Load-Bearing Tilt-Up Concrete Wall Panels
Load-Bearing Tilt-Up Concrete Wall Panels
Load-Bearing Tilt-Up Concrete Wall Panels
c
= 0.003 in/in
0.85
a
c = (8.6)
68
8.2.3 Check Minimum Vertical Reinforcement
Minimum vertical reinforcement requirements are established for two reasons. The first
reason is to ensure the reinforcement within the wall provides a design moment strength greater
than the cracking moment according to ACI 318-05 Equation 14-2.
n cr
M M (8.7)
Where
r g
cr
t
f I
M
y
=
(8.8)
7.5 '
r c
f f = (8.9)
3
1
12
g
I bh = (8.10)
The second reason minimum wall reinforcement is required is primarily for control of
cracking due to shrinkage and temperature stresses. Walls must contain both vertical and
horizontal reinforcement to resist these stresses. The minimum ratio of vertical reinforcement
area to gross concrete area shown in Equation 8.11 shall be 0.0012 for deformed bars not larger
than No. 5 with f
y
not less than 60,000 psi or 0.0015 for other deformed bars according to ACI
318-05 Section 14.3.2.
s
l
w
A
b t
= (8.11)
Flexural members shall also provide a minimum amount of tensile reinforcement in
accordance with ACI 318-05 Section 10.5.1, where the ratio of vertical reinforcement area to net
concrete area shown in Equation 8.12 shall be greater than or equal to the larger values of
Equation 8.13 and Equation 8.14.
s
w
A
b d
= (8.12)
min
3 '
c
y
f
f
= (8.13)
min
200
y
f
= (8.14)
69
8.2.4 Check Applied Ultimate Moment
The design moment strength, M
n
, for combined axial and flexure loads at the mid-height
cross-section must be greater than or equal to the total factored moment, M
u
, at this section per
ACI 318-05 Section 14.8.3. The total factored moment, M
u
, includes the P- effects and is
determined as follows:
u ua u u
M M P = + (8.15)
where
2
1
8 2
u c u
ua
w l P e
M = + (8.16)
M
ua
= factored moment at the mid-height section of the wall due to factored lateral and
eccentric vertical loads
2
1
2
u
u u
P
P P = + (8.17)
P
u1
= factored applied gravity load
P
u2
= factored self-weight of the wall (total)
e = eccentricity of applied gravity load
w
u
= factored uniform lateral load
The factored moment, M
u
, can be rewritten as:
2
1 2
1
8 2 2
u c u u
u u u
w l P e P
M P
= + + +
(8.18)
where
2
5
(0.75)48
u c
u
c cr
M l
E I
= (8.19)
l
c
= vertical distance between supports
E
c
= modulus of elasticity of concrete defined in ACI 318-05 Section 8.5
3
2
( )
3
w
cr se
l c
I nA d c = + (8.20)
s
c
E
n
E
= (8.21)
E
s
= modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement
70
The total factored moment, M
u
, shall be obtained by iteration of deflections or by direct
calculation using ACI 318-05 Equation 14-5. This equation provides a conservative result
compared with the result derived from the iterative process.
2
5
1
(0.75)48
ua
u
u c
c cr
M
M
Pl
E I
=
(8.22)
Figure 8-7 illustrates the analysis of the wall in accordance to the provisions of ACI 318-
05 Section 14.8 for the case of additive lateral and gravity load effects.
Figure 8-7. Second-Order Effect Wall Analysis
Photo courtesy of Notes on ACI 318-05: Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete with Design Applications
(PCA 2005)
8.2.5 Check Service Load Deflection
The deflection requirements of ACI 318-05 Section 14.8.4 must also be satisfied in
addition to satisfying the strength requirement of ACI 318-05 Equation 14-3. The maximum
deflection due to service loads is calculated in accordance to ACI 318-05 Equation 14-8.
2
5
48
c
s
c e
Ml
E I
= (8.23)
71
Where
2
5
1
48
sa
s c
c e
M
M
Pl
E I
=
(8.24)
M
sa
= maximum unfactored applied moment due to service loads, not including P-
effects
P
s
= unfactored axial load at the design (mid-height) section including effects of self-
weight
3 3
1
cr cr
e g cr g
a a
M M
I I I I
M M
= + <
(8.25)
M
a
= M
An iterative process is required to determine the maximum service load deflection,
s
, at
mid-height. This deflection shall not exceed l
c
/150 in accordance with ACI 318-05 Section
14.8.4.
8.2.6 Check Horizontal Reinforcing
Minimum horizontal reinforcement requirements are required in accordance to ACI 318-
05 Section 14.3.3. This section states that the minimum ratio of horizontal reinforcement area to
gross concrete area,
t
, shall be 0.0020 for deformed bars not larger than No. 5 with f
y
not less
than 60,000 psi, or 0.0025 for other deformed bars. The minimum area of horizontal reinforcing
steel is shown in Equations 8.26 and 8.27.
0.002
s g
A A = (8.26)
0.0025
s g
A A = (8.27)
The horizontal reinforcement shall not be spaced farther apart than three times the wall
thickness, or farther apart than 18 in as specified in ACI 318-05 Section 14.3.5.
8.2.7 Check Foundation Support
The foundation support for tilt-up wall panels can either be continuous or isolated.
Continuous wall footings provide a uniform bearing support for the tilt-up panel and its
supporting loads. Isolated footings, such as spread footings or drilled piers, provide support to
72
the panels near the edge of both sides. The panel must then be designed to span from support to
support.
Simplified tilt-up panel design analysis assumes continuous support, so the effective
panel width must be reduced when the panel is supported on isolated footings. This reduced
effective width is similar to conditions of load concentrations on the panel or large openings
within the panel. Since the panel loading is symmetric, the effective panel width at the centerline
of unbraced length can be determined from sloping lines of one horizontal to two vertical. Figure
8-8 illustrates this condition.
(a) (b)
Figure 8-8. Panels Supported on Isolated Footings
P
L
= roof axial load above reduced effective width for the left isolated support
P
R
= roof axial load above reduced effective width for the right isolated support
P
T
= roof axial load transferred to the supports through the tension tie
W
L
= self weight of reduced effective width for the left isolated support
W
R
= self weight of reduced effective width for the right isolated support
W
T
= self weight of panel transferred to the supports through the tension tie
A strut-and-tie model can be used to analyze a tilt-up wall panel supported by isolated
footings. Strut-and-tie models consist of two concrete compressive struts, longitudinal
73
reinforcement acting as a tension tie, and joints commonly referred to as nodes. The concrete
surrounding a node is called a nodal zone, which transfers the forces from the inclined struts to
other struts, to ties, and to the reactions. A strut-and-tie model is an idealized model of a portion
of the structure being analyzed that satisfies the following:
1. Embodies a system of forces that is in equilibrium with a given set of loads
2. The factored-member forces at every section in the struts, ties, and nodal zones do
not exceed the corresponding factored-member strengths for the same sections
3. The structure has sufficient ductility to make the transition from elastic behavior
to enough plastic behavior to redistribute the factored internal forces into a set of
forces that satisfy items (ACI 551 Jun 2005)(ACI 551 Feb 2003) (MacGregor
2005)
The portions of the two panels shown in Figure 8-8 which are shaded grey, W
L
, W
R
, P
L
,
and P
R
, represent the loads transferred through bearing stress to the isolated footing. The
unshaded portions of the two panels, W
T
and P
T
, represent the loads which are analyzed through
a strut-and-tie model. Figure 8-9 illustrates the simplified truss used to analyze the strut-and-tie
model.
Figure 8-9. Strut-and-Tie Truss Model
The effective self weight of the panel and roof axial loads, W
T
and P
T
, respectively, must
be transferred to the isolated footings through the compressive struts and tension tie. W
T
and P
T
are represented in the strut-and-tie simplified truss by P. The compressive struts and tension tie
74
are represented by C and T, respectively. The isolated footing reactions are represented by R
L
and R
R
.
The tension tie is designed as a tension member in a strut-and-tie model. This tie consists
of reinforcement plus a portion of the surrounding concrete that is concentric with the axis of the
tie. The concrete is not used to resist the axial force in the tie, but is included to define the zone
in which the forces in the struts and ties are to be anchored. This concrete portion aids in the
transfer of loads from struts to ties or to bearing areas through bond with reinforcement. The
steel reinforcement alone resists the axial tension within the tie. The nominal strength of the tie
without prestressed reinforcement is determined from ACI 318-05 Equation A-6.
nt ts y
F A f = (8.28)
Where
F
nt
= nominal strength of a tie, lb
A
ts
= area of nonprestressed reinforcement in a tie, in
2
The ultimate tension force in the tie, T
u
, must be less than or equal to the design strength of the
tie as illustrated in Equation 8.29.
nt u
F T (8.29)
Where
T
u
= ultimate tension force determined from the idealized truss shown in Figure 8-9
8.2.8 Check In-Plane Shear Forces
The load-bearing tilt-up panels within a building structure provide wall sections to be
specifically designed as shear walls to resist lateral forces. The seismic story shearwall force, F
x
,
for the buildings in this parametric study is equal to the seismic base shear force, V, because the
buildings are one-story structures. Unit shear is one of the criteria used to design shearwalls. Tilt-
up wall panels are designated for the Lateral Force Resisting System (LFRS) as ordinary load-
bearing precast shearwalls in both the longitudinal and transverse directions of the building
structure. The diaphragm structure is permitted to be modeled as flexible for analysis and lateral
force distribution. The deflected shape of the roof diaphragm is illustrated in Figure 8-10 A. The
reaction of the diaphragm on the end walls of both longitudinal and transverse direction is the
reaction of a uniformly loaded simple beam with a span length equal to the distance between the
75
shear walls. For a simple beam, the maximum internal shear is equal to the external reaction.
This can be shown by the shear diagram for a simple beam illustrated in Figure 8-10 B. The
maximum total shear is converted to a unit shear by distributing the shear along the length of the
wall used to resist the lateral force as illustrated in Figure 8-10 C. This unit shear is then
multiplied by the length the panel to determine the amount of lateral force the individual panel
must resist. The shear force is applied at the roof diaphragm, as illustrated in Figure 8-11.
Figure 8-10. Shear Force Model
76
Figure 8-11. Uplift Diagram
Tilt-up panels acting as shear walls need to be checked for overturning. The shear force,
V
u
, applied at the diaphragm is multiplied by the height to the diaphragm to find the overturning
moment. The shear at the roof diaphragm induces a moment which tends to make the wall
overturn, and resistance to overturning often is provided by the dead load of the structure. Tilt-up
panels are advantageous for resisting the overturning moment because of their extensive self-
weight. Through statics, the reactions at the base of the panel, R
L
, and R
R
, can be found. These
forces will be compared to the load-bearing forces to determine the governing load that must be
transferred to the foundation through connection design. The reactions determined from
overturning are computed using the load combination 0.9D + 1.6W. For isolated footings, the
force transferred into the foundation is equal to R
R
and R
L
. For continuous footings, the reactions
are distributed along the base of the wall since the foundation provides uniform support.
8.2.9 Check Load Bearing Forces
The load-bearing force at the connection to the foundation support is determined from the
load combination 1.2D + 1.6L. The self-weight of the wall and the axial roof load shall be
computed. For isolated footings, half of this load is transferred to each foundation support. For
continuous footings, the load is supported uniformly along the foundation. These two scenarios
are compared with the reactions determined from the overturning moment to design the
connection to the foundation support for the governing condition.
8.3 Design Process
77
The tilt-up panels in this parametric study are designed in accordance with ACI 318-05
Section 14.8. The alternate design of slender walls analysis is used to determine the flexural
reinforcement needed for the panel to resist the total factored moment induced from the
governing lateral forces. The panel design process described in Section 8.2 lists the steps taken to
design the panels for the parameters given. The parameters of the study are listed in Section
8.3.1. Appendix D illustrates the calculations for the 32 ft (9.75 m) panel supported on
continuous footings in Dallas.
8.3.1 Parameters
The building structure shown in Figure 1-1 is located in three regions for comparison of
tilt-up panel design to determine how this design is affected by foundation support. Dallas,
Denver, and Kansas City are the three locations chosen to represent a broad overview of the
region within the United States in which the scope of this report applies. The scope of this report
is restricted to Ordinary Precast Load Bearing Walls designed in regions where wind design
governs over seismic design. These three regions also provide variances in soil conditions,
including stiff soils in Kansas City, and expansive soils in Denver and Dallas, which allows for a
comparison of shallow and deep foundation systems.
Two panel heights will be designed at each location. The two heights are 32 ft (9.75 m)
and 40 ft (12 m). Tilt-up panels are common structural components for single story warehouse
and industrial facilities. These two heights are similar to typical conditions for these facilities.
The height difference also allows for a comparison of different slenderness and its affect on P-
effects and reinforcing. Furthermore, these two panel heights are both evaluated with three
thicknesses: 7 in (18 cm), 9 in (23 cm), and 11 in (28 cm). To determine the most
economical panel design, the cost of concrete and steel required for the panel is evaluated given
recent pricing data in the three respective locations. The last variable for the panel design is the
reinforcement mats. Single layer mats and double layer mats are evaluated in both the 7 in (18
cm) panel and 9 in (23 cm) panel. The 11 in (28 cm) panel is evaluated with double mats
only. ACI 318-05 Section 14.3.4 states that walls more than 10 in (25 cm) thick, except basement
walls, shall have reinforcement for each direction placed in two layers parallel with faces of the
wall.
78
8.3.2 Limiting Factors
When the requirements in ACI 318-05 Section 14.8 are all satisfied, the alternative
design of slender walls may be used. The panels within this parametric study meet the
requirements of ACI 318-05 Section 14.8 and follow the alternative design of slender walls.
Several factors have been noted which control design of these panels, and become limiting
factors for reinforcement detailing. The following requirements of ACI 318-05 Section 14.8 are
found to control the design for the panels:
1. Section 14.3.2:
l
>
min reqd
2. Section 14.3.4: Two layers of reinforcement for walls more than 10 in thick
3. Section 14.3.5: Vertical reinforcement spaced no farther apart than 18 in
4. Section 14.8.2.3: Wall shall be tension-controlled
5. Section 14.8.3: M
n
M
u
6. Section 14.8.4:
s
l
c
/ 150
ACI 318-05 Section 14.3.2 is the limiting design requirement for panels with two layers
of reinforcement. The design moment capacity, M
n
, for these panels exceeds the total factored
moment, M
u
, applied to the panels; however, since two layers of reinforcement are used, the
moment arm between the compression force and tension force is larger, which allows for less
area of steel. The ratio of area of steel to gross area of concrete needs to exceed the ratios from
ACI 318-05 Section 14.3.2 in order to meet minimum steel requirements.
ACI 318-05 Section 14.3.4 is the limiting design requirement for the panel thickness
when one layer of reinforcement is utilized. The parametric study consists of three panel
thicknesses: 7 in (18 cm), 9 in (23 cm), and 11 in (28 cm). One layer of reinforcement
mats can only be utilized in the 7 in (18 cm) and 9 in (23 cm) panels. The 11 (28 cm) in
panel must have two layers of reinforcement mats to meet minimum steel requirements.
ACI 318-05 Section 14.3.5 is the limiting design requirement when reinforcement bars
could be spaced further than 18 in apart and maintain design moment capacity, M
n
, larger than
total factored applied moment, M
u
. Vertical and horizontal reinforcement shall not be spaced
farther than 18 in (46 cm) apart or three times the wall thickness. For wall thicknesses greater
than 6 in (15 cm), the 18 in (46 cm) spacing requirement governs.
79
ACI 318-05 Section 14.8.2.3 is the limiting design requirement for two situations when
the panel height is 40 ft (12 m). These two situations are 7 in (18 cm) panel with one layer of
steel supported on continuous footings and 7 in (18 cm) panel with one layer of steel
supported on isolated footings. The 40 ft (12 m) panels have larger slenderness values and
unbraced lengths than the 32 ft (9.75 m) panels. More reinforcement is required to resist the
lateral forces and P- effects. These two wall designs are no longer tension-controlled for the
amount of steel reinforcement needed to attain a design moment capacity, M
n
, larger than the
total factored applied moment, M
u
. No panel design solutions are found for these two panels
because of this requirement.
ACI 318-05 Section 14.8.3 is the limiting design requirement for all panel design
situations when the previous four limiting factors have not yet been reached. The total factored
moment, M
u
, exceeds the design moment capacity, M
n
, with respect to Load Combination 2.
This load combination, 1.2D + 0.5L
r
+ 1.6W, is the governing combination to determine lateral
resistance. This combination governs over the other two combinations because the panel self
weight is significantly larger with respect to the roof live loads. Load Combination 3, 0.9D +
1.6W, can govern for walls of lighter material, because less axial load applied provides less
compression to resist bending. For tilt-up concrete wall panels, Load Combination 2 governs
over Load Combination 3 because the panel self-weight increases the P- effect faster than
conventional materials for walls.
ACI 318-05 Section 14.8.4 is the limiting design requirement for one panel design
situation. This panel is 40 ft (12 m) in height, 7 in (18 cm) thick, and supported on isolated
footings. In order for the service load deflection to be less than l
c
/150, the panel needs an
amount of reinforcement that no longer allows the panel to be tension-controlled. This is due to
the large slenderness, unbraced length, and reduced effective panel width due to isolated
footings, as discussed in Section 8.2.7.
Table 8-8 illustrates each panel configuration designed in the parametric study and
Appendix E illustrates each panel design along with its corresponding limiting factor.
80
Table 8-8. Parametric Study Panel Designs
81
8.3.3 Economic Factors
Economics drives structural design. Competition between construction materials and
practice is dependent on material and labor cost. In order for one construction method to be more
beneficial than another construction method, the method must have a price advantage. Tilt-up
concrete provides an economic advantage over cast-in-place concrete and masonry because the
amount of required formwork and scaffolding is reduced. Tilt-up concrete also provides an
economic advantage in material cost. The more slender the wall, the less material required.
Forty-six tilt-up panel design configurations for each location are evaluated in this parametric
study. These forty-six configurations are divided into four groups: 32 ft (9.75 m) panels
supported on continuous footings, 32 ft (9.75 m) panels supported on isolated footings, 40 ft (12
m) panels supported on continuous footings, and 40 ft (12 m) panels supported on isolated
footings. Each division yields a most economical panel design.
The four most economical panel designs are determined from several factors: panel
thickness, area of steel reinforcement, and material costs for both concrete and structural rebar.
Table 8-9 and Table 8-10 illustrate the price of concrete and structural rebar from Engineering
News Record Construction Economics. (ENR 2008, 2009) Prices from each quarter are obtained
throughout the previous year and averaged. This average price is used to evaluate the most
economic panel for design.
Table 8-9. Concrete Material Prices
Table 8-10. Structural Rebar Material Prices
Appendix F illustrates each panel configuration and its respective cost per lineal foot. It
can be noted from these tables that as the panel increases in thickness, the area of steel
reinforcement required decreases. This relationship is due to an increased moment of inertia as
82
the panel thickness increases. A larger moment of inertia provides an increased resistance to
bending. With regards to material cost, the concrete cost per lineal foot is substantially greater
than the structural rebar cost per lineal foot. Therefore, the thinner panels with more
reinforcement become more economical than the thicker panels with less reinforcement. This
scenario is not always the case. A thicker panel with less reinforcement could be a more
economical design in time periods when the price of steel is higher than average and the price of
concrete is lower than average. Table 8-11 illustrates the panel design chosen for each location
based on foundation support and panel height.
Table 8-11. Chosen Panel Designs
8.3.4 Panel Detailing
Tilt-up panel design is controlled by its ability to resist lateral forces. Once the vertical
reinforcement is detailed, the panel is checked for in-plane forces. The in-plane shear is resisted
by the shear capacity of the tilt-up concrete panel and the horizontal reinforcement within the
panel. The nominal shear strength, V
n
, at any horizontal section in plane of wall shall not be
taken greater than 10(f
c
)hd, where h is the thickness of the wall and d is 0.8 times the length of
the wall. The nominal shear strength of the concrete section, V
c
, is determined from Equation
(11-29) or Equation (11-30) in from ACI 318-05 Section 11.10.6.
3.3 '
4
u
c c
w
N d
V f hd
l
= + (8.30)
83
1.25 ' 0.2
0.6 '
2
u
w c
w
c c
u w
u
N
l f
l h
V f hd
M l
V
+
= +
(8.31)
Where
h = thickness of the wall
d = 0.8 times the length of the wall
l
w
= horizontal length of tilt-up wall panel
N
u
= total factored axial load (positive for compression, negative for tension)
M
u
= total factored moment
V
u
= total factored shear force
M
u
/ V
u
< 0, Equation (11-30) does not apply
If the total factored shear force, V
u
, at the section is less than 0.5V
c
, shear reinforcement is not
required in accordance with ACI 318-05 Section 11.10.8. Minimum horizontal reinforcement is
required in accordance with ACI 318-05 Section 14.3.3, as discussed in Section 8.2.6.
For this parametric study, each panel along all four sides of the building is used as a shear
wall. The total factored shear for each panel is much smaller than 0.5V
c
. Using the entire wall
of panels as a shear wall allows for the total factored shear at each panel to be small. Therefore,
no shear reinforcing is required, but a minimum amount of horizontal reinforcing is needed to
meet the requirements of ACI 318-05 Section 14.3.3. Horizontal reinforcement uniformly
distributed over the wall height is effective in resisting shear and ensuring ductile flexural
failure. (Drysdale 2008) The 7 in (18 cm) panels for both the 32 ft (9.75 m) and 40 ft (12 m)
panels require a #5 reinforcing bar at 18 in on center. The 9 in (23 cm) panels for both the 32
ft (9.75 m) and 40 ft (12 m) panels require a #5 reinforcing bar at 12 in on center. This horizontal
reinforcement is similar for all three locations.
When the panel is supported by isolated footings, detailing is required for the tension tie
near the bottom of the panel as discussed is Section 8.2.7. This tension force, determined through
strut-and-tie analysis, is predominantly governed by the weight of the panel. From the strut-and-
tie analyses, two #4 reinforcing bars are required to resist this tension force from the panels
supported on isolated footings. For ease of construction, two #5 reinforcing bars are used for the
84
tension tie to match with the required horizontal reinforcement of #5 reinforcing bars as
previously discussed.
The vertical reinforcement in the panel which resists the out-of-plane lateral loads is also
used to resist the tension due to uplift from in-plane loads. In reference to Figure 8-11, the
reaction R
R
may be down to resist uplift of the panel, depending on the values V
u
, and N
u
. For
the building in this parametric study, uplift does not occur because the entire length of each wall
resists the in-plane shear, resulting in a small V
u
value for each panel. If the shear was large
enough to cause uplift, the vertical reinforcement near the edge of the panel must be sufficient to
resist this tension force. Strain compatibility analysis can be used to determine the stress of this
vertical reinforcement.
Once the vertical reinforcement is determined to be satisfactory to resist the in-plane
forces, the panels can be detailed. Figure 8-12 illustrates the detailed panels for their respective
regions.
85
Figure 8-12. Tilt-Up Wall Panel Details
86
9 Foundation Design for Tilt-Up Panels
The foundation system is designed to resist the governing force resulting from bearing,
overturning, or uplift of the panels. Through analysis, the load bearing forces from the panel
govern the design of the foundation. For this particular building, overturning and uplift do not
govern because of the geometry of the building and the entire length of each wall resists the in-
plane shear. The panels are subject to overturning, but the extensive self-weight of the panel
resists this action from occurring. The panels are not subject to uplift because the entire length of
each wall acts as the shear wall. If only a few panels along each wall are used as shear walls, or
if the building has a narrow rectangular shape, each panel would then need to resist a larger unit
shear. As the unit shear increases per panel, the possibility of uplift increases. When uplift
occurs, the connection to the foundation must resist the tension force resulting from the uplift
force. As stated, this action does not occur for the building within this parametric study.
The load bearing forces from the panel are resisted by the foundation through bearing
stress. This load takes a different path depending on whether the panel is supported by a
continuous footing or an isolated footing. A continuous footing resists the bearing stress from the
panel uniformly along the length of the foundation. The one-foot strip of the continuous footing
is designed for a one-foot strip of the wall panel. An isolated footing resists the bearing stress
resulting from half the panel self-weight and half the axial roof load. The isolated footing
supports two panels; therefore, the isolated footing must resist the total bearing stress equivalent
to one panel and its entire axial roof load.
9.1 Foundations
The foundations are designed to resist the load bearing stresses resulting from the load
combination 1.2D + 1.6L
r
+ 0.8W. Each of the three foundation options, continuous footings,
spread footings, and drilled piers, is designed to support the panels for the three building
locations. Unfactored loads are used to design the bearing area size of the foundations since the
soil bearing pressure is an allowable stress. The reinforcement within the foundations is designed
for ultimate strength using factored loads.
87
9.1.1 Continuous Footings
The allowable soil bearing pressure used for the continuous footing design in Dallas,
Denver, and Kansas City is 2000 psf, 2500 psf, and 2000 psf, respectively. These allowable soil
bearing pressures are determined from geotechnical reports. (Geotechnical Report 1, 2, & 3) The
continuous footing size and reinforcement is illustrated in Table 9-1. The larger allowable soil
bearing pressure in Denver allows for the footing width to be less than the footing widths in
Dallas and Denver. A weaker allowable soil bearing pressure requires a larger area of footing to
distribute the load into the earth.
Table 9-1. Continuous Footing Design
A 12 in (30 cm) thickness for the footings is sufficient to resist the one-way shear. A
continuous footing supporting a continuous wall will not experience two-way punching shear;
therefore, the one-way shear governs. The flexural reinforcement required for the continuous
footings is less than the minimum area of steel required for temperature and shrinkage.
Reinforcement shall be placed in both directions of the footing using a #5 bar at 12 in (30 cm) on
center. The detail in Figure 9-1 illustrates the reinforcement for the continuous footing.
88
Figure 9-1. Continuous Footing Detail
9.1.2 Spread Footings
The allowable soil bearing pressure used for the spread footing design in Dallas, Denver,
and Kansas City is 2000 psf, 2500 psf, and 2000 psf, respectively. These allowable soil bearing
pressures are determined from geotechnical reports. (Geotechnical Report 1, 2, & 3) The spread
footing size and reinforcement is shown in Table 9-2. When comparing the spread footings
determined for the 40 ft (12 m) panel, it can be noted that a weaker allowable soil bearing
pressure requires a larger area of footing to distribute the load into the earth. The 32 ft (9.75 m)
panel yields that same spread footing design for Dallas and Denver, and a larger spread footing
design for Kansas City. The axial roof live loads are larger in Denver and Kansas City than in
Dallas. This increase in roof live load is just enough to require an 8-0 x 8-0 spread footing in
Kansas City with the same allowable soil pressure as Dallas, where a 7-0 x 7-0 spread
footing is sufficient.
89
Table 9-2. Spread Footing Design
A 12 in (30 cm) thickness for each spread footing is sufficient to resist both one-way and
two-way punching shear. The reinforcement for the spread footings is governed by flexure rather
than temperature and shrinkage. The reason the reinforcement is governed by flexure for the
spread footings and not the continuous footings is because of the increase in width of the footing
which cantilevers out from the base of the wall panel. The continuous footing has a short
cantilever distance yielding a smaller moment than the moment resulting from the longer
cantilever of the spread footing. This flexural action is illustrated in Figure 5-9. The
reinforcement required to resist this bending is dependent on the width of the spread footing and
the ultimate bearing capacity. The ultimate bearing capacity, q
u
, is the quotient of the ultimate
load, P
u
, over the area of the footing, A. As illustrated in Table 9-2, the wider footings require
more reinforcement to resist the larger moment induced from the longer cantilever. The detail in
Figure 9-2 illustrates the reinforcement for the continuous footing.
Figure 9-2. Spread Footing Detail
9.1.3 Drilled Piers
Straight-shaft sidewall shear drilled piers are used in this parametric study for deep
foundation options. These piers are designed to support the unfactored loads from the
superstructure and resist the uplift pressure from the active zone of expansive soils. These two
90
forces are resisted by the end bearing pressure and skin friction of the soil, which are determined
from geotechnical reports. (Geotechnical Report 1, 2, & 3) The maximum end bearing pressure
used for drilled pier design in Dallas and Kansas City is 30 ksf, and for Denver is 25 ksf. The
skin friction for sidewall shear in Dallas and Kansas City is 1 ksf, and for Denver is 2.5 ksf. The
uplift pressure at the active zone resulting from the expansive soils in Dallas and Kansas City is
1.5 ksf, and in Denver is 5 ksf. Table 9-3 illustrates the drilled pier design required to support the
32 ft (9.75 m) and 40 ft (12 m) panels in each location.
Table 9-3. Drilled Pier Design
The sizes of the drilled piers are first determined for the unfactored loads of each
superstructure and its respective uplift force. Once the size of the drilled pier is set, the
reinforcement is then determined from the factored loads of the superstructure. The drilled pier is
designed as a compression/tension axial column with full lateral bracing from the surrounding
soil. For this parametric study, the drilled piers are designed for compression forces. The uplift
force from the expansive soils is resisted by the self-weight of the superstructure. The drilled
piers in Table 9-3 are sufficient in size to resist the ultimate loading from the concrete itself.
However, minimum reinforcement is required by ACI 318-05 Section 10.9.1. Compression
members shall have an area of longitudinal reinforcement, A
st
, greater than 0.01A
g
and less than
91
0.08A
g
. The design strength, P
n
, of the drilled pier is determined from ACI 318-05 Equation
(10-2) and must be greater than or equal to the ultimate factored load, P
u
.
( )
,max
0.80 0.85 '
n c g st y st
P f A A f A
= +
(9.1)
n u
P P (9.2)
Where
= 0.65 for compression controlled sections
A
g
= gross area of concrete section (in
2
)
A
st
= total area of longitudinal reinforcement (in
2
)
The maximum end bearing pressure for these three locations occurs at 35 ft below the
earths surface. Geotechnical reports advise a minimum length of 40 ft (12 m) for the piers. In
theory, the first two feet of the pier socketed into the rock do not provide resistance for sidewall
shear. As the pier is socketed further into the earth, more surface area of the pier is available for
skin friction. Figure 9-3 illustrates the soil interaction of the drilled pier.
Figure 9-3. Drilled Pier Soil Interaction
92
9.2 Connections
Tilt-up panels commonly carry vertical and horizontal loadings. These loadings must be
adequately transferred to the foundation through means of connection design. In addition to
transferring the loads from the roof, floor, and panel into the foundation, the connections must
provide a degree of ductility to resist temperature and shrinkage stresses. The primary purpose of
the connection is to prevent longitudinal or transverse displacement between the panel and the
foundation. The out-of-plane shear forces, illustrated in Table 9-4, must be accounted for either
by a positive connection to the slab, matching the spacing of reinforcement in the slab, or by the
coefficient of friction of the concrete tilt-up panel bearing on the concrete foundation system.
Table 9-4. Out-of-Plane Shear Force
Typical panel-to-foundation connections are discussed in Section 9.2.1. Connections may
also be used at the joints between panels. Panel-to-panel connections are not a common practice
unless very large shear loads are transferred through the diaphragm and the panels cannot
account for this in overturning. Typical panel-to-panel connections are discussed in Section
9.2.2.
9.2.1 Panel-to-Foundation Connections
Connections at foundations are commonly used to provide lateral resistance for lateral
loads or prevent the panel from lifting off the foundation. The following situations are typical
conditions for panel-to-foundation connections: loading dock walls (where the panel can span at
least 4 ft or more below the floor slab), foundations in cold climates (where the panel can span at
least 4 ft or more below the floor slab), and panels with excessive overturning moments that can
not be resisted by the self weight of the panel and its applied axial loads. (TCA 2006)
Uplift is not a concern for the panels within this parametric study. When a tilt-up panel
does need to provide a resistance to excessive lateral forces, tension tie downs may be required at
the outside edges of the panel.
93
Tilt-up wall panels can be attached either at the footing, the floor slab, or both. The detail
shown in Figure 9-4 illustrates the common connections used at the panel to foundation juncture.
Dowels are cast into the footing on either side of the location where the panel will be set to
provide alignment. Once the panels are set, the dowels are covered with grout. These dowels
provide no mechanical connection other than means of assisting wall placement. Dowels are
commonly cast into the panel and extrude at the foundation elevation. Once the panels have been
set, a closure strip is poured between the slab-on-grade and the tilt-up panel encasing the dowels
and providing the connection to the panel.
Figure 9-4. Panel-to-Foundation Detail
Courtesy of the Tilt-Up Concrete Association
(TCA 2006)
ACI 318-05 Section 15.8.3 states that anchor bolts or suitable mechanical connectors
shall be permitted to satisfy ACI 318-05 Section 15.8.1, which states that forces and moments at
the base of a wall shall be transferred to the footing by bearing on concrete or by reinforcement,
dowels, and mechanical connectors. The two details in Figure 9-5 illustrate other common panel-
to-foundation connections as recommended from The Architecture of Tilt-Up.(TCA 2006) Each
94
of these details provides a connection to the foundation as well as a connection to the slab-on-
grade. A combination of inserts, reinforcing bars, and angles are used with welded or bolted final
connections. Detail 9-5A provides a bolted angle connection at the foundation. Detail 9-5B
provides a welded angle connection at the foundation. Each of these connections transfers the
force through shear across the interface. The welded angle provides a stiffer connection which
can cause cracking in the concrete during movement, whereas the bolted angle can allow
movement resulting from expansion and contraction.
(A) (B)
Figure 9-5. Panel-to-Foundation Mechanical Connections
Courtesy of the Tilt-Up Concrete Association
(TCA 2006)
9.2.2 Panel-to-Panel Connections
One of the major differences between tilt-up panels and precast panels are the panel-to-
panel connections, commonly referred to as stitching, or stitchplates. Tilt-up panels are
commonly much wider than precast wall panels. This increased width provides more resistance
to overturning and uplift resulting from lateral forces. Panel-to-panel stitchplate connections may
be required in high seismic regions to resist earthquake loadings. Other panel-to-panel
connections include: chord bars, tube sections, and ledger angles.
95
Figure 9-6 illustrates a stitch plate consisting of steel angles and a steel plate. The steel
angles are embedded at the interior face of the wall panels. The steel plate is welded to only one
panel embedment to form the connection. This allows for expansion and contraction of the
adjacent panel. These stitchplate connections are not used for structural stability, but rather
provide a restraint from panels displacing laterally. It is important to detail panel-to-panel
connections so not to restrain any more movement with the connection than structurally required.
This allows for joint movement between panels to prevent shrinkage and thermal cracking.
Figure 9-6. Panel-to-Panel Stitchplate Connection
Reprinted with permission of The Portland Cement Association.
(PCA 1987)
96
10 Recommendations for Tilt-Up Wall Panel Foundation Systems
Table 10-1 illustrates the cost per foundation unit for the three systems designed to
support the chosen tilt-up panels in the three locations. From a pure economic standpoint, one
may conclude that the least expensive foundation option should be chosen for construction.
However, several variables may exist at the construction site which restrict the use of the least
expensive foundation option.
Table 10-1. Foundation System Concrete Unit Prices
The prices listed in Table 10-1 are representative of the cost for the foundation support
designs illustrated in Table 9-1, Table 9-2, and Table 9-3. The prices listed for the continuous
footings represent the cost for the length of the footing underneath one 24 ft (7.25 m) wide panel.
The prices listed for the spread footings represent the cost of one spread footing. One spread
footing supports two panels, and one panel is supported by two spread footings; therefore, the
panel to spread footing ratio for the building structure is 1:1. The prices listed for the drilled piers
represent the cost of one drilled pier for the same reason as for the spread footings.
For an analysis based strictly on cost, the continuous footing is the most economical
design choice for all situations, except for the 32 ft (9.75 m) panel in Dallas, where the spread
footing is the most economical choice. For an analysis based on cost and soil conditions,
engineering judgment must be used to determine the most adequate foundation system. In
locations where the presence of expansive clays is abundant, such as Dallas and Denver, the 18
in (46 cm) diameter drilled pier foundation system may be the most logical option. Using drilled
piers in locations of expansive soils reduces the potential for movement of the superstructure.
When drilled piers are used for the foundation system, a void space at least 4 in (10 cm) deep
97
should be provided beneath the panels between piers to allow for the expansive clays to expand
and contract without causing movement to the panels. If a greater risk of foundation movement
can be tolerated by the superstructure, shallow foundation systems can be considered to support
the superstructure. When shallow foundations, spread footings or continuous footings, are used
for the foundation system, special provisions are required to ensure that the on-site expansive
soils are not allowed to dry out significantly prior to construction. If the foundation supporting
expansive soils are allowed to dry out, these soils could exhibit high to very high expansive
potential and foundation construction on the soils could experience excessive movement. For an
analysis based on material cost, soil conditions, and construction cost, the 18 in (46 cm) drilled
piers may not be the most economic choice in locations requiring deep foundation systems. The
24 in (61 cm) or 30 in (76 cm) drilled piers may be a more economical choice due to their
decreased depths. The 18 in (46 cm) diameter drilled piers require a deeper socket length into
rock, which requires more drilling and excavation, which may require more expensive
construction equipment. The 24 in (61 cm) and 30 in (76 cm) diameter drilled piers do not
require as much socket length because of their increased circumference surface area.
The panel details in Figure 8-12 illustrate the effect foundation support has on the panel
design. The details with continuous support represent panels supported by continuous footings,
and the details with isolated support represent panels supported by either spread footings or
drilled piers. When the panel is supported by spread footings or drilled piers, two #5 reinforcing
bars are placed near the bottom of the panel to simulate this portion of the panel as a grade beam.
These reinforcing bars are not required in the panels supported by continuous footings.
The most economical panel designs yield thicknesses of 7 in (18 cm) for the 32 ft (9.75
m) panels supported by continuous or isolated foundations, 7 in (18 cm) for the 40 ft (12 m)
panels supported by continuous foundations, and 9 in (23 cm) for 40 ft (12 m) panels
supported by isolated foundations. The 9 in (23 cm) thick panel for the 40 ft (12 m) wall is the
most economical choice because the 7 in (18 cm) panel which correlates to the 40 ft (12 m)
panel choice for continuous support cannot be utilized. This 7 in (18 cm) panel is not tension-
controlled due to the required amount of reinforcing needed to provide a design moment
strength, M
n
, greater than total factored moment, M
u
. As illustrated in Table 10-1, the most
economical shallow foundation system for the 32 ft (9.75 m) panel in Dallas is the spread footing
from Table 9-2, while the continuous footings from Table 9-1 are the most economical shallow
98
foundation system for the remaining situations. In regions of expansive soils, the most
economical deep foundation system is the 18 in (46 cm) diameter straight-shaft drilled pier.
99
11 Conclusions
The foundation system for a building structure has two purposes: to provide a support to
the superstructure and to effectively transfer the loads from the superstructure into the earth
without overstressing the supporting soil. The soil and rock present at the site for the building
structure can control which foundation system must be used for design. Shallow foundation
systems, consisting of spread footings and continuous footings, are appropriate systems for site
locations where the soil conditions consist of compacted sands or firm silts. Deep foundation
systems, such as drilled piers, are appropriate systems for site locations where the soil conditions
consist of loose sands and clays. Not all situations allow for these systems to be used for these
soil conditions. Deep foundation systems may be required for sites of compacted sands and firms
silts where excessively large loads from the superstructure occur or when uplift forces act upon
the foundation. Shallow foundation systems may be used at sites of loose sands and clays when
the building structure is allowed a higher tolerance of risk for foundation movement and special
provisions are used to control the expansive soils.
In one of the fastest growing construction industries in the United States, tilt-up concrete
panels are load-bearing, slender, wall elements that are governed by lateral loads. This lateral
instability occurs when the lateral deflection produces the secondary moments caused by the P-
effects. ACI 318-05 Section 14.8, Alternate Design of Slender Walls, provides provisions for
designing tilt-up wall panels. The tilt-up panels must be properly designed and detailed in order
to resist axial, lateral, and shear loads. The alternate design method may be used when the
following design considerations are met:
1. The wall panel is simply supported, axially loaded, and subjected to an out-of-
plane uniform lateral load. The maximum moments and deflections occur at the
mid-height of the wall
2. The cross-section is constant over the height of the panel
3. The wall cross-section is tension-controlled
4. Reinforcement is provided to ensure a design moment strength M
n
greater than
or equal to M
cr
, where M
cr
is the moment causing flexural cracking due to the
applied lateral and vertical loads
100
5. Concentrated gravity loads applied to the wall above the design flexural section
are distributed over a width equal to the lesser of (a) the bearing width plus a
width on each side that increases at a slope of 2 vertical to 1 horizontal down to
the design flexural section or (b) the spacing of the concentrated loads
6. The vertical stress P
u
/A
g
at the mid-height section does not exceed 0.06f
c
The vertical reinforcement and tilt-up panel thickness required to resist lateral instability
resulting from axial and out-of-plane forces are governed by these provisions. After the panel is
designed to resist the axial and lateral forces, the panel must be analyzed to check its adequacy of
resisting the in-plane shear forces. The foundation support for the panel must also be considered
for proper detailing. Isolated foundations require the panel to be designed and reinforced such
that the panel acts as a deep beam and spans from footing to footing. The tension ties provided
near the bottom of the panel are not required for panels supported on continuous footings.
Tilt-up wall panels can be supported by either spread footings, continuous footings, or
drilled piers. The spread footings and drilled piers are placed under the joints between the panels,
so that each footing pad supports half of each adjacent panel. The panel spans between footing
pads for these two foundation systems. When soil conditions permit shallow foundation systems,
continuous footings provide more economy than spread footings. However, if numerous amounts
of mechanical, electrical, or plumbing equipment must pass under the tilt-up panels, spread
footings may be a more economical choice because of the pipe sleeves and detailing needed for
continuous footings.
When the building site consists of expansive soils, the structural engineer should take
careful consideration into the decision for the foundation system. If the building can tolerate a
higher risk for expansion and contraction at areas such as the panel-to-slab-on-grade connection
due to the clayey soils, shallow foundation systems will provide a less expensive option. If the
building cannot tolerate risk of expansion and contraction of the clayey soils, drilled piers may
be the only option for the foundation system. This deep foundation system may be more
expansive up front, but could save the owner money in the future by preventing the risks of
settlement and heaving of the structure. The structural engineer needs to use his or her judgment
and discuss all options and risks involved with the owner in order to design the most economical
structure that the construction site permits.
101
References
Aiken, Robert. Monolithic Concrete Wall Buildings Methods, Construction and Cost. ACI
Proceedings 5 (1909): 83-105.
Allen, Peter M. and William D. Flanigan. Geology of Dallas, Texas, United States of America.
Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists 13.4 (1986): 363-418.
American Concrete Institute Committee 551 (ACI 551). Appendix B: Design Examples for Out-
of-Plane Forces. Farmington Hills, MI. Jun 2005.
American Concrete Institute Committee 551 (ACI 551). Tilt-Up Concrete Structures. Farmington
Hills, MI. Feb 2003.
American Concrete Institute Committee 551 (ACI 551). Tilt-Up Construction Guide. Farmington
Hills, MI. Jun 2005.
American Concrete Institute Committee 551 (ACI 551). Tilt-Up Construction Design Guide for
Tilt-Up Panels. Farmington Hills, MI. Mar 2005.
American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI). Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-05). USA, 2006.
Athey, J.W., ed. Test Report on Slender Walls. Southern California Chapter of the American
Concrete Institute and Structural Engineers Association of Southern California. Los Angeles,
CA, 1982.
Bowles, Joseph E. Foundation Analysis and Design. 4
th
ed. New York: McGraw, 1988.
Brooks H. Tilt-up Design and Construction Manual. HBA Publications, 1994.
102
Costa, John E. and Sally W. Bilodeau. Geology of Denver, Colorado, United States of
America. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists 19.3 (1982): 261-314.
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (Feb 4, 2008): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (Feb 25, 2008): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (May 5, 2008): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (May 26, 2008): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (Aug 11, 2008): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (Sept 1, 2008): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (Nov 3, 2008): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (Nov 24, 2008): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (Jan 26, 2009): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
103
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (Feb 2, 2009): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Das, Braja M. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. 6
th
ed. Ontario: Nelson, 2006.
Department of the Army USA, Technical Manual TM 5-818-7. Foundations in Expansive Soils.
1 Sept 1983.
Drysdale, Robert G. and Ahmad A. Hamid. Masonry Structures Behavior and Design. 3
rd
ed.
Boulder, Colorado: The Masonry Society (TMS) 2008.
Geotechnical Report 1. Dallas, Texas.
Geotechnical Report 2. Denver, Colorado.
Geotechnical Report 3. Kansas City, Missouri.
Glass, J., Wall Panel Renaissance: Tilt-Up Concrete Construction. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings (Aug 2000): 277-289.
Jacoby, Henry S., and Roland P. Davis. Foundations of Bridges and Buildings. New York:
McGraw, 1941.
Johnson, James R. Simplified Design Method for Tilt-Up Concrete Walls. Building Standards
(May-Jun 1979): 6-9.
Johnson, Maura. Tilt-Up Pioneer. Tilt-Up Building: Methods and Marketing Concrete
Construction. 2
nd
ed.: 1-2.
Krohn, James P. and James E. Slosson. Assessment of Expansive Soils within the United
States. Expansive Soils (ASCE) (Sept 1991).
104
Kumar, N. Review of Common Design and Construction Practices on Expansive Soils in
Colorado. Institution of Engineers Australia 84 (1984): 165-169.
Lawson, John. Material Matters: A Call for Unified Design. GoStructural.com (Jan 2007): 13
Oct 2008. <http://www.gostructural.com/print.asp?id=1474>.
Lufkin, John L. Geology of Colorado and Major Prehistoric Events. GEO-Volution: The
Evolution of Colorados Geological and Geotechnical Engineering Practice (Sept 2006): 1-15.
MacGregor, James G. Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design. 3
rd
ed. New Jersey: Prentice,
1997.
MacGregor, James G. Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design. 4
th
ed. New Jersey: Prentice,
2005.
McCarthy, David F. Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations. Reston, VA: Reston, 1977.
McCormac, Jack C., James K. Nelson. Design of Reinforced Concrete: ACI 318-05 Code
Edition. 7
th
ed. New Jersey: Wiley, 2006.
McKinney, Steven A. Certain Details of Tilt-Up Wall Panel Construction. Concrete
International (Apr 1980): 52-57.
Noe, David C., Vincent Matthews, III, and Ralf Topper. Overview of the Geology of Colorado
Part 1: Physiography, Climate, Geologic Setting, and Geologic History. Engineering Geology in
Colorado: Contributions, Trends, and Case Histories. Association of Environmental and
Engineering Geologists (AEG) Special Publication 15 Colorado Geological Survey (CGS)
Special Publication 55 (2003)
105
Olive, W. W., A. F. Chleborad, C. W. Frahme, Julius Schlocker, R. R. Schneider, and R. L.
Schuster. IMAP 1940 Swelling Clays Map of Conterminous United States. U.S. Geological
Survey, Department of the Interior/USGS. 1989.
Parizek, Eldon J. The Geologic Setting of Greater Kansas City, Missouri-Kansas. National
Science Foundation. Washington D.C. 9-23. 1975.
Portland Cement Association (PCA). Connections for Tilt-Up Wall Construction. Skokie, IL.
1987.
Portland Cement Association (PCA). Notes on ACI 318-05 Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete. Chapter 21 Walls. Skokie, IL. 2005.
Reese, L.C. and M.W. ONeill. Field Tests of Bored Piles in Beaumont Clay. ASCE Annual
Meeting. Preprint 1008. Chicago, 1969.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC). 2006 IBC Structural/Seismic Design
Manual 2: Building Design Examples for Light-Frame, Tilt-Up and Masonry. Sacramento, CA.
2006.
Terzaghi, Karl, and Ralph B. Peck. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. New York: Wiley,
1948.
Tilt-Up Concrete Association (TCA). The Architecture of Tilt-Up. 1
st
ed. Mount Vernon, IA,
2006.
Tilt-Up Concrete Association (TCA). The Tilt-Up Construction and Engineering Manual. 6
th
ed.
Mount Vernon, IA, 2004.
Tilt-Up Construction: History and Uses. Concrete Contractor (Nov 2007): 13 Oct 2008.
<http://www.concretecontractor.com/tilt-up-concrete/construction-history/>.
106
Whitaker, T. and R.W. Cooke. An Investigation of the Shaft and Base Resistances of Large
Bored Piles in London Clay. Symposium Large Bored Piles. London, 1966.
Woodward, Jr., Richard J., William S. Gardner, and David M. Greer, ed. Drilled Pier
Foundations. New York: McGraw, 1972.
107
Bibliography
Aiken, Robert. Monolithic Concrete Wall Buildings Methods, Construction and Cost. ACI
Proceedings 5 (1909): 83-105.
Allen, Peter M. and William D. Flanigan. Geology of Dallas, Texas, United States of America.
Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists 13.4 (1986): 363-418.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05). Farmington Hills, MI, 2007.
American Concrete Institute Committee 336 (ACI 336). Specification for the Construction of
Drilled Piers. Farmington Hills, MI. Oct 2001.
American Concrete Institute Committee 551 (ACI 551). Appendix B: Design Examples for Out-
of-Plane Forces. Farmington Hills, MI. Jun 2005.
American Concrete Institute Committee 551 (ACI 551). Tilt-Up Concrete Structures. Farmington
Hills, MI. Feb 2003.
American Concrete Institute Committee 551 (ACI 551). Tilt-Up Concrete Construction Guide.
Farmington Hills, MI, 2005.
American Concrete Institute Committee 551 (ACI 551). Tilt-Up Construction Guide. Farmington
Hills, MI. Jun 2005.
American Concrete Institute Committee 551 (ACI 551). Tilt-Up Construction Design Guide for
Tilt-Up Panels. Farmington Hills, MI. Mar 2005.
108
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Performance of Deep Foundations.
Rahway, N.J., 1969.
American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI). Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-05). USA, 2006.
Athey, J.W., ed. Test Report on Slender Walls. Southern California Chapter of the American
Concrete Institute and Structural Engineers Association of Southern California. Los Angeles,
CA, 1982.
Bowles, Joseph E. Foundation Analysis and Design. 4
th
ed. New York: McGraw, 1988.
Briaud, Jean-Louis, and Robert Gibbens. Behavior of Five Large Spread Footings in Sand.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (Sept 1999): 787-796.
Brooks H. Tilt-up Design and Construction Manual. HBA Publications, 1994.
Brown, Robert Wade, ed. Practical Foundation Engineering Handbook. 2
nd
ed. New York:
McGraw, 2001.
Chen, F.H. Foundations on Expansive Soils. New York: Elsevier, 1988.
Clark, C. A. Development of Tilt-Up Construction. Journal of the American Concrete Institute
(May 1948): 813-820.
Claybourn, Alan F. Failure of Drilled Piers in Denver Due to Formation of Softened
Claystone. Contemporary Issues in Deep Foundations 158 (2007): 220-230.
Cluff, Lloyd S. History of Engineering Geology in the United States. Bulletin of Engineering
Geology and the Environment (Dec 1970): 45-51.
109
Collins, F. Thomas. Precast Concrete Sandwich Panels for Tilt-Up Construction. Journal of the
American Concrete Institute (Oct 1954): 149-164.
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI). CRSI Design Handbook. 9
th
ed. (2002): 13.1-13.37.
Costa, John E. and Sally W. Bilodeau. Geology of Denver, Colorado, United States of
America. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists 19.3 (1982): 261-314.
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (Feb 4, 2008): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (Feb 25, 2008): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (May 5, 2008): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (May 26, 2008): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (Aug 11, 2008): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (Sept 1, 2008): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (Nov 3, 2008): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (Nov 24, 2008): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
110
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (Jan 26, 2009): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Construction Economics. Engineering News Record (ENR). (Feb 2, 2009): Feb 26, 2009.
<http://enr.construction.com/economics.>
Das, Braja M. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. 6
th
ed. Ontario: Nelson, 2006.
Department of the Army USA, Technical Manual TM 5-818-7. Foundations in Expansive Soils.
1 Sept 1983.
Drysdale, Robert G. and Ahmad A. Hamid. Masonry Structures Behavior and Design. 3
rd
ed.
Boulder, Colorado: The Masonry Society (TMS) 2008.
Focht, John A. and Chester J. Drash, Jr. Behavior of Drilled Piers in Layered Soils on Texas
Barrier Islands. Drilled Piers and Caissons II (ASCE) (Sept 1991): 76-98.
Gardner, William S. Interaction of Geology, Construction Practice and Foundation Design.
Foundation Engineering; Current Principles and Practices; Proceedings of the Congress Evanston
Illinois (Jun 1989): 1552-1577.
Geotechnical Report 1. Dallas, Texas.
Geotechnical Report 2. Denver, Colorado.
Geotechnical Report 3. Kansas City, Missouri.
Glass, J., Wall Panel Renaissance: Tilt-Up Concrete Construction. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings (Aug 2000): 277-289.
111
Hassoun, M. Nadim, and Akthem Al-Manaseer. Structural Concrete: Theory and Design. 3
rd
ed.
New Jersey: Wiley, 2005.
Jacoby, Henry S., and Roland P. Davis. Foundations of Bridges and Buildings. New York:
McGraw, 1941.
Johnson, James R. Simplified Design Method for Tilt-Up Concrete Walls. Building Standards
(May-Jun 1979): 6-9.
Johnson, Maura. Tilt-Up Pioneer. Tilt-Up Building: Methods and Marketing Concrete
Construction. 2
nd
ed.: 1-2.
Jubenville, David M. and Richard C. Hepworth. Drilled Pier Foundations in Shale, Denver
Colorado Area. Drilled Piers and Caissons Conference American Society of Civil Engineers
(Oct 1981) 66-81.
Kelly, Dominic. Seismic Site Classification for Structural Engineers. Structure Magazine (Dec
2006): 21-24.
Kripanarayanan, K.M. In-Place Loads and Tilt-Up Bearing Walls A Design Approach.
Concrete International (Apr 1980): 43-47.
Kripanarayanan, K.M., and Mark Fintel. Analysis and Design of Slender Tilt-Up Reinforced
Concrete Wall Panels. ACI Journal (Jan 1974): 20-28.
Krohn, James P. and James E. Slosson. Assessment of Expansive Soils within the United
States. Expansive Soils (ASCE) (Sept 1991).
Kumar, N. Review of Common Design and Construction Practices on Expansive Soils in
Colorado. Institution of Engineers Australia 84 (1984): 165-169.
112
Lawson, John. Material Matters: A Call for Unified Design. GoStructural.com (Jan 2007): 13
Oct 2008. <http://www.gostructural.com/print.asp?id=1474>.
Lufkin, John L. Geology of Colorado and Major Prehistoric Events. GEO-Volution: The
Evolution of Colorados Geological and Geotechnical Engineering Practice (Sept 2006): 1-15.
MacGregor, James G. Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design. 3
rd
ed. New Jersey: Prentice,
1997.
MacGregor, James G. Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design. 4
th
ed. New Jersey: Prentice,
2005.
Marxhausen, Peter D. and Aaron Bagley. Foundation Design: Understanding Geotechnical
Factors of Safety in the Design of Foundations. Structure Magazine (Jun 2006): 47-50.
Massone, Leonardo M., and John W. Wallace. Load-Deformation Response of Slender
Reinforced Concrete Walls. ACI Structural Journal (Jan-Feb 2004): 103-113.
Mather, Katherine, and Bryant Mather. The History of Concrete Construction in the 20
th
Century. Concrete International (Oct 1981): 19-26.
McCarthy, David F. Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations. Reston, VA: Reston, 1977.
McCormac, Jack C., James K. Nelson. Design of Reinforced Concrete: ACI 318-05 Code
Edition. 7
th
ed. New Jersey: Wiley, 2006.
McKinney, Steven A. Certain Details of Tilt-Up Wall Panel Construction. Concrete
International (Apr 1980): 52-57.
Meyerhof, George G. Shallow Foundations. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. (Mar 1965): 21-31.
113
Nelson, John D., Daniel D. Overton, and Kuo-Chieh Chao. Evolution of Foundation Design for
Expansive Soils. GEO-Volution: The Evolution of Colorado's Geological and Geotechnical
Engineering Practice (Sept 2006): 63-75.
Noe, David C. Expansive Soil and Bedrock in Colorado. Engineering Geology in Colorado:
Contributions, Trends, and Case Histories. Association of Environmental and Engineering
Geologists (AEG) Special Publication 15 Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) Special
Publication 55 (2003)
Noe, David C., Vincent Matthews, III, and Ralf Topper. Overview of the Geology of Colorado
Part 1: Physiography, Climate, Geologic Setting, and Geologic History. Engineering Geology in
Colorado: Contributions, Trends, and Case Histories. Association of Environmental and
Engineering Geologists (AEG) Special Publication 15 Colorado Geological Survey (CGS)
Special Publication 55 (2003)
Olive, W. W., A. F. Chleborad, C. W. Frahme, Julius Schlocker, R. R. Schneider, and R. L.
Schuster. IMAP 1940 Swelling Clays Map of Conterminous United States. U.S. Geological
Survey, Department of the Interior/USGS. 1989.
Parizek, Eldon J. The Geologic Setting of Greater Kansas City, Missouri-Kansas. National
Science Foundation. Washington D.C. 9-23. 1975.
Plavsic, Vera. Tilt-Up Constructiona Fast, Economical Method of Erecting Concrete
Buildings for Industrial Use. Plant Engineering (Apr 1981): 38-45.
Portland Cement Association (PCA). Connections for Tilt-Up Wall Construction. Skokie, IL.
1987.
Portland Cement Association (PCA). Notes on ACI 318-05 Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete. Chapter 21 Walls. Skokie, IL. 2005.
114
Portland Cement Association (PCA). Notes on ACI 318-05 Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete. Chapter 22 Footings. Skokie, IL. 2005.
Reese, L.C. and M.W. ONeill. Field Tests of Bored Piles in Beaumont Clay. ASCE Annual
Meeting. Preprint 1008. Chicago, 1969.
Richart, Frank E. Reinforced Concrete Wall and Column Footings Part 1. Journal of the
American Concrete Institute (Oct 1948): 97-127.
Richart, Frank E. Reinforced Concrete Wall and Column Footings Part 2. Journal of the
American Concrete Institute (Nov 1948): 237-260.
Rowe, R. K. and H. H. Armitage. A Design Method for Drilled Piers in Soft Rock. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 24 (1987): 126-142.
Ruhnke, Josh, and Cliff J. Schexnayder. Description of Tilt-Up Concrete Wall Construction.
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction (Aug 2002): 103-110.
Sauter, Ed. Connections are Key in Tilt-Up Building Performance. Concrete Monthly (Nov
2007): 22 Sept 2008. <http://www.concretemonthly.com/monthly/art.php?2922>.
Sauter, Ed. Soaring to New Height. The Construction Specifier (Jun 2005): 24-33.
Sauter, Ed. Tilt-Up Basics. Tilt-Up Building: Methods and Marketing. 2
nd
ed.: 54-57.
Sauter, Ed. Tilt-Up Construction: Not Just for Big Boxes. The Construction Specifier (Feb
2004): 32-39.
Spears, Ralph E. Tilt-Up Construction, Design Considerations An Overview. Concrete
International (Apr 1980): 33-38.
115
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC). 2006 IBC Structural/Seismic Design
Manual 2: Building Design Examples for Light-Frame, Tilt-Up and Masonry. Sacramento, CA.
2006.
Structural Committee, The. Foundation Design Options for Residential and Other Low-Rise
Buildings. Foundation Performance Association (Jun 2004): 1-41.
Talbot, Arthur N. Reinforced Concrete Wall Footings and Column Footings. University of
Illinois Bulletin 67 (Mar 1913): 1-116.
Terzaghi, Karl, and Ralph B. Peck. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. New York: Wiley,
1948.
Terzaghi, Karl. Ends and Means in Soil Mechanics. The Engineering Journal (Dec 1944): 608
-615.
Tilt-Up Concrete Association (TCA). The Architecture of Tilt-Up. 1
st
ed. Mount Vernon, IA,
2006.
Tilt-Up Concrete Association (TCA). The Tilt-Up Construction and Engineering Manual. 6
th
ed.
Mount Vernon, IA, 2004.
Tilt-Up Construction: History and Uses. Concrete Contractor (Nov 2007): 13 Oct 2008.
<http://www.concretecontractor.com/tilt-up-concrete/construction-history/>.
Tilt-Up Walls Speed Building Construction Civil Engineering-ASCE (June 1974): 58-60.
Turner, A. Keith and William P. Rogers. History of Engineering Geology Development in
Colorado. Engineering Geology in Colorado: Contributions, Trends, and Case Histories. AEG
Special Publication 15 CGS Special Publication 55 (2003)
116
Vessely, Mark J. and Hsing-Cheng Liu. LRFD and Drilled Shaft Design in Colorado. GEO-
Volution: The Evolution of Colorado's Geological and Geotechnical Engineering Practice (Sept
2006): 132-148.
Wallace, Mark. Redesign Improves Constructability Attention to Details Enhances
Appearance. Concrete Construction (Apr 1987): 357-364.
Webb, Daniel B. Design of Slender Walls: A Response Approach. Concrete International (Jan
1985): 45-52.
Weber, Donald C. Drilled Pier Foundations in the Denver Area. Structural Engineering
Practice 1.2 (1982): 117-120.
Weiler, Gerry, and N.D. Nathan. Design of Tilt-Up Wall Panels. Concrete International (Apr
1980): 48-51.
Weiler, Gerry. Approximate Methods for Analysis of Tilt-Up Concrete Wall Panels. Concrete
International (Nov 1982): 16-22.
Weiler, Gerry. Connections for Tilt-Up Construction. Concrete International (Jun 1986): 24-
28.
Whitaker, T. and R.W. Cooke. An Investigation of the Shaft and Base Resistances of Large
Bored Piles in London Clay. Symposium Large Bored Piles. London, 1966.
Woodward, Jr., Richard J., William S. Gardner, and David M. Greer, ed. Drilled Pier
Foundations. New York: McGraw, 1972.
117
Appendix A - Gravity Loads
118
119
Appendix B - Wind Loads
120
121
Appendix C - Seismic Loads
122
123
Appendix D - 32 Panel on Continuous Footings in Dallas, TX
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
Appendix E - Limiting Factors for Tilt-Up Panels
Table 11-1. Limiting Design Factors for Tilt-Up Panels in Each Location
137
Appendix F - Tilt-Up Panel Cost per Lineal Foot
Table 11-2. Dallas Panels
138
Table 11-3. Denver Panels
139
Table 11-4. Kansas City Panels