Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
R. M. F. CANHA a
rejane_canha@yahoo.com.br
G. M. CAMPOS b
mazureki@sc.usp.br
M. K. EL DEBS c
mkdebs@sc.usp.br
Abstract
The present work proposes design models and recommendations for column-foundation connection through socket with rough interfaces, includ-
ing the shear key configuration, the socket and the precast column base. In the experimental investigations, the behavior of socket and column
as a monolithic connection was verified. However, for this to occur, the shear key dimensions must be between the limits suggested by the study.
Considering the total transfer of internal forces in the connections, the vertical reinforcement should be designed based on the bending theory.
The proposed model for the design of the transverse horizontal reinforcement, considering monolithic behavior of the connection, was found to be
in good agreement with the observed experimental results. With adjustments to this model for the socket, a new model for the design of precast
column bases is proposed and compared with other model adapted for rough interfaces.
Keywords: socket foundation, precast columns base, rough interfaces, shear keys, pedestal walls
Resumo
Nesse trabalho, são propostos modelos e recomendações de projeto para a ligação pilar-fundação por meio de cálice com interfaces rugosas,
incluindo a configuração das chaves de cisalhamento, o cálice e a base do pilar pré-moldado. Nas investigações experimentais abrangidas neste
estudo, foi constatado que nas ligações rugosas ocorre o funcionamento conjunto do cálice com o pilar como em uma ligação monolítica. Entre-
tanto, para que isso ocorra, é necessário que as dimensões das chaves de cisalhamento estejam entre os limites recomendados nesse estudo.
Considerando a transferência total de esforços na ligação, a armadura vertical deve ser dimensionada segundo a teoria de flexão. O modelo
proposto para o dimensionamento da armadura horizontal transversal, também baseado no comportamento monolítico da ligação, forneceu bons
resultados quando comparados com os valores experimentais. A partir desse modelo calibrado para o cálice, é proposta uma nova formulação
para a base do pilar pré-moldado, a qual é comparada com outro modelo adaptado para interfaces rugosas.
Palavras-chave: cálice de fundação, base de pilares pré-moldados, interfaces rugosas, chaves de cisalhamento, colarinho
a
Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Centro de Ciências Exatas e Tecnologia – Universidade Federal de Sergipe, rejane_canha@yahoo.com.br,
Av. Marechal Rondon, s/n, Jardim Rosa Elze, CEP: 49100-000, São Cristóvão - SE, Brasil;
b
Departamento de Engenharia de Estruturas, Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos – Universidade de São Paulo, mazureki@sc.usp.br,
Av. Trabalhador SãoCarlense, 400, CEP: 13566-590, São Carlos - SP, Brasil;
c
Departamento de Engenharia de Estruturas, Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos – Universidade de São Paulo, mkdebs@sc.usp.br,
Av. Trabalhador SãoCarlense, 400, CEP: 13566-590, São Carlos - SP, Brasil.
Received: 07 Oct 2011 • Accepted: 13 Dec 2011 • Available Online: 02 Apr 2012
© 2012 IBRACON
R. M. F. CANHA | G. M. CAMPOS | M. K. EL DEBS
Figure 1 – Model for determining the maximum shear strength (Rizkalla et al. [7])
V
Surface h sk
slip cosq sk
sk
Pre-load
qsk
Typical hj
strut
cosq sk
h j h sk
Friction force
Vc' due to shear
Forces in
A pplied normal force
struts Force in
Vc'
strut (2V c')
ac
normal force
Resulting
a Vc'
V
Vc'
sk
qsk
lsk = l sk / h sk (2)
a sk
V = (n sk - 1)f cr Acssenac + m(sn Ac - (n sk - 1)f cr A cs cos ac ) (1) suitable shear stress transfer occurs between the column and
the socket.
The Brazilian Standard Code NBR 9062:2006 [6] recommends a
minimum roughness of hsk = 1cm for every 10 cm of joint in or-
Where: der to assure a monolithic behavior of the connection. However, it
nsk is the number of shear keys does not specify what distance this 10 cm of joint refers to. Hence,
fcr is the compressive strength of the cracked joint the 10 cm will be considered here to represent the sum of the larg-
A cs = 1 2 ( h j + h ch ) b j / cos q ch is the average transverse section of the est shear key base dimension lsk and the internal spacing between
diagonal section of the concrete strut the shear keys e’sk, thus resulting to a single key for each joint
a c = tan -1 (l ch / h j ) is the inclination of the diagonal section of the length considered, as illustrated in Figure 4(a).
concrete strut relative to the horizontal. For minimum shear key dimensions, it is recommended that the
largest shear key base dimension be twice the maximum size of 4(a) referring to specimen IR1, and the other with dimensions
the coarse aggregate and the shear key height be at least half a little less than the minimum values indicated in Figure 4(b)
the aggregate size, as illustrate in Figure 4(b), to guarantee that for specimen IR2.
the coarse aggregate fits into the shear key during the concrete Detailed experimental-theoretical studies of the socket foundation
placement. In the case of symmetrical keys, it is necessary to carried out by Canha [4] showed that the behavior of specimens
consider the maximum size of the coarse aggregate relative to with rough interfaces is similar to that of monolithic connections.
the largest of the three “concretes” of the connection (socket, The observed experimental strengths for the two tested specimens
column and joint). were verified to agree closely. Besides, the specimen with small
To define the roughness to be adopted in the specimens shear keys (IR2) was found to present a higher stiffness (relative
tested by Canha [4], the shear keys were manufactured ac- to rebar strains) than the specimen with large shear keys (IR1),
cording to the limits imposed by NBR 9062:2006 [6] and the as shown in Figure 5. The abovementioned observation indicates
results presented regarding the parametric evaluation with that the modification of shear key dimensions within the ranges
the Rizkalla et al. [7] model. Two shear key configurations indicated in Figure 4 does not influence, except the connection
were used, one with maximum dimensions shown in Figure stiffness, the connection strength.
Figure 3 – Parametric evaluation of the shear keys using the model proposed by RIZKALLA et al. [7]
1500 1500
RIZKALLA et al. (1989) Model RIZKALLA et al. (1989) Model
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 5 10 15 20
a sk (º) l sk
l sk and hsk constants l sk increasing , h sk and ask constants
A B
2500 2000
RIZKALLA et al. (1989) Model RIZKALLA et al. (1989) Model
n sk =20
2000
1500 n sk =10
Small shear key Small shear key
1500 Large shear key Large shear key
V (kN )
V (kN)
1000
1000 nsk =1
500
500 n sk =1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 300 600 900 1200
l sk e sk (mm)
l sk and ask constants , hsk decreasing l sk and hsk constants , nsk decreasing
C B
D
l sk = 6
esk' = 4 cm
fag
6 cm
2 fag
3 fag
esk'
10 cm
a sk = 45º
2 fag
l sk = 6
fag
sk = 6 cm
sk
4 cm
a sk = 45º
h sk fag /2
h sk = 1 cm
A B
2.2 Main vertical reinforcement – As,mv reinforcement, shown in Figure 6, has strength function on the ten-
sion side of the connection, but is placed symmetrically at the cor-
The main vertical reinforcement A s,mv is defined as that distributed ners due to construction aspects.
along the corners of the longitudinal and transverse walls. This Based on observation by Canha [4] that rough interface specimens
Nd
Md
Vd
A A
B B
A s,tmh A s,tsh
A s,tsv A s,tsv
front transv.
wall
rear transv.
wall
Parabolic-rectangular diagram
of concrete stress
Nd
Nd
hw
Md M bd
Vd R ssf1
R ssf2
R ssf3 R csf
emb
scd
A A x sf
d3
d2
force resultant d 1 = d sf
of reinforcement
A s,lsv longitudinal
2A s,mv+ A s,tsv Simplified diagram
A s,mv wall Nd
M bd
R ssf= R ssf1
A s,tsv
R csf
front transv.
wall scd
rear transv.
wall 0.8xsf
A s,mv d sf
d sf longitudinal
wall
Section A-A
Substituting equations 6 and 8 in equation 5, the position of the with the reinforcement arranged symmetrically. Figure 6 shows
neutral axis can be determined from equation 9, and subsequently the positioning of these reinforcements.
As,mv is determined.
2.3.1 Main transverse horizontal reinforcement – As,tmh
M bd - 0.5 × Nd × h ext + Nd × dsf - 0.8 × x sf × h ext × scd × dsf + 0.32 × xsf 2 × h ext × scd = 0 (9) Canha et al. [10] proposes a model for the analysis of transverse
walls of sockets with smooth and rough interfaces, based on the ex-
perimental results of Canha [4] and Jaguaribe Jr. [9]. Following the
experimental results of Nunes [11] obtained from the behavior of the
If the simplified rectangular concrete compressive stress diagram is transverse walls, a refined Canha et al. [10] model presented herein
adopted, it results, for the socket, a constant compressive stress of was obtained. Figure 8 presents the stress transfer model from col-
scd = 0.85 × fcd along a depth of 0.8 × x sf measured from the compression umn to socket with rough interfaces, based on Canha et al. [10].
face, referred to compressed zone of constant height. For the remaining In this model, compression struts appear on the compressed side (front
height of 0.2 × x sf , the compressive stresses in concrete is neglected. transverse wall) due to the transfer of the compression resultant R c
from the column to the front wall, thus resulting in a force R csf in the
2.3 Main horizontal reinforcements socket foundation. Due to the presence of these compression struts,
a pressure resultant H f is observed to act on the front transverse
The main horizontal reinforcement consists of the main trans- wall. This pressure attains its maximum value at the top of the front
verse horizontal reinforcement, As,tmh and the main longitudinal transverse wall due to the smaller inclinations of the struts with respect
horizontal reinforcement, As,lmh. As,tmh is the reinforcement distrib- to a horizontal axis through the top of this wall. Since these struts are
uted along the top of the transverse walls within a distance of practically vertical near the socket base, the pressure at this point is null.
lemb/3 from the top while As,lmh is that distributed along the top This force H f can determined using equation 10 below:
of the longitudinal walls within lemb/3. Since the reinforcements
A s, lmh and A s, tmh are distributed within the same height of
the rough socket, and considering the positioning of the rebars in R csf
the socket at the construction, it is recommended, when design-
Hf =
tan bf
(10)
ing socket connections, to adopt the largest reinforcement area
Figure 8 – Transfer of forces resultants from column to rough socket (adapted from Canha et al. [10])
Hr
br Variable
inclination Pressures
Pressures R ssf resultant on
resultant on front wall
rear wall Variable h
inclination R csf
bf
As z
Nd Hf
Md
p topr p topr ' R s Rc p topf ' p topf
H topr
l emb / 3
l emb / 3
l emb / 3
H topf
l emb / 2
l emb / 3
Hr Vd
Hr
bf
l emb
Hf Hf
l emb
bp
dp
R ssf R csf
2A s,mv+ A s,tsv z sf
H topr h ext Htopf
p topr p topf
Transfer of forces resultants
from column to socket foundation
Rear transverse Front transverse
wall wall
where: pressure H r on the rear wall. It can be noticed that the pressure H r
β f : average struts inclination on the compression side. is concentrated mostly at the top of the wall due to the smaller inclina-
R csf : Compression force resultant in the socket determined from tion of the compression struts in this region relative to the horizontal
equation 5. axis, and the base of the rear transverse wall does not transmit forces.
On the compression side of the column, the pressures distribution The pressure H r is determined by equation 13 as:
is similar to that of the front wall. Hence, the pressures at the top of
the column and of the front wall are the same:
R ssf
Hr =
tan b r
(13)
p topf ' = p topf (11)
where:
βr : average compression struts inclination on the tension side.
The pressure resultant H topf is thus equal to the resultant of the R ssf : Force resultant in the vertical reinforcements 2.A s, mv + A s, tsv
trapezoidal pressure block acting at the top of the front transverse calculated by equation 4.
wall. This means that H topf is a portion of H f and is determined In case of the tensile side of the column, the compression struts
according to equation 12: are known to initiate at the bottom of the column. Because of this,
the triangular pressure distribution occurs all over the tensioned
column base with length lemb, such that the pressure at the column
H topf @ 0,6 × H f (12) top is half of that acting on the rear wall:
p topr
p topr ' = (14)
On the tension side (rear transverse wall), the transfer by compres- 2
sion struts of most of the tension force R s , from the column to the
rear wall, results in the tension force R ssf in the socket and in the
Figure 9 – Design model proposed for the front and rear walls of socket with r
ough interfaces (Canha et al. [10]))
H
ptopf = topf-b
bint
se f-t
Htopf q
~ +
b int +h w
~
bint
ptopf q
H t o se n
2.
pf
-t
Hat = 0
q
Htopr-b
ptopr =
bint
H to sen
q
-t
~
bint+h w
+
Htopr
q
~
bint
ptopr q
se -t
2. topr
nq
H
The pressure resultant H topr on the upper third of the rear trans- walls, Canha et al. [10] indicates a value of 45º for β f and β r .
verse wall is approximately equal to the pressure H r distributed However, it is noticed that, in some cases, with these inclination an-
on the upper half of that wall. gles, the theoretical results did not represent well the experimental
Experimental results confirmed that the upper part of the front and results. Because of this, an analysis with the variation of the average
rear transverse walls of rough sockets were subjected to combined inclinations of the compression struts in the front and rear transverse
bending and tension, with the predominance of tension. This be- walls was developed. The obtained results were then complement-
havior under bending-tension was observed from obtained rein- ed with experimental results of Nunes [11]. For the angle β f , the
forcement strains and cracks configuration of the transverse walls. values of 45º and 60º were compared, and for β r , the values of 45º
Hence, the proposed analysis model presented in Figure 9, based and 35º.
on the experimental investigation, consists of representing the top An analysis and comparative study of the experimental and theo-
of transverse walls as a simply supported beam with the distrib- retical results was carried out for specimens IR-1 and IR-2 tested
uted pressure given by two parts: a pressure Htopf-b and Htopr-b which by Canha [4], for IR-3 by Jaguaribe Jr. [9] and for IR-4 by Nunes
causes bending of the beam, and a pressure Htopf-t and Htopr-t that is [11]. Table 1 presents the results of the force in the reinforcement
transmitted to the beam supports at an angle of θ=45º, represent- A s, tmh with variation in β f of the front transverse wall.
o
ing the average crack inclination of the tested specimens, causing Analyzing the results, for all cases when b f = 60 was con-
tension of the beam. The total upper pressure on the front wall sidered, the obtained theoretical and experimental forces showed
H topf and on the rear wall H topr is the sum of the portions close agreement. For instance, for specimen IR-2, considering the
referring to bending and tension. bending-tension and an angle of 60º, the difference between the
Based on the obtained strain gauge results, the percentages adopted theoretical and experimental force was found to be approximately
for the case of bending- tension was 15% for pressures H topf − b 132%, compared to approximately 300% when a strut inclination of
and H topr − b , and 85% for pressures H topf − t and H topr − t 45º was taken into account.
o
. Besides these percentages, only the tension force, for which However, considering the bending-tension, and b f = 60 for speci-
H topf = H topf − t and H topr = H topr − t , can be considered. men IR-3, the theoretical internal force was found to be below the ob-
Concerning the average inclination of the compression struts of the served experimental result. It is noteworthy however that this specimen
had been tested by Jaguaribe Jr. [9] with a reduced embedded length Although the observed percentage differences are large, it is
and consequently the observed deviation of the experimental results was important to highlight here that the two other models cited in
due mainly to this factor. On the other hand, considering only tension and the literature for analysis of the front transverse wall were found
an angle of 60º for specimen IR-1, the obtained theoretical force in the to result in much higher differences compared to experimental
external branch was found to be approximately 3.5% below the experi- results. Table 2 compares the experimental results with those of
mental result. In determining the experimental values, however, a modu- the proposed model, Melo [12] and CNR 10025:1998 [13] mod-
lus of elasticity of 210 GPa for the reinforcement steel was adopted even els. The bending theory based model by Melo [12] considers the
though it may be slightly lower, thus making up for this small difference. upper part of front transverse wall as a beam on two fixed sup-
A general analysis showed that the theoretical model which best ports and subjected to bending moments, with resulting plastic
represents the experimental results is that corresponding to an av- bending moments at the extremities. The tension model given
erage strut inclination of 60º on the compression side of the socket in CNR 10025:1998 [13,] however, recommends the application
foundation. Based on this, a strut angle of 60º will be adopted in of a strut and tie model to the upper part of front transverse
the present study. wall considering only the existence of tensile stresses in this re-
Bending-
= 60º
Bending-
119.4
= 60º
tension 24.3
Bending-
99.5
19.4
= 60º
tension
Bending-
120.2 14.5
= 60º
tension
gion. Table 3 presents the resulting forces in the reinforcement external and internal branch, and must be distributed in the upper
A s, tmh according to the variation of βr of the rear transverse part of the socket within a height of lemb/3.
wall. After determining the pressures acting on the transverse walls, it
An analysis of Table 3 indicates that the compression struts incli- is recommended to estimate the resulting steel area based on the
nations on the tension side of the socket (rear wall) are smaller pressure on the front and rear walls. An estimate of this reinforce-
than those of the compression struts on the compression side ment is carried out following equations 15 and 16, and the adopted
(front wall). Hence, for this wall, angles of 35o and 45o were ad- A s, lmh is the highest of the obtained values.
opted in this study. The rear transverse wall was instrumented
only in specimens IR-3 and IR-4. Table 3 shows the data for
H topf
these two sockets.
As it can be perceived, for the two specimens under bending-
A s, lmh =
2 × f yd
(15)
tension condition, and considering an angle of 45o, the obtained
theoretical forces in the internal branch of the reinforcement were
smaller than the observed experimental values, hence this strut
angle is not recommended to consider. If an angle of 35o is consid-
H topr
ered, the verification of forces for specimen IR-4 is not neglected.
The theoretical force in specimen IR-3 was found to be slightly
A s, lmh =
2 × f yd
(16)
smaller that the observed experimental value, but as it can be re-
called, this specimen had a reduced embedded length.
Notwithstanding the few experimental results available, it is recom-
mended that a value of b r = 35o be adopted, because considering 2.4 Secondary reinforcements – As,sv and As,sh
this situation, the theoretical force is higher than the experimental
value. A strut angle of 30o was not considered since the corre- Figure 6 illustrates the positioning of the secondary vertical rein-
sponding results for this situation would be very conservative rela- forcement As,sv and the secondary horizontal reinforcement As,sh.
tive to tension or more still, would not meet safety conditions for the These secondary reinforcements are used in socket foundation
case of bending-tension. to resist secondary stresses and for cracking control of pedestal
It is worth emphasizing that in the knowledge of the authors, this walls. It is noteworthy that the secondary horizontal reinforcements
formulation is currently the only model available for analyzing the used in the front wall play the important role of absorbing the pres-
rear transverse wall. sures within two lower thirds of these wall (2lemb/3).
For calculation of the secondary reinforcements of socket with
2.3.2 Main longitudinal horizontal reinforcement – As,lmh rough interfaces, it is recommended to apply the short corbel the-
ory for the longitudinal walls, respecting the following areas and
As indicated in Figure 6, the reinforcement A s , lmh located on spacings indicated in El Debs [14]:
the upper part of the longitudinal walls of the rough socket must n For secondary vertical reinforcement:
be determined considering the effect of the pressures H topf and A s , sv = A s , tsv = A s , lsv ³ 0,40 × A s , mv
H topr acting on the transverse walls of the socket. n For secondary horizontal reinforcement:
The main horizontal reinforcement is made up of two branches: A s , sh = A s , tsh = A s , lsh ³ 0,25 × A s , mv
For both vertical and horizontal secondary reinforcements, a spac- With the model calibrated for socket foundations, the forces acting
ing s between 150 mm and 300 mm must be adopted. on the column can be obtained, resulting in the proposed model
shown in Figure 10.
3. Model and recommendations for The rough column base is subjected to Hf and Hr on the sides refer-
the design of rough column bases ring to the front and rear transverse walls, respectively, resulting
from the transfer through struts of the internal compression and
3.1 Proposed model based on monolithic behavior tension forces to these walls as presented in item 2.3.1.
Besides the mobilization of the friction forces, the use of shear keys
Although the experimental investigation carried by Canha [4] was on the inner pedestal walls and column faces permits the transfer
focused mainly on pedestal walls, the observed monolithic behav- of shear through interlock mechanical mechanism between shear
ior of rough interface connections indicates that detailing of the keys. The proposed model considers the shear stresses on both the
column base obeys the same bending theory. transverse and longitudinal walls as uniformly distribution. The shear
As mentioned previously, based on the experimental results ob- stress resulting from the action of the bending moment (tM) is con-
tained by Nunes [11], it was possible to refine the model describing sidered to act in the upward direction on the compression side and
the transfer of load from the column to socket originally proposed downward on the tension side. Meanwhile, the shear stress mobi-
by Canha et al. [10]. lized due to the normal force (tN) has an upward direction in all walls.
Also, at the column bottom, there is the internal transverse force The internal forces along the column base are calculated from the
Vcb and the internal eccentric normal force Ncb. three static equilibrium equations in plane.
The problem thus involves four unknowns (tM, tN, Vcb and Ncb). Be- The bending moment M y acting at a given distance y from the
sides the three static equilibrium equations, there is an additional column bottom is calculated by the following equation:
equation related to the normal reaction Ncb at the column bottom.
This force is considered as the N d reduced by ratio of the column
cross section A c to the external surface area of the pedestal Acp,
æ N × e - M H - H ö (H - H )
M y = - N cb × enb + çç cb nb d + r f ÷÷ × y - r 2f y3
3 ø
(23)
according to the following equation:
è l emb 3l emb
Ac Vy y
N cb = N d
A cp (17) Also, the shear force
bottom is given by:
at a given distance from the column
(H r - H f ) y 2
Based on the structural outline of this element, the diagrams of the
internal forces were determined with the corresponding expres-
Vy = Vd + H r - H f -
l emb
2 (24)
sions given below.
Considering a pressures variation along the embedded length lemb,
for practical applications, the column transverse reinforcement The internal normal force N y at a given distance y from the col-
area is determined for maximum internal forces. umn bottom is:
Hence the p topf ' and p topr ' values are given, respectively, by
equations 18 and 19:
æ N - Nd ö
N y = - N cb + çç cb ÷÷ × y (25)
2 × Hf 2 × R csf è l emb ø
p topf ' =
l emb
=
l emb × tan bf
(18)
The Bending Moment Diagram has a cubic shape. The absolute
maximum value M max at the column top and absolute minimum
value M min at the column bottom are given, respectively, by:
2 × Hr 2 × R ssf
p topr ' = =
l emb l emb × tan b r
(19)
M max = -M d (26)
The shear force Vcb at the column bottom and the shear stress
tN are determined from the equilibrium equations of forces in the
horizontal and vertical directions and are given, respectively, by:
M min = - N cb × e nb (27)
Vcb = Vd + H r - H f (20)
On the other hand, a parabolic diagram is adopted for the Shear
Force Diagram with the maximum value Vmax at the column bot-
tom and the minimum value Vmin at the column top are calcu-
lated, respectively, by:
N d - N cb
tN =
(2h + 2b) × l emb
(21)
Vmax = Vd + H r - Hf (28)
From the moment equilibrium relative to point O, the shear stress
tM can be defined by equation 22:
Md 2 N ×e
+ Vd + (H r - H f )- cb nb
l 3 l emb Vmin = Vd (29)
tM = emb 2 (22)
h
h×b+
2 And lastly, the Axial Force Diagram has a trapezoidal shape with
its maximum N max value at the column top and the minimum
value N min at the column bottom, given, respectively, by: As for smooth interfaces, the determination of the anchored length
of the column longitudinal reinforcement is given by equation 32
based on recommendations by Leonhardt and Mönnig [15]. The
stress transferred from reinforcement to concrete from this point of
N max = - N d (30) anchorage was confirmed experimentally for smooth specimens by
Ebeling [16] and extrapolated here for rough specimens.
l emb
A l anc = (32)
N min = - Nd c
A cp (31) 2
Figure 11 – Adapted design model proposed for analysis of the precast column base (Campos et al. [3])
Column
Bending
section Axial Force Shear Force
Moment
bxh Nd (kN) Vd (kN)
Md (kN.m)
N d - m × Vd (cm )
2
N fb =
1+ m2
(35)
40x40 250 50 200
40x60 375 112.5 450
This model is indicated for sockets subjected to normal forces 60x40 375 75 300
with high eccentricity and with embedded lengths based on NBR
60x60 560 168.75 675
9062:2006 [6] recommendations.
Canha [4] confirms that the design of socket foundations consider-
ing friction forces wherein the friction coefficient m is adjusted to The shear force was determined through a linear ratio with the
1 was in the safe side for rough interface specimens, in spite of bending moment, considering the acting of concentrated force.
its being more conservative than the bending theory. Thus, the The sections and their respective loads are presented in Table 4.
model for smooth column base was applied to rough column base The following material and construction variables were assumed in
analysis, considering m =1, as a base for comparison with model the design of the rough column:
proposed for rough column based on monolithic behavior. a) Embedded length for rough interfaces and high eccentric-
ity was based on recommendations by NBR 9062:2006[6]:
3.3 Analysis of column base l emb = 1.6 × h ;
b) Joint width of 5 cm;
To investigate the proposed model for column base, four column c) Pedestal wall thickness: h w ³ 1 / 3.5 × ( h int or b int ) . This is an
sections were considered based on practical observations of pre- intermediary value between the minimum recommended by
cast concrete structures commonly used. Two rectangular and two Campos [5] and that indicated by Leonhardt and Mönnig [15];
square sections were adopted; the first section being a 40x40 cm2 d) Steel CA-50 ( f yk = 500 MPa and f yd = 435 MPa ) for lon-
column section. These dimensions were chosen with the belief that gitudinal reinforcement and steel CA-60 ( f yk = 600 MPa and
it is the smallest column size used in precast concrete structures. f yd = 522 MPa ) for transverse reinforcement;
A normal force was assumed and the corresponding bending mo- e) Characteristic compression strength of the socket and column
ment was calculated following equation 36 for a high eccentricity. concretes: f ck = 20 MPa and f ck = 30 MPa , respectively,
and γ c = 1,4 .
The formulation proposed in this work assumed a monolithic con-
Md nection. The obtained results were then compared with the model
Nd × h
³2 (36) proposed by Campos et al. [3] adapted for rough interfaces. The
geometrical characteristics, internal forces and resulting reinforce-
ments for each section analyzed are presented in Table 5.
' Regarding the longitudinal reinforcement As, the proposed model for
From the applied load on the section, the coefficients ν and m rough column base provided values smaller than those obtained from
were calculated according to equations 37 and 38, respectively. Campos et al. [3] model adapted for rough interfaces. The observed
Fixing these two coefficients, the internal axial force and bending difference is 27% for all cases. Theoretically, no transverse reinforce-
moment at any other section could be determined. ment would be necessary for the 40x40 cm2 and 60x40 cm2 sections
based on the proposed model. For the 40x60 cm2 and 60x60 cm2
sections, the transverse reinforcements determined according to the
Nd proposed model were found to be higher than those obtained from the
n=
A c × f cd
(37) adapted model for rough interfaces, with the differences up to 28%.
The transverse reinforcements obtained from both the proposed mod-
el and that adapted for rough interfaces are smaller than the minimum
transverse reinforcement recommended by NBR 6118:2007 [17],
thus indicating, in this case, the use of minimum reinforcement.
Proposed Model
bf 60º 60º 60º 60º
interfaces are proposed, contemplating the configuration of the [05] CAMPOS, G.M. Recommendations for the design of
shear keys, the socket and the column base. socket foundations. São Carlos. 183p. MSc Thesis.
After analysis of the theoretical and experimental results, the fol- School of Engineering of São Carlos, University of São
lowing conclusions were drawn: Paulo, 2010.
a) For a rough socket foundation to show a behavior similar to [06] BRAZILIAN ASSOCIATION OF TECHNICAL
that of a monolithic connection, it is necessary that the shear STANDARDS. NBR 9062 - Design and fabrication of
keys dimensions be within the limits recommended in the pres- precast concrete structures. Rio de Janeiro, ABNT.
ent work. 2006.
b) The design of the vertical reinforcement of rough sockets must [07] RIZKALLA, S.H.; SERRETE, R.L.; HEUVEL, J.S.;
be based on the bending theory. ATTIOGBE, E.K. Multiple shear key connections for
c) The horizontal reinforcement of the transverse walls should precast shear wall panels. PCI Journal, v.34, n.2,
be designed following the refined model by Canha et al. [10], p.104-120, Mar/Apr. 1989.
adjusting the values of bf = 60o and b r = 35o to better repre- [08] LACOMBE, G.; POMMERET, M. Les joints structuraux
sent the experimental results. dans les constructions en grands panneaux
d) The new model proposed for analysis of rough column base, prefabriques. Annales de L’Institut Technique du
calibrated from the socket foundation, was found to present Batiment et dês Travaux Publics, n.314, p.114-144,
less conservative longitudinal reinforcement compared to the Fevrier. 1974.
model proposed by Campos et al. [3] and adapted for rough [09] JAGUARIBE JR., K.B. Column-foundation connection
interfaces. The two models were found to provide minimum through socket of precast concrete structures with
transverse reinforcement. reduced embedded length. São Carlos. 167p. MSc
It is worth highlighting that the models proposed in this work are Thesis. School of Engineering of São Carlos,
valid only for rough interface connections in which the embed- University of São Paulo, 2005.
ded length is determined by the Brazilian Standard Code NBR [10] CANHA, R.M.F.; EBELING, E. B.; EL DEBS, A. L. H.
9062:2006 [6] and for cases of high eccentricity, keeping in mind C; EL DEBS, M. K. Analysis of the behavior of
that these models were based in experimental observations of transverse walls of socket base connections.
specimens within these situations. Engineering Structures, v.31, n.3, p.788-798,
Mar. 2009.
5. Acknowledgements [11] NUNES, V.C.P. Experimental analysis of socket
foundation emphasizing the internal forces in the
The authors would like to acknowledge CAPES for the financial pedestal transverse walls. São Carlos. 132p. MSc
support through scholarships for the Master’s degree of the first Thesis. School of Engineering of São Carlos,
author and Post-Doctorate of the second author, FAPESP for the University of São Paulo,, 2009.
support for the thematic project “Nucleation and increment of re- [12] MELLO, C.E.E. (Ed.) MUNTE design handbook of
search, innovation, and diffusion in precast concrete and mixed precast concrete. São Paulo: Pini, 2004.
structures for the civil construction modernization” (proc. 05/53141- [13] CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE.
4) and CNPq for productivity scholarship in research of the first and CNR-10025 - Istruzioni per il progetto, l´esecuzione
third authors. ed il controllo delle strutture prefabbricate in
calcestruzzo. ITEC/La prefabricazione. Roma, 1998.
6. References [14] EL DEBS, M.K. Precast concrete: bases and
applications. 1.ed. São Carlos, SP, Publicação
[01] CANHA, R.M.F.; EL DEBS, M.K. Critical analysis of EESC-USP. 2000.
models and recommendations for designing [15] LEONHARDT, F.; MÖNNIG, E. Vorlesungen uber
column-base connection by socket of precast concrete massivbau, Berlin:. Springer-Verlag, 1973.
structures. IBRACON Structural Journal, v.2, n.2, (Portuguese version: Construções de concreto:
p.116-136, June. 2006. Princípios básicos sobre armação de estruturas de
[02] CANHA, R.M.F.; EL DEBS, M.K. Proposal of design concreto armado, Rio de Janeiro: Interciência, 1.ed,
model for column-base connection by socket of v.3,. 1977.)
precast concrete structures. IBRACON Structural [16] EBELING, E. B. Analysis of precast columns base in
Journal, v.2, n.2, p.152-166, June. 2006. the connection with socket foundation. São Carlos.
[03] CAMPOS, G.M.; CANHA, R.M.F.; EL DEBS, M.K. 103p. MSc Thesis. School of Engineering of São
Design of precast columns bases embedded in socket Carlos, University of São Paulo, 2006.
foundations with smooth interfaces. IBRACON [17] BRAZILIAN ASSOCIATION OF TECHNICAL
Structures and Materials Journal, v.4, n.2, p.314-323, STANDARDS. NBR 6118 - Design of concrete
June. 2011. structures - Procedure. Rio de Janeiro, ABNT. 2007.
[04] CANHA, R.M.F. Theoretical-experimental analysis of
column-foundation connection through socket of
precast concrete structures. São Carlos. 279p. PhD
Thesis. School of Engineering of São Carlos,
University of São Paulo, 2004.