Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Sliding (Mark)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Mark,

Your comments are well-written, and Scott has also identified some very
real issues.  I've been curious about the connection between concrete
tilt-up walls and their supporting foundation, where oftentimes the
walls are doweled into the slab-on-grade, yet only anchored to the
footing at each end for uplift, where necessary.  Hugh Brooks'
publication, "The Tilt-up Design & Construction Manual", which provides
(among other things) details of setting precast concrete walls atop
neoprene bearing pads along a foundation (no weld plates, etc. for
positive anchorage to the foundation), states:  "The design of tilt-up
panels requires each of these design conditions: ... 4. In-plane shear
considerations (shear walls), which will include checking shear stress
and whether additional shear reinforcing is required.  Also, transfer of
shear from the diaphragm(s) to walls and at the base TO THE FLOOR SLAB.
Panel overturning may also need checking."  What are your thoughts on
precast concrete wall anchorages?

To me, it seems that the load path dictates that the seismic forces be
transferred directly to the foundation, not through the SOG -- Scott
gave some important reasons why that SOG mechanism may not work in
reality.  Here in Seismic Zone 3, our forces tend to be somewhat
"reasonable", but the load path seems to dictate appropriate, positive
anchorage to the foundation.

If anyone else is familiar with the tilt-up industry, I'd appreciate
other comments or observations as well.  I suppose this may be one of
those "where are the bodies" type of things.

Regards,
Dave K. Adams, S.E.
Lane Engineers, Inc.
979 N. Blackstone St.
Tulare, CA 93274
PH:  (559) 688-5263
FAX: (559) 688-8893
E-mail:  davea(--nospam--at)laneengineers.com




-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Gilligan [mailto:MarkKGilligan(--nospam--at)compuserve.com]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 8:06 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Sliding


Scott Haan Noted:

>As a plan reviewer I saw  alot of people say they were using the slab
on
grade to transmit lateral force into
> the soil or to other gravity footings, but they forgot to calc it out
and
detail it.  There is more to the design 
>than just checking concrete bearing at the end of a wall or pedestal
which
is a dubious mechanism at best.  
 
>Most S.O.G. have isolation joints at structural elements and  get cut
up
for plumbing repairs etc....  Also what 
>kind of a friction coefficient is there between concrete-visquene-soil
or
a sand bed, visquene and soil.  Using 
>a S.O.G. is not a magic cure to take out shear wall and braced frame
footing reactions and requires some design.

In high seismic regions especially near a fault, frictional resistance
alone often cannot prevent a building from sliding.

First consider that most geotechnical reports give friction coefficients
of
0.4 while the actual ground accelerations are often in excess of this.
The
code base shear coefficient may be less but when you consider the
overstrength in the system you will find that the effective R factor is
less than assumed by the code and as a result the real base shears are
more.

No body includes the mass of the slab on grade when calculating the
inertial forces that must be transmitted to the soil yet this is not
supported by logic.  First the slab on grade is constrained to move with
the columns and shear walls and while it will not see the same
accelerations as the super structure it will be subject to an
acceleration
of Ca.  Ca is the expected acceleration of the ground and can be greater
than the coefficient of friction provided by the geotechnical engineer. 
Secondly the slab on grade has a membrane under it so the  coefficient
of
friction is even lower than for the rest of the building.  As a result
the
slab on grade contributes additional inertial forces that must be
resisted
by the friction at the footings.

Even when we ignore the mass of the slab on grade and only use the code
calculated base shear it is often necessary to engage the frictional
resistance of all of the footings.  This often requires that the slab on
grade be designed as a diaphragm to tie the shear walls and footings
together.

Since we do not see a lot of sliding failures there must be other
mechanisms mitigating the problem.  Some of the likely reasons include.

    - The coefficients of friction are actually higher than assumed.
    - Passive resistance and cohesion play a bigger role than assumed.
    - Even in major earthquakes there is a large variation in ground
accelerations and many sites see significantly 
       less than the maximum accelerations.
     -Buildings may slide more than assumed.

While I do not claim to have all of the answers I would like to suggest
1)
that engineers often ignor the transfer of the seismic loads between the
ground and the building and 2) that we lack a good understanding of how
lateral forces are transfered between the ground and the building.

Options include:

  -Ignore the problem.  This I find troubling.
  -Do little and accept the damage.  This assumes you can quantify the
likely damage and that the client will 
     accept the damage.
  -Formally design for the "real"  forces with keyways etc.  This is
probably excessive.
  -Tie the foundation together and do not worry about sliding.  This is
my
preference but we need better 
    methodologies to determine the magnitude of the forces to be
designed
for.


Mark Gilligan

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********