds1 ≔ LF1wall ⋅ ――――+ LF3wall ⋅ ⎜――――― ⎟ + LF2 = 5.91 ――
Hwall ⎝ Hwater ⎠ ft
⎛ 2 ⎞ 2
P4 − P3 ⎛⎝Hwater − dcant⎞⎠ P7 ⎛⎝Htoesoil − dcant⎞⎠ kip
Vwallds2 ≔ ――― ⋅ ⎜―――――― ⎟ − ― ⋅ ―――――― = 0.833 ――
2 ⎜⎝ Hwater ⎟⎠ 2 Htoesoil ft
For the concrete check we are using the shear force at a distance d from the base.
kip 2
Vwallds ≔ Vwallds1 + Vwallds2 = 6.743 ―― lbf
ft fc ≔ 4000 ⋅ ――
4
in
kip
Vwalldf ≔ HLFactor ⋅ Vwallds = 10.788 ――
ft ϕv ≔ 0.75
4 lbf
Vc ≔ 2 ⋅ fc ⋅ dcant = ⎛⎝2.2958 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ ――
‾‾
ft
A10.15
4 lbf
PhiVcwall ≔ ϕv ⋅ Vc = ⎛⎝1.7219 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ ――
ft
Vwalldf
ShearConcInteraction ≔ ―――― = 0.627
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 ⋅ ― 2 Here we are using the As of the wall
ft in
Avf ≔ ――――――――― = 0.957 ―― reinforcing, as the dowels from the
s ft foundation match the wall r/f.
fy = 60 ksi
μconc ≔ 0.6 This assumes that the surface of the footing where
the wall is poured is not intentionally roughened.
1
Vn ≔ Avf ⋅ fy ⋅ μconc = 113.056 ―⋅ kip Equation 1125
m
Per Section 11.6.6 fy must be taken <= 60 ksi.
in
twall = 18 in lwall ≔ 12 ⋅ ―
ft per foot distance
2
in
Ac ≔ twall ⋅ lwall = 216 ―― fc ≔ 4 ⋅ ksi
ft
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 kip
Vn2 ≔ ⎛⎝480 ⋅ psi + 0.08 ⋅ fc⎞⎠ ⋅ Ac = 172.8 ―― Vn4 ≔ 0.2 ⋅ fc ⋅ Ac = 172.8 ――
ft ft
kip kip
Vn3 ≔ 1600 ⋅ psi ⋅ Ac = 345.6 ―― Vn5 ≔ 800 ⋅ psi ⋅ Ac = 172.8 ――
ft ft
kip
Vnrough ≔ min ⎛⎝Vn , Vn1 , Vn2 , Vn3⎞⎠ Vnsmooth ≔ min ⎛⎝Vn , Vn4 , Vn5⎞⎠ = 34.459 ――
ft
Vwallbasef
SteelConcInteraction ≔ ――――= 0.455
ϕv ⋅ 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 Lfoot
e1S ≔ ―― − xRS = 2.22 ft ―― = 1.75 ft
2 6
LbasesoilS ≔ 3 ⋅ xRS = 9.09 ft
A10.17
Lfoot Lfoot
qmaxS ≔ if e1S < ―― = 5.603 ksf qminS ≔ if e1S < ―― = 0 ksf
6 6
‖ R 6 ⋅ ⎝⎛RS ⋅ e1S⎞⎠ ‖ R 6 ⋅ ⎝⎛RS ⋅ e1S⎞⎠
S S
‖ ―― + ―――― ‖ ―― − ――――
2 2
‖ L Lfoot ‖ L Lfoot
‖ foot ‖ foot
else else
‖ 4 ⋅ RS ‖ 0 ⋅ ksf
‖
‖ ――――――
‖ 3 ⋅ ⎛⎝Lfoot − 2 ⋅ e1S⎞⎠
A10.18
Design of the Heel (Shear)
covertop = 2 in
dbtop = 0.75 in
dblong = 0.5 in
stop = 8 in
slong = 16 in
2
Astop = 0.442 in
2
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 ⋅ γconc ⋅ 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
2
lbf
fc ≔ 4000 ⋅ ――
4
in
kip
Vcheel ≔ 2 ⋅ ‾‾
fc ⋅ dheel = 23.717 ――
ft
kip
PhiVcheel ≔ ϕv ⋅ Vcheel = 17.788 ――
ft
Vuheel
ShearheelInteraction ≔ ―――= 0.746
PhiVcheel
Design of the Heel (Moment)
Lheel 1 kip ⋅ ft
Muheel ≔ Vuheel1 ⋅ ―― − Vuheel2 ⋅ ―⋅ LsoilheelS = 43.642 ――― fc ≔ 4 ⋅ ksi
2 3 ft
12 ⋅ in
―― ⋅ Astop ⋅ fy 2
stop Astop in
aheel ≔ ―――――― = 0.975 in Astop1 ≔ ――= 0.442 ――
0.85 ⋅ 12 ⋅ in ⋅ fc 1 ⋅ ft ft
12 ⋅ in ⎛ aheel ⎞ kip ⋅ ft The reinforcement spacing

Mnheel ≔ ―― ⋅ Astop1 ⋅ fy ⋅ ⎜dheel − ―― ⎟ = 50.157 ―――is at 8" oc, so the moment
stop ⎝ 2 ⎠ ft
capacity is normalized to
be per foot.
ϕwall = 0.9
kip ⋅ ft
PhiMnheel ≔ ϕwall ⋅ Mnheel = 45.142 ―――
ft
Muheel
BendheelInteraction ≔ ―――― = 0.967
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
2
Asbot = 0.442 in
2
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 ⋅ γconc ⋅ tfoot ⋅ Ltoe⎞⎠ ⋅ ⎜―――― ⎟ = 1.246 ――
⎝ Ltoe ⎠ ft
2
lbf
fc ≔ 4000 ⋅ ――
4
in
kip ‾‾ kip
Vutoe ≔ VutoeOT − VutoeR = 9.933 ―― Vctoe ≔ 2 ⋅ fc ⋅ dtoe = 22.199 ――
ft ft
kip
PhiVctoe ≔ ϕv ⋅ Vctoe = 16.649 ――
ft
Vutoe
SheartoeInteraction ≔ ―――= 0.597
PhiVctoe
A10.23
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 ――
Ltoe − dtoe ft
⎛ Ltoe ⎞ kip ⋅ ft
MutoeR ≔ VutoeRbend ⋅ ⎜―― ⎟ = 3.344 ―――
⎝ 2 ⎠ ft
kip ⋅ ft
Mutoe ≔ MutoeOS − MutoeR = 26.571 ――― fc ≔ 4 ⋅ ksi
ft
2
12 ⋅ in Asbot in
―― ⋅ Asbot ⋅ fy Asbot1 ≔ ――= 0.442 ――
sbot 1 ⋅ ft ft
atoe ≔ ――――― = 0.975 in
0.85 ⋅ 12 ⋅ in ⋅ fc
12 ⋅ in ⎛ atoe ⎞ kip ⋅ ft
Mntoe ≔ ―― ⋅ Asbot1 ⋅ fy ⋅ ⎜dtoe − ―― ⎟ = 46.844 ――― ϕwall = 0.9
sbot ⎝ 2 ⎠ ft
kip ⋅ ft
PhiMntoe ≔ ϕwall ⋅ Mntoe = 42.16 ―――
ft
Mutoe
BendtoeInteraction ≔ ―――― = 0.63
PhiMntoe
A10.24
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 embed ≔ 6 in
kip
fy ≔ 60 ksi fc ≔ 4 ksi λ ≔ 0.75 ρconc ≔ .11 ⋅ ――
3
ft
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 Distance from c/l of pedestal to c/l of piles in the x direction.

l1z ≔ 24.5 in Distance from c/l of pedestal to c/l of 1st piles in the z direction.
l2z ≔ 73.5 in Distance from c/l of pedestal to c/l of 2nd piles in the z direction.
Wped
wx ≔ lx − ――= 37 in Distance from piles centroid to face of pedestal in x
2 direction.
Wped
w1z ≔ l1z − ――= 12.5 in Distance from 1st piles centroid to face of pedestal in
2 z direction.
A11.1
Distance from 2nd piles centroid to face of pedestal in
Wped z direction.
w2z ≔ l2z − ――= 61.5 in
2
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 ⎞ ⎛ tcap ⎞
Mx ≔ Vz ⋅ ⎜Hped + ―― ⎟ = 150 kip ⋅ ft Mz ≔ Vx ⋅ ⎜Hped + ―― ⎟ = 75 kip ⋅ ft
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
wped ≔ Hped ⋅ Lped ⋅ Wped ⋅ ρconc = 0.88 kip wcap ≔ Lcap ⋅ Wcap ⋅ tcap ⋅ ρconc = 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 Ppile8 ≔ 59.2103 kip

Pu1 ≔ 76.1068 kip Pu8 ≔ 84.1884 kip
Pu2 ≔ 80.0252 kip Pu9 ≔ 68.7599 kip
Pu3 ≔ 83.9435 kip Pu10 ≔ 72.6782 kip
Pu4 ≔ 87.8619 kip Pu11 ≔ 76.5966 kip
Pu5 ≔ 72.4333 kip Pu12 ≔ 80.515 kip
Ppile6 ≔ 54.3124 kip
Pu6 ≔ 76.3517 kip
Ppile7 ≔ 56.7613 kip
Pu7 ≔ 80.2701 kip
A11.2
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 ⋅ ρconc = 32.292 kip
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ Lcap − Lped ⎞
wucapresistz ≔ 1.2 ⋅ ⎜―――― ⎟ ⋅ Wcap ⋅ tcap ⋅ ρconc = 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.
2 2
Asminx ≔ .0018 ⋅ Lcap ⋅ tcap = 13.835 in Asminz ≔ .0018 ⋅ Wcap ⋅ tcap = 10.13 in
lbf lbf
200 ⋅ ―― ⋅ Lcap ⋅ d 200 ―― ⋅ Wcap ⋅ d
2 2
in 2 in 2
Asflexxbot ≔ ―――――― = 20.588 in Asflexzbot ≔ ―――――― = 15.075 in
fy fy
2
Asreqdxbot ≔ 6.226 ⋅ in
Values given in the program
2
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
2
Asreqdzbot ≔ 9.609 in
Values given in the program
2
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
db ≔ d = 33.75 in Effective depth of slab for pedestal punching.
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 ⋅ ρconc = 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

Force in the pedestal.
Muzped ≔ 1.6 ⋅ Mz = 120 kip ⋅ ft
bo ≔ 2 ⋅ ⎛⎝L1 + L2⎞⎠ = 231 in Punching shear perimeter.
L1
c1 ≔ ―= 28.875 in This is the distance from centroid to extreme iber.
2
A11.4
3 2
Ac ≔ bo ⋅ db = ⎛⎝7.796 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ in Ac is the perimeter area of the shear cone.
3 3 2
db ⋅ ⎛⎝Wped + db⎞⎠ ⎛⎝Wped + db⎞⎠ ⋅ 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.
γ ≔ 0.4
Pupunch γ ⋅ Muxped ⋅ c1 γ ⋅ Muzped ⋅ c1

υumax ≔ ――― + ―――― + ――――= 0.102 ksi
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
fc ⋅ bo ⋅ db = ⎛⎝1.479 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kip
PhiVcpunch ≔ 0.75 ⋅ 4 ⋅ ‾‾
λ ⋅ PhiVcpunch
PhiVny ≔ ――――― = 0.142 ksi
bo ⋅ d b
υumax
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
ϕ ≔ 0.55 bo1 ≔ 2 ⋅ Lpile = 86 in
8
PhiVcpunch ≔ ϕ ⋅ λ ⋅ ―⋅ ‾‾
fc ⋅ bo1 ⋅ dtop = 215.389 kip If we were to calculate it exactly.
3
0.75 ⋅ λ ⋅ 4 ⋅ ‾‾
fc ⋅ bo1 ⋅ dtop
PhiVcpunch2 ≔ ―――――――― = 220.284 kip This is the value the
2 program reports.
Pu4 = 87.862 kip

Pu4
Puratio ≔ ――――= 0.399
PhiVcpunch2
One Way Shear Check
w1z = 12.5 in wx = 37 in
d = 33.75 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 ⋅ ρconc = 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.
2 2
Asprovidedz ≔ 12.8122 ⋅ in Asprovidedx ≔ Asminx = 13.835 in
Asprovidedz Asprovidedx
ρprovz ≔ ―――― = 0.002833 ρprovx ≔ ―――― = 0.00224
Wcap ⋅ d 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 Mu/Vu*d must be less than or equal to 1.0, so use 1.0.
Vuz ⋅ d
MVratio ≔ 1
⎛ d ⎞ ⎛ lbf ⎞
υcx ≔ ⎜―― ⎟ ⋅ (3.5 − 2.5 ⋅ MVratio) ⋅ ⎜1.9 ⋅ λ ⋅ ‾‾
fc + 2500 ―― ⋅ ρprovz ⋅ MVratio⎟ = 262.46 psi
2
⎝ w1z ⎠ ⎝ in ⎠
υcmax ≔ 10 ⋅ ‾‾
fc = 632.456 psi
3
Vc_x ≔ υcx ⋅ 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 Mu/Vu*d must be less than or equal to 1.0, so use 1.0.
Vux ⋅ d
MVratio ≔ 1
‾‾ lbf
υcz1 ≔ 1.9 ⋅ λ ⋅ fc + 2500 ⋅ ―― ⋅ ρprovx ⋅ MVratio = 95.725 psi
2
in
Vc_z1 ≔ υcz1 ⋅ Lcap ⋅ d = 591.221 kip
A11.7
Pedestal Design
Inputs
dpedlongbar ≔ 1 in dpedshearbar ≔ 0.5 in coverped ≔ 1.5 in Wped = 24 in
dpedlongbar
dped ≔ Wped − coverped − dpedshearbar − ―――― = 21.5 in λ = 0.75
2
Concrete Shear Capacity
Vcped ≔ 2 ⋅ λ ⋅ ‾‾
fc ⋅ Wped ⋅ dped = 48.952 kip
Steel Shear Capacity
⎛d 2 ⎞
pedshearbar ⋅ π 2
Asv ≔ 2 ⋅ ⎜――――― ⎟ = 0.393 in spedshear ≔ 10 in
⎝ 4 ⎠
Asv ⋅ fy ⋅ dped
Vs1 ≔ ――――= 50.658 kip Vsmax ≔ 8 ⋅ ‾‾
fc ⋅ dped ⋅ Wped = 261.078 kip
spedshear
Vs ≔ min ⎛⎝Vs1 , Vsmax⎞⎠ = 50.658 kip
Combined Bending and Axial Forces
Puped ≔ 1.2 ⋅ Pd + 1.6 ⋅ Pl + 1.2 ⋅ Hped ⋅ Wped ⋅ Lped ⋅ ρconc = 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

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Foundation Verification Problems

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Verification Problem 1: Strip Footing Design

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

is used in the above table.

3 – 0.5/2 = 9.75”. This produces a Vu = (1/12)*(25‐9.75)*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

Value RISAFoundation Text Value % Difference

Vu Punching (k) 804.591 804 0.07

Vu One‐Way (k) 204.254 204 0.12

Mu (k*ft) 954.34 954 0.04

As Required (in^2) 7.763 8.41 7.73

Verification Problem 3: Rectangular Spread Foot #1

Verification Problem 4: Pile Cap Shear

calculation above shows what Phi*Vn is in RISAFoundation.

Verification Problem 5: Eccentrically Loaded Footing

Method 1 Mu‐xx (k*ft) 687.2 687.4 0.03

Method 1 Mu‐zz (k*ft) 523.11 523.2 0.02

Method 2 Mu‐xx (k*ft) 873.6 873 0.07

their value has been adjusted.

Verification Problem 6: Cantilever Retaining Wall #1

Value RISAFoundation Text Value % Difference

Moverturning (kN‐m/m) 379.047 379.25 0.05

Vsliding (kN/m) 158.853 158.95 0.06

Verification Problem 7: Cantilever Retaining Wall #2

accounted for. This is accounted for in RISA.

accounted for. This is accounted for in RISA.

Verification Problem 8: Rectangular Footing #2

Verification Problem 9: Square Footing #2

Verification Problem 10: Cantilever Retaining Wall #3

Verification Problem 11: Pile Cap Design Example

DLFactor ≔ 1.2 LLFactor ≔ 1.6 HLFactor ≔ 1.6

Hwall ≔ 16 ⋅ ft Hwall = Hsoil Ltoe ≔ 3.5 ⋅ ft Wkey ≔ 18 ⋅ in

Hwater ≔ 6 ⋅ ft Lheel ≔ 5.5 ⋅ ft

Lfoot ≔ Ltoe + Lheel + tfoot = 10.5 ft Overall length of the footing

Soilallow ≔ 5 ⋅ ksf q ≔ 500 ⋅ psf surcharge

SF ≔ 1.5 This is the safety factor

Note: The moist soil properties

The outer bars are in the horizontal direction.

dbtop ≔ 0.75 ⋅ in stop ≔ 8 in

Force Calculations For Overturning, Sliding and Wall Design

Lateral Earth Pressure Coef icients

β=0 ϕm = 32 deg ϕs = 30 deg

Lateral Pressure Calculations (Service)

P1 ≔ Kam ⋅ q = 153.629 psf

P2 ≔ Kam ⋅ ⎛⎝q + ⎛⎝Hwall − Hwater⎞⎠ ⋅ γm⎞⎠ = 506.977 psf

P3 ≔ Kas ⋅ ⎛⎝q + ⎛⎝Hwall − Hwater⎞⎠ ⋅ γm⎞⎠ = 550 psf

H1 ≔ ⎛⎝Hwall + tfoot⎞⎠ ⋅ 0.5 = 8.75 ft

H3 ≔ ⎛⎝Hwater + tfoot⎞⎠ ⋅ 0.5 = 3.75 ft

1 kip This is the same value for all 3

This check is taken from the bottom of key elevation.

kip The forces resisting sliding are due to both

Lwall = 10 ft Hwall = 16 ft twall = 1.5 ft

Axial and Bending Design (per foot)

ft Note: The program takes into account

Reinforcement Provided Checks (for entire wall)

rhominh ≔ .002 Rho min (H)

Inside Face Vertical Reinforcement

Total Vertical Reinforcement

rhominv ≔ .0015 rho min (V)

Hwall − dcant ⎛ Hwater − dcant ⎞ kip

Steel Check (shear friction)

Per Section 11.6.6 fy must be taken <= 60 ksi.

Designing the Footing

Soil Pressure Calculation (for Footing Design)

3 – 0.5/2 = 9.75”. This produces a Vu = (1/12)(25‐9.75)6.19 = 7.87 k/ft