REINFORCED EXTENDED RING FOUNDATIONS

FOR TOP-UNLOADING CONCRETE TOWER SILOS

J.E. Turnbull, H.A. Jackson, and D. Lowe
Engineering and Statistical Research Institute, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, KIA 0C6,
ESRI contribution no. 596

Received 20 September 1978

Turnbull, J.E., H.A. Jackson, and D. Lowe. 1979. Reinforced ring foundations for top-unloading concrete tower silos. Can.
Agric. Eng. 21: 111-116.

Weak soils require special foundation designsto spread the load of tall tower silos over sufficientsoil-bearingarea to maintain
an adequate safety factor. Eccentricity of silo wallloads and soil reaction pressuresfrequently cause the annular ring footing to
rotate and break into sectors. In this design, the annular ring is reinforced with a flat continuous spiral of steel to resist rotation,
and the majority of the footing width is located beyond the silo wallto increasetotal bearingarea under the silo. Designcriteria
were based on the Canadian Farm Building Code (1977), and solutions were calculated for soils ranging from 72 to 288 kN/m2
(1500 to 6000 lb/ft2) safe bearing pressures.

INTRODUCTION

As more and more large tower silos are

built on supporting soils of undetermined
bearing capacities, the number of cases of
settled, leaning and overturned silos in
Canada continues to increase. A previous
paper (Bozozuk 1974) dealt with factors
which determine the safe allowable bearing
pressures of clay soils under tower silo
foundations. This paper deals with a design
procedure for silo foundations capable of
spreading the load of a single silo plus
contents over sufficient soil area for safe
support.
A tower silo can easily overload the area
of soil directly under the silo cylinder and
floor. Then it is necessary to spread the
weight of the silo and contents over a
bearing area considerably greater than the
base of the silo cylinder. The reinforced
extended ring foundation described here is a
method of increasing the foundation bearing
area beyond the wall of the silo cylinder
without wasting unnecessary foundation
concrete and reinforcing steel under the silo
floor.

NOMENCLATURE

a = angle subtended by unit wall

circumference rad
Al = section area of rebars to resist
lateral pressure 2 3
As = section area of rebars to resist HEIGHT/DIAMETER RATIO (h/D)
moment mm2
B = breadth of footing m

C = centroid of a sector of footing ring Figure 1. Silage wall friction versus height/diameter ratio for concrete tower silos.
(see Fig. 2)
D = silo inside diameter M
5 = silage load at 70% moisture kN/m* P - steel/concrete area ratio tower silo foundations, summarized as
d = footing depth m R = soil reaction at centroid of footing follows:
e = eccentricity of silo wall load with sector
S = silo dead load (wall + roof +
(1) The base of a tower silo intended for
respect to c m
unloader) per unit circumference kN/m whole-plant silage should have a floor
F = silage friction load on wall per
unit of circumference kN/m Ts = spiral steel tension force kN and drainage system designed to
fc = 28-day compressive strength of W = total silage load per unit of silo prevent silage liquids from penetrating
concrete MPa circumference kN/m the soil under the footing and floor
fs = steel safe working stress MPa (floor and drainage details as shown in
H = silo wall height m REQUIREMENTS FOR Fig. 2 are designed to satisfy this
h = silage height = (H — 1.5)m m SILO FOUNDATIONS requirement).
k = cone height/diameter ratio = 4.72
(Code, 1977) The Canadian Farm Building Code, (2) The footing should be designed to resist
L = lateral silage pressure on silo hereafter referred to as the "Code" bending moments caused by silo wall
walls kPa (Standing Committee on Farm Building and soil reaction loads (most
P = safe soil bearing pressure kPa Standards 1977) gives requirements for foundation failures to date have been

CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 21, NO. 2, DECEMBER 1979 111

 weight, this would not necessarily be true.
Silage density and wall friction for
estimating floor and wall loads
The 1977 Code gives an equation for
estimating that part of the silage which
would be supported by wall friction, as
follows:

Wh h
(1- (1)
' A.12D 14.16/)

Equation 1 is based on the assumption

that the silage-to-wall vertical friction F,
accumulated to the base of the wall, is the
mass of silage contained above a right
circular cone with base the floor of the silo
and height h of 4.72 times the silo diameter
at the silo vertical center line (see Fig. 1).
There are recent indications that Eq. 1
reasonably estimates the wall friction load
for 70% moisture of silage stored from 9 to
24 m depth. M. Bozozuk (National Research
Council, personal communication)
calculated from measurements of vertical
soil stresses under one silo footing and floor
that about 50% of the silage weight was
supported by the wall. In this case, the floor
load due to silage corresponded with a cone
4.72 silo diameters in height, instead of 3.2
silo diameters as per the 1975 code.
Negi et al. (1977) measured wall friction
experimentally in a scale model silo with
varying height/diameter ratio; their results
when replotted also showed closer
agreement with the "cone" concept when the
cone height is adjusted to 4.72 silo diameters
(see Fig. 1). Since the cone concept is easier
to apply and seems to result in errors slightly
on the safe side with wider silos, this concept
was used in calculations to determine
required footing widths.
To apply the cone concept for estimating
wall friction loads, uniform silage density
throughout the silage depth has been
Figure 2. Section and plan of extended ring silo foundation. assumed. Averaged silage densities were
taken from the Code (1977).

DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
accompanied by breakup of the footing The Code (1977) does not specifically AND EQUATIONS
ring into segments, thereby causing a mention design of silo foundations for wind 1. Estimating Silage Load, W
ring of concentrated load to develop effects. Although many concrete stave silos Total estimated silage vertical wall
directly under the silo walls. have been demolished by wind, the wind- friction was based on the cone concept (see
(3) The foundation ring should be caused failures seen to date have not been Fig. 1) with cone height/diameter ratio k =
reinforced circumferentially to due to foundation or soil failure, but rather 4.72.
withstand the same lateral pressures as to collapses of the empty walls or roofs. Total silage load in a cylinder is
the bottom of the silo wall (Bozozuk To check wind effects on silo In D2h/4. The silage load Wenclosed by a
1974). foundations, a calculation was done to unit sector of wall (1 metre of circumference)
(4) The width of an annular footing ring estimate the amount of "tilt" required of the then becomes
should be based on providing sufficient soil reaction diagram in order to balance the
bearing area at the critical soil bearing overturning pressure of a "design" W= dDh/4 (2)
surface to support the silo roof, windstorm at Ottawa. For a 7.2 x 21.6-m
equipment, wall and footing, plus silo, with outside footing radius selected to 2. Estimating Silage Friction Load on
vertical wall friction. load the soil to 96 kPa (2000 lb/ft2), the Wall, F.
(5) Total bearing area under footing plus extreme increment of soil reaction pressure Combining Eqs. 1 and 2 gives
floor should be sufficient to safely due to wind would be only ± 5% of the mean „ a2
support the total weight of silo, bearing pressure. This small increment, plus (1 (3)
18.88 14.16D
foundation and contents (this last the remote possibility of a maximum wind
requirement may or may not be met by blowing from the most critical direction 3. Calculating Footing Width, B
satisfying requirement (4) above, when the silo is filled, all seem to indicate the The dead load (S) of silo wall plus roof
depending on the required proportions design of silo foundations for wind is and equipment is a very significant part of
of the silo and foundation ring). superfluous. In tall structures of lesser the footing load with concrete silos. The wall

112 CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 21, NO. 2, DECEMBER 1979

part was calculated on the basis of 63-mm compression to balance the spiral steel
thick concrete staves or 150 mm thick cast- tension; a steel/concrete area ratio p = 0.009
in-place concrete, each at 23.56 kg/m3 (150 was chosen to ensure an underreinforced
lb/ft3). To this was added the weights of beam section. This gives
roof, unloader, etc. based on manufacturers'
shipping weights, all divided by nD to give As = 9000 5 (d- 0.1) (6)

loads per unit of circumference.

The ring footing was arbitrarily set with 6. Spiral Steel Area (As) to Resist Footing
inside radius a constant 0.3 m less than the Rotation
radius of the silo (see Fig. 3). Thus total In Fig. 2, the eccentricity e of wall loads F
bearing area under a sector of the ring + S in relation to soil reaction R develops a
footing corresponding to one unit of wall couple which tends to rotate any sector of
circumference becomes the footing ring outwards at the bottom and
inwards at the top. In this, the footing ring is
(B+D-.6) somewhat analogous to a beam stressed in
D bending; rotation of any sector defined by a
Beyond the basic requirement that small horizontal angle dd) is resisted by the
footing width B must be sufficient to support "beam" action of concrete acting in
the silo, plus silage-on-wall friction loads, B compression in the top of the ring, and by a
must be further increased to support the flat-wound continuous spiral of steel acting
considerable load of the footing itself. A in circumferential tension near the bottom. Figure 3. Diagram of footing ring with
exaggerated rotation and displacement
convenient way to do this is to reduce the The steel is placed as a continuous spiral
due to eccentric loading.
allowable unit bearing pressure of the soil by using the longest rebar lengths obtainable,
an amount equal to the load of the footing, to minimize and randomize the end-laps.
which is in turn the density of reinforced For any sector of footing defined by A process of iteration is used to obtain a
concrete times the depth d. Net allowable small angle d0, the wall load is (F+ S) D/2 more exact value for depth d, then Eq. 7 is
bearing pressure thus becomes P — 23.56d. dd, and the "load" moment developed by solved to obtain the spiral steel area, As.
This method is based on the assumption this eccentric load is M - e(F + S) D/2 d6.
that the soil reaction pressure is uniform The resisting moment to balance this is 8. Reinforcing for Lateral Pressure Inside
under the whole area of the footing ring. developed by the radial component ( Tssin Footing Ring
This is not necessarily true, but the dO) of the steel tension, acting about point Additional spiral steel is required to resist
assumption of uniform reaction pressure is C, the assumed centroid of the lateral pressure on the footing ring resulting
simpler and is on the safe side, from the circumferential compression forces in the from the silage load on the floor. The exact
standpoint of footing design. Further top part of the concrete ring. Using working nature of this soil pressure is not known, but
research will hopefully indicate a more stress design methods (CSA Standard A it is assumed here that it is equal to the
realistic distribution of reaction pressures 23.3, 1970), the effective depth of the steel is lateral pressure of the silage at depth h.
and permit future economies in the design of about 0.857 (d — 0.1), and the resisting For lateral silage pressure L at silage
extended ring footings. moment Mr developed by steel/concrete depth //, the Code gives
The equation for footing width B can be interaction is L =4.785 + 0.579/z (D - 0.6)oss
written thus:
Mr = Tssindd (0.857)(rf - 0.1). Since this pressure is applied to the inside
F + S= — (B+D- .6)(P- 23.56tf) But Ts = AsfSf fs = 165.5 mPa for grade of the footing ring, the diameter reduces to
50 000 steel, and sin dd = dd for very small D — 0.6, and the required extra spiral steel
angles, therefore area Aj^ at safe working stress is therefore
(4)
Mr = 165.5As. dd (0.857)(rf - 0.1) \0* d{D-0.6)
AL =
2(165.5)
[4.785 +0.579/2
4. Calculating Eccentricity, e For equilibrium, equate load moment M to
The extended ring foundation (see Fig. resisting moment Mr\ therefore 0.55
2), when loaded, rotates outwards at the (D - 0.6) G (9)
bottom, and without reinforcement it can e (F + S)- d6 = 165.5As. dd (0.857)(d - 0.1)
break into separated sectors due to the from which The location of this extra steel is subject
eccentricity e of the resultant soil reaction R to some judgment. One approach would be
with respect to the wall loads (F+ S). With 103 De(F + S) to arrange it vertically near the inside edge of
Ax = - (7)
proper circumferential reinforcement to 2(165.5)(0.857)(</-0.1) the footing, corresponding to the
resist this rotation, the ring becomes circumferential steel in the silo wall above.
analogous to a concrete beam where the Note that the bearing line of silo wall However, only a few turns of steel are
spiral steel As acts in tension near the loads F + S was taken at the inside wall required to provide area Al, and to be
bottom and is balanced by concrete acting in circle, to allow for the unknown silage effective it should be located where tensile
compression at the top. It can be shown that pressures acting vertically on the inside heel strain approaches a maximum in the footing
this eccentricity is: of the footing. ring. Figure 3 shows a section diagram of the
3 B 7. Calculating Footing Depth D footing ring, with rotation under load

..§»|~2 D/2-31 3
— +
Combining Eqs. 6 and 7 gives exaggerated to show displacement effects.
(5) At the beginning of loading the neutral axis
L2+_?
D/2 - 0.3
J ' 9000 5 (d- 0.1)
De (F + S) of the concrete "beam" is assumed to be a
2(165.5)(d-0.1) horizontal line (n to a) above which the
De (F + S) shaded portion of the concrete is under
5. Steel/Concrete Area Ratio (tf-0.ir - = 0 (8) compression. With rotation under full
25535
Equation 4 above has two unknown eccentric loads, the neutral axis rotates
terms, B and d\ therefore additional In practice, Eq. 8 is solved for d, and this through a smaller angle (a n a") than does the
equations are required. Footing depth d is fed back into Eq. 4 to adjust the allowable section as a whole (angle bfhr). The
must provide enough concrete in bearing pressure of the soil (see P — 23.56c/). compression concrete towards the outer

CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 21, NO. 2, DECEMBER 1979 113

 FOOTING BREADTH B (m) DEPTH d (m) AL (mm*) Ag (mm2)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 500 1000 0 5 000 10000
I I, I , I L 1,1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.5 1.0 15 2.0 25 0 05 1.0 15 0

FOOTING BREADTH B (ft) DEPTH d (ft) AL (in2) As (in2)
Figure 4. Design requirements of extended ring foundations for cast-in-place concrete tower silos. Numbers at top end of each curve are nominal silo
diameters, ft (m).

perimeter of the footing assumes a greater 9. Average Bearing Pressure Under sector corresponding to a unit of silo wall
share of the circumferential compression Footing and Floor circumference is therefore (D/2 + B
forces. The above analysis may or may not -0.3)2/Z). A calculation is required to find
Similarly the innermost turns of satisfy the fundamental requirement that the if
circumferential steel are displaced outwards total soil area under footing plus floor must
{D/2 +B - 0.3)2 *
> W+S
"" (10)
more than the outermost steel (A/>A<?) be sufficient to support the total weight of P-23.56d
and the inner turns of steel are therefore the silo, foundation and contents. With
under higher tensile strain and stress. On this weaker soils and taller silos this last If not, an iterative procedure is required
basis the additional steel area 04/,) required requirement tends to apply. Thus the to increase B and recalculate d in steps until
to resist lateral pressure L should be located important dimension is the outside footing Eq. 10 is just satisfied, then recalculate As
as shown in Fig. 2. radius (D/2 + 5 — 0.3), and the area under a and Al.

114 CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 21, NO. 2, DECEMBER 1979

 FOOTING BREADTH B (m) DEPTH d ( mm' ) A. ( mm ) Ac <mm )
OS 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0
100

SAFE SOIL
BEARING
PRESSURE
P=4000 lb/ft'
= 191 kPa

SAFE SOIL
BEARING
PRESSURE
P=3000 lb/ft2
=144 kPa

j^i x- :
SAFE SOIL
BEARING
PRESSURE
P=2000 lb/ft2
= 96 kPa

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0 10 15 20 30

FOOTING BREADTH B (ft) DEPTH d (ft) AL(in2) As(in2)

Figure 5. Design requirements of extended ring foundations for concrete stave tower silos. Numbers at top end of each curve are nominal silo diameters, ft
(m).

10. Shear Through Footing Depth rebars in place and centered 100 mm above Eq. 10 which relates the total base area
A shear check by the method required by the trench bottom. (footing plus floor) to the total silo load.
CSA Std. A23.3 (1970) shows that safe Note that this latter requirement controls for
concrete shear stresses are likely to be taller silos on weaker soils; the dots shift
DESIGN RESULTS
exceeded only with very tall silos on very upwards and vanish off the top of the curves
weak soils. This situation applies beyond the Figures 4 and 5 show curves derived from as soil bearing pressure P increases. In some
limits of Figs. 4 and 5. Since the equations computer calculations to give the cases (Fig. 5, 9.1-m diameter silos on P= 144
for checking shear are rather complicated in engineering requirements of extended ring kPa (3000 psf) soil, for example), the curves
this case, they were omitted for brevity. foundations; Fig. 4 is for cast-in-place break below the dot; the computer checked
To support the spiral steel As during concrete, and Fig. 5 is for concrete staves. at 1.5-m height intervals but there the
placing of the footing concrete, and to Three soil bearing strengths were assumed in extrapolated curves intersected about 1 m
ensure that the concrete develops the each case. below the checkpoint dot. Note that BonH
required shear resistance, radial rebars are Referring to the curves for footing is a curved function below the dots, but that
recommended. Rebars (Size 10M) spaced at breadth /?, the lower parts of each curve were B is a linear function of H above the dots
0.6 m can be supported on dowels or stakes derived from Eq. 4 based on wall loads and where total silo base area controls.
driven into the bottom of the footing trench. footing bear area. Footing widths plotted Footing breadth B was arbitrarily set at
This forms a platform for wiring the spiral above each dot in the curve were based on 0.76 m minimum for the cast-in-place

CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 21, NO. 2, DECEMBER 1979 115

concrete silos and 0.61 m for the expansion forces due to silage pressure on the silo floor, circumferential steel is placed
lighterweight silos made with concrete the floor (Code, requirement (3) above). near the bottom of the footing.
staves (see Figs. 4 and 5, respectively). These The reinforced extended ring foundation Curves of design parameters to satisfy a
dimensions were considered to be practical designs given here (Figs. 4 and 5) have been range of silo sizes and soil bearing strengths
minima for excavation with a small compared with earlier designs for are included with this paper. More complete
backhoe; they also prevent a negative value "balanced" ring foundations with radial and convenient tabular design parameters
for eccentricity dimension e (Fig. 2) and reinforcing published in the Agricultural based on this paper are published as Canada
corresponding negative steel requirement. Materials Handling Manual (National Plan Service leaflets 7411 Reinforced
Note that circumferential steel area 04/,) Committee on Agricultural Engineering Extended Ring Foundation for 6-inch Cast-
to resist lateral pressure is typically less than 1964). The two methods give very similar in-place Concrete Tower Silos, and 7412
5% of the steel area (As) to resist footing outside footing diameters. The extended Reinforced Extended Ring Foundation for
bending moments. ring design requires slightly more steel and 2'/$-inch Concrete Stave Tower Silos.
concrete than the "balanced" footing with
DISCUSSION radial reinforcing since circumferential
reinforcing is somewhat less efficient for REFERENCES
Builders of cast-in-place concrete silos
resisting tangential moments. BOZOZUK, M. 1974. Bearing capacity of clays
have concrete, reinforcing steel and a
This paper develops designs based on the for tower silos. Can. Agric. Eng. 16(1): 13-17.
steel-bender on site. For these builders, the
"working stress" method of reinforced JOINT CSA/NBC COMMITTEE ON
reinforced extended ring foundation
concrete design (CSA, A23.3, 1970). A REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN.
described here poses no particular problems. 1970. Code for the design of plain or
comparison with the newer "limit states"
Concrete stave silo builders, however, prefer reinforced concrete structures. CSA Standard
method (CSA, A23.3, 1973) showed that in
the usual plain concrete footing placed into a A23.3, Canadian Standards Association,
one example, spiral steel area As could be
circular trench in the ground. The trench is Rexdale, Ont.
reduced by 20%. This suggests that future
filled with concrete up to grade line where JOINT CSA/NBA COMMITTEE ON
preparation of the metric versions of plans
the first ring of wall staves begins. This REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN.
resulting from this work should be based on 1973. Code for the design of concrete
requires considerably more concrete, but
the more economical limit states method. structures for buildings. CSA Standard
allows simplicity and reduced labor. On
A23.3-1973, Canadian Standards
softer soils, the resulting plain footing is Association, Rexdale, Ont.
SUMMARY
seldom as wide and never reinforced as good NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON AGRICULT
engineering would require. A series of equations is developed for URAL ENGINEERING. 1964. Agricultural
Silo builders have asked for designs for design of a family of extended concrete ring materials handling manual. Section 6.2
plain footings balanced under the silo wall, foundations for cast-in-place and concrete types of storages. Queen's Printer, Ottawa,
in preference to the reinforced extended stave tower silos, based on a range of soil Ont. pp. 43—50.
ring. However, until more is known about bearing strengths from soft to firm. To NEGI, S.C., J.R. OGILVIE, and E.R. NORRIS.
the distribution of silo floor loads and soil minimize risks of silos overturning, a major 1977. Silage pressures in tower silos. Part 3.
Experimental model studies and comparison
reaction pressures, it is not possible to part of the required footing bearing area is
with some silo theories. Can. Agric. Eng.
proportion a plain footing so that no located outside the silo wall circumference.
19(2): 107-110.
rotational moments can develop. The plain To resist footing moments developed by STANDING COMMITTEE ON FARM
footing also lacks reinforcing to resist the eccentricity of the silo wall loads with BUILDING STANDARDS. 1977. Canadian
tangential bending moments due to the respect to the centroid of the soil reaction farm building code. NRCC No. 15564,
concentrated line load of the silo wall (Code, pressure, and to resist lateral expansion National Research Council of Canada,
requirement (2) above), and lateral soil pressures from the soil compressed under Ottawa, Ont. p. 6.

CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 21, NO. 2, DECEMBER 1979

116