millsite dam spillway rehabilitation structural …...millsite dam spillway rehabilitation design...

258
MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL DESIGN DRAFT DESIGN REPORT Prepared for Utah Division of Water Resources Prepared by November 2015

Upload: others

Post on 26-Mar-2020

32 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL DESIGN

DRAFT DESIGN REPORT

Prepared for

Utah Division of Water Resources

Prepared by

November 2015

Page 2: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Draft, Subject to Revision Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1

2 Existing Spillway ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Current Spillway Configuration ........................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Layout of Pipelines and Other Facilities .............................................................. 2-1 2.3 Golf Cart Bridge .................................................................................................. 2-1

3 Spillway Structural Design .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Labyrinth Weir ..................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Embankment Walls .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Floor ..................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 Flip Bucket ........................................................................................................... 3-3

4 Other Design Elements .................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Floor Drains ......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Concrete Cutoffs .................................................................................................. 4-2 4.3 Golf Cart Bridge .................................................................................................. 4-2

5 Conclusion and General Conditions ................................................................................ 5-1 Appendix:

Structural Design Calculations

i 11/05/2015

Page 3: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Draft, Subject to Revision Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report

1 Introduction

The existing Millsite Dam Spillway is not in compliance with current Utah Dam Safety standards for passage of the inflow design flood, a 24-hour USU Local Probable Maximum Flood. In order to increase the capacity of the spillway, the existing spillway structure will be demolished and a new labyrinth weir spillway will be constructed in its place. Franson Civil Engineers (FCE) is assisting the Utah Division of Water Resources with design work for the Millsite Dam Rehabilitation. This Design Report focuses on the structural elements of the spillway. The hydraulic analysis of the new spillway and determination of the design floods was done by the State of Utah (State) and was not part of the scope of work for FCE; therefore, it is not included in this report. FCE was tasked with taking the hydraulic design done by the State, which determined the overall shape of the spillway, and performing the structural and detail design to create the construction drawings. The proposed spillway will include the following design details:

a. Labyrinth Weir

b. Spillway Walls

c. Embankment and Floor Drains

d. Concrete Cutoff Walls

e. Anchor Dowels

f. Golf Cart Bridge

1-1 11/05/2015

Page 4: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Draft, Subject to Revision Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report

2 Existing Spillway

2.1 Current Spillway Configuration

Millsite Dam was originally built in 1971. The existing spillway was built as a concrete box weir. Water from the box weir flows in a 60-foot wide concrete channel for approximately 300 feet and then drops 68 feet vertically into a return channel. The spillway channel is sloped at about 9% and the end of the spillway has a flip bucket, or ramp, that launches the water into the air for energy dissipation. This feature, and the 68-foot drop, also creates a waterfall feature for the nearby golf course.

2.2 Layout of Pipelines and Other Facilities

The golf course surrounds the spillway and there are utilities in the area. A 4-inch PVC pipe crosses the spillway and is attached to the underside of the golf cart bridge. This pipeline provides irrigation water for the golf course and needs to be in service during the irrigation season. There are also some small wires that run the valves for the irrigation system that need to remain in service. The only other utility in the area is an abandoned high voltage power line that is also attached to the golf cart bridge. This power line can be removed during excavation.

2.3 Golf Cart Bridge

The Millsite Golf Course is an 18-hole golf course that sits adjacent to Millsite Dam. It provides recreation opportunities and an economic benefit to the surrounding community. The bridge over the spillway provides necessary and safe access for the golf course patrons and maintenance personnel. It also provides great views of the waterfall created by the spillway.

2-1 11/05/2015

Page 5: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Draft, Subject to Revision Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report

3 Spillway Structural Design

The new spillway was designed as a series of retaining walls using QuickRWall structural design software. The design of the wall footings was taken from the QuickRWall analysis of the walls as retaining structures. The loads considered for the floor design included the resulting loads from the wall design, the supporting bedrock under the structure, and dead and live loads according to building code requirements. The loads considered for the weir and wall design included the soil backfill, water pressure on the wall, seismic loading of the wall and backfill, and the supporting bedrock. The weight of the backfill material was assumed to be 125 pounds per cubic foot. The entire spillway structure will be supported by sandstone, and a bearing capacity of 40,000 pounds per square foot was assumed for this type of bedrock material. The seismic acceleration of 0.31 used for the design was provided by the Division of Water Resources and was taken from the NRCS report for the area. Several critical sections were considered for the flood and seismic design, and each were analyzed for maximum shear and moment. The results of the analysis of all the critical sections were compared, and the critical rebar section was determined. This rebar section was unique for each section of the retaining wall footing.

Table 3.1: Structural Design Software Software Version Publisher Building Codes QuickRWall 2.01.0007 Integrated Engineering Software, Inc. IBC 2006

3.1 Labyrinth Weir

The labyrinth weir height was determined by the State and the hydraulic model to be 19.5 feet tall. The hydraulic modeling of the labyrinth weir was performed by the Utah Water Research Laboratory at Utah State University. The labyrinth weir was structurally designed with two major loading scenarios. The first scenario was the loading for the USU Local Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). This scenario assumed that the water in the reservoir was flowing over the weir at a depth of 7.5 feet. The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient if there was no backfill on the upstream side of the weir, so no soil loading was used for either scenario. The second scenario was the loading for the maximum seismic event expected for the area. This scenario assumed the water height in the reservoir to be level with the top of the weir. For most of the design elements, this scenario was the controlling scenario. It was assumed the weir was all freestanding. The weir is designed in a zigzag alignment and will partially support itself. Any support the weir has from other sections of the weir will be an extra safety factor in the design. All structural design calculations are included in the appendix of this report. Under both scenarios, the base of the weir had to be thickened to support the shear forces applied to the weir. The width of the top of the weir was set by the hydraulic model at 15 inches with a rounded

3-1 11/05/2015

Page 6: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Draft, Subject to Revision Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report

top. The upstream face of the weir is therefore sloped at a 1:7.3 angle to allow for the extra width needed at the base.

3.2 Embankment Walls

The upstream embankment walls are attached to the downstream end of the weir and run through the dam embankment to the top of the dam. The PMF and seismic loading scenarios were considered for these upstream walls. In contrast to the weir, the embankment upstream walls do have soil backfill up to within a foot of the top of the wall. It was assumed that the water level in the soil behind these walls will be the same as the level in the reservoir. This is a conservative assumption since the phreatic surface will drop as it goes through the embankment due to the drain system. The height of these walls changes from one end to the other as the embankment height increases and the floor elevation decreases due to the 9% slope. The maximum cross section height was used to determine the geometry of the wall. Once this was determined, several intermediate cross sections were taken and analyzed to assure the cross section would work for the changing height requirements. Similar to the weir, the backside of these walls also had to be sloped at a 1:6.3 angle so the base of the wall could withstand the expected shear forces. Because the PMF would raise the water level in the reservoir to the top of the embankment, the upstream end of this wall will also be rounded at the top to allow more efficient flow over it. The downstream portion of the embankment walls differ in design mainly due to being located downstream of the chimney drain in the embankment. The drain will keep the dam embankment relatively dry. Because of this, the worst case loading scenario will be the seismic scenario, so the PMF scenario was not used to analyze these walls. Even without water in the backfill, the loading was heavy enough to require a thicker base to the wall. An angle of 1:9.8 was used on the backside of these walls. As with the upstream embankment walls, the maximum cross section height was used to determine the geometry of the walls and then cross sections were analyzed to assure the geometry would work for the changing height requirements. Once the downstream embankment walls reach the bottom of the embankment, the loading behind the walls is reduced enough to use a 15-inch thick wall without having to thicken the base. The spillway walls from the embankment to the end of the spillway are vertical on both sides. The wall height along this section continues to decrease from 17 feet to 12 feet. Because of the decrease in height, the rebar required at the end was much less than required at the start. Because of this, the length of the wall was split into two sections. The design of each section was governed by the maximum cross section of that section. The design of the wall footing also changes between the two spillway wall sections.

3-2 11/05/2015

Page 7: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Draft, Subject to Revision Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report

3.3 Floor

At the base of the embankment walls, the floor thickness will vary between 24 and 30 inches. This thick part of the floor inside of the walls will act as a structural support, or toe for the wall itself. Anywhere inside of the structural toe area, the floor only needs to be 12 inches thick. The floor inside this area also needs to have minimal rebar to prevent cracking, since the material under it will be solid sandstone with a bearing pressure of over 40,000 pounds per square foot. The entire floor of the structure will be anchored using rebar drilled and epoxied into the sandstone. These anchors will prevent damage to the structure due to uplift, if the spillway and embankment drains fail. The floor area was divided into three zones that will require three different anchor configurations. The first zone is the structural base and support for all of the spillway walls and weir. The rebar anchors in this area will be stronger and deeper than the others. The second zone is the center part of the lower spillway. These anchors are a medium strength rebar and will support the end of the spillway near the flip bucket and waterfall. The third zone is the majority of the center of the spillway and will only require minimal anchoring.

3.4 Flip Bucket

The new spillway will be designed with a flip bucket, or ramp, at the end of the spillway similar to the one on the existing spillway. This flip bucket will launch the water from the spillway into the air at a 45-degree angle to help dissipate the energy created by the steep slope of the spillway. This feature will also create a nice waterfall for the golf course. The existing flip bucket is hanging out over the edge of the 68-foot cliff by about 4 feet. It looks like the water from the spillway may have washed out a few inches of the rock under the spillway. From the rebar layout in the original design drawings, it is clear that it was designed to be able to hang out over the cliff. The new flip bucket and end of the spillway will be placed on the rock edge, instead of extending out over the edge, to help with constructability of the end of the spillway. The structure will be designed so the water can undercut the end of the spillway by up to four feet without affecting the structural integrity of the spillway. Because the end of the spillway will have a flip bucket, a drain will be cut into the flip bucket at the center of the spillway, similar to the existing flip bucket, so water does not pool in the spillway.

3-3 11/05/2015

Page 8: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Draft, Subject to Revision Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report

4 Other Design Elements

4.1 Floor Drains

The existing spillway sits on a sandstone material. Sitting directly under this layer of sandstone, is a fractured layer of stone which currently has a minor amount of seepage. This seepage has been observed and has never been noted to exceed 10 gpm. If this flow is not controlled, the fractured layer does pose possible problems for the proposed spillway. Freezing and thawing of entrapped water could cause movement of this layer, or the layer above it, or the end of the spillway near the drop-off. Intercepting this water will entail three different configurations. The first intercepting pipe and drain will be set on top of the concrete foundation of the concrete spillway chute. This drain will run along the outside of the base of weir, until it reaches the middle cutoff wall. At this point, the drain pipe will discharge through the wall, into the spillway. The pipe will be a 6-inch perforated, schedule 80 PVC pipe, surrounded by a gravel drain material, which is then encapsulated by a sand filter material. The second intercepting drain pipe will be placed starting at the downstream side of the middle cutoff wall. This drain pipe will be placed just below the bottom of the spillway chute foundation. Pipe size and type will be 6-inch perforated, schedule 80 PVC pipe. The depth of this pipe will collect and dispose of water in the fractured layer, preventing it from entering underneath the spillway. The slope of the new spillway, 9%, is adequate to convey the expected flow through the drain pipe. This pipe will discharge into the two manholes placed on the underdrain located near the spillway end. The third drain pipe will be placed at a distance of 35 feet from the end of the spillway, beginning at a distance of 30 feet to the outside of the foundation under the spillway to the same distance from the foundations outside on the other side. The depth of this pipe will be below the fractured layer and will intercept seepage water. The manholes on each side of the spillway will provide access for maintenance and televising of the line. An 8-inch solid wall discharge pipe will run from the manhole on the south side of the spillway to the outlet channel. Two concrete cutoff walls will be placed in the discharge pipe trench to help prevent seepage water from causing erosion along the newly placed pipe. Pipe sizes were determined by ease of cleaning and videoing rather than from flow calculations. The pipe capacity is more than adequate for expected flows.

4.2 Concrete Cutoffs

In order to prevent seepage from the reservoir along the interface between the concrete and the embankment materials, several methods were used. The slope on the outside face of the weir and the upstream embankment walls will allow the embankment materials to achieve the required compaction all the way to the concrete. The clay core of the embankment will compact tightly against the concrete and prevent water from following the concrete. On the downstream side of the embankment, a cutoff wall will extend out 10 feet perpendicular to the spillway wall. Another 10-foot cutoff wall will be placed near the end of the spillway. This wall will act as a water cutoff,

4-1 11/05/2015

Page 9: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Draft, Subject to Revision Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report

but will also act as a retaining wall for the soil materials that will tend to erode near the end of the spillway. To prevent seepage from the reservoir under the floor of the spillway structure, a 6-foot deep concrete cutoff wall will be embedded in the sandstone at the upstream edge of the structure. Another 6-foot deep concrete cutoff wall will be placed under the floor in line with the 10-foot cutoff walls at the toe of the downstream embankment.

4.3 Golf Cart Bridge

The existing golf cart bridge crossing is a beam bridge consisting of two wide flange steel (WF) beams with wood plank decking. The current span is 60 feet. There is a chain-link safety/security fence that runs along each side of the bridge. There is also a 4-inch PVC pipeline that runs along the outside of the north beam that conveys pressurized irrigation water for the golf course. This pipeline will need to be kept in service throughout construction and attached to the new spillway crossing. Coordination was made with the Golf Course Superintendent to determine the loading requirements based on the maintenance equipment. The heaviest piece of equipment was determined to be approximately 4,000 lbs. The width of the bridge was discussed, and based on the dimensions of the maintenance equipment, it was determined that a 10-foot wide bridge would be necessary. The new spillway configuration dictates a clear span of approximately 100 feet. There were two alternatives proposed:

1. Beam Bridge 2. Truss Bridge

Alternative 1 – Beam Bridge

This alternative would be similar to the current bridge configuration. It would consist of two WF beams with cross bracing, wood plank decking, and the chain-link fence. The main difference with the new bridge would be the size of the beam. Based on preliminary calculations, the beam would need to increase from the current size of approximately 18 inches, to approximately 36 inches, due to the increased span of the bridge. Because of the increased height required above the spillway, this alternative would require significant site improvements to attach the bridge into the abutments and transition to the existing golf cart path. The cost of this alternative was estimated to be $120,000.

4-2 11/05/2015

Page 10: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Draft, Subject to Revision Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report

Alternative 2 – Truss Bridge

This alternative consists of installing a prefabricated truss bridge. The bridge is designed by a bridge manufacturer specializing in this type of work, and will be delivered to the site in two sections. The bridge would consist of weathered steel railing for structural support and safety. The decking would consist of wood planks. This option would provide an aesthetically pleasing compliment to the spillway waterfall. This alternative requires minimal effort to attach the bridge to the abutments and transition to the existing golf cart path. It also requires less on-site construction time to install. The cost of this alternative was estimated to be $90,000.

Preferred Alternative

Alternative 2 – Truss Bridge was selected based on the following criteria:

1. Lower cost 2. Construction schedule 3. Construction effort 4. Aesthetics

The abutments for the bridge were designed using loads supplied by the manufacturer of the truss bridge. The connection between the bridge and the abutment had specific dimensions and geometry requirements provided by the manufacturer also. The concrete wall, footing, concrete, and rebar design were completed by FCE. It was decided to isolate the bridge and the bridge abutments from the spillway walls to avoid transferring the bridge load directly to the wall. There will still be some transfer of this load to the soil behind the spillway walls, but that load has been taken into account in the design of the spillway wall.

4-3 11/05/2015

Page 11: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Draft, Subject to Revision Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report

5 Conclusion and General Conditions

As mentioned previously, the reconstruction of the spillway is part of the proposed Millsite Dam Rehabilitation Project. The proposed spillway has been designed to comply with current Utah Dam Safety standards. This design will also bring the spillway up to current seismic standards. This improvement project will be beneficial for the stockholders, community, and surrounding area. The improvement of the spillway will ensure the dam will be able to maintain its purpose of delivering water stored in the reservoir for use by current and future users, even during and after large flooding and seismic events. Design recommendations are based on data available and collected as described in this report. Actual subsurface conditions may vary and could require small design changes. If conditions vary during construction, any significant changes or design issues will be presented to Dam Safety for review and approval.

5-1 11/05/2015

Page 12: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

APPENDIX

Structural Design Calculations

Page 13: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

Page 14: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

Concrete f'c = 5000 psiRebar Fy = 60000 psiUnit Weight = 150 lb/ft³

15 in

43.92 ft

30 ft 10 ft

30 in

22 ft

19.5

ft

41.92 ft24 in 6 ft

70 in

2 ft

16.5

ft

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#8 @ 6 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 18 in#10 @ 6 in (lapped dowels)

Heel Bars: #7 @ 6 inToe Bars: #14 @ 6 inFooting S/T Bars: #6 @ 12 in

70 in

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#8 @ 6 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 18 in

Design Detail

Check SummaryRatio Check Provided Required Combination

----- Stability Checks -----0.714 Overturning 2.10 1.50 0.6D + 0.6F + 1.0H0.028 Bearing Pressure 40000 psf 1121 psf 1.0D + 1.0F + 1.0H0.661 Bearing Eccentricity 58.03 in 87.83 in 1.0D + 1.0F + 1.0H

----- Toe Checks -----0.543 Shear 33.29 k/ft 18.07 k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.719 Moment 476 ft·k/ft 342.2 ft·k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.452 Min Strain 0.0089 0.0040 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0.38 in² 0 in² 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.266 Development 164 in 43.71 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.736 S&T Min Rho 0.0024 0.0018 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

----- Heel Checks -----0.167 Shear 35.08 k/ft 5.87 k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6HInfinity Moment 145 ft·k/ft Infinite 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.091 Min Strain 0.0439 0.0040 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.974 Min Steel 0.1 in² 0.1 in² 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.071 Development 405 in 28.96 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.736 S&T Min Rho 0.0024 0.0018 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

----- Stem Checks -----0.996 Moment 490 ft·k/ft 488.2 ft·k/ft Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.961 Shear 56.47 k/ft 54.24 k/ft Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.095 Max Steel 0.0421 0.0040 Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.938 Min Steel 0.13 in²/in 0.12 in²/in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.557 Base Development 27 in 15.03 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.723 Lap Splice Length 70 in 50.64 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.000 Lap Splice Spacing 0 in 6 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.581 Horz Bar Rho 0.0034 0.0020 Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.667 Horz Bar Spacing 12 in 18 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

Criteria

Building Code IBC 2012Concrete Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (Strength)Masonry Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Stability Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Restrained Against Sliding YesNeglect Bearing At Heel NoUse Vert. Comp. for OT YesUse Vert. Comp. for Sliding YesUse Vert. Comp. for Bearing YesUse Surcharge for Sliding & OT YesUse Surcharge for Bearing YesNeglect Soil Over Toe NoNeglect Backfill Wt. for Coulomb NoFactor Soil Weight As Dead YesUse Passive Force for OT YesAssume Pressure To Top YesExtend Backfill Pressure To Key Bottom YesUse Toe Passive Pressure for Bearing NoRequired F.S. for OT 1.50Required F.S. for Sliding 1.50Has Different Safety Factors for Seismic YesSeismic F.S. for OT 1.20Seismic F.S. for Sliding 1.20Allowable Bearing Pressure 40000 psfReq'd Bearing Location Middle thirdWall Friction Angle 25°Friction Coefficent 0.65Soil Reaction Modulus 288000 lb/ft³

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 1 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 15: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

Loads

-0.5 ft2 ft

2 ft

20 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

2 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

20 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psfKh = 0.10Kv = 0.05

Loading Options/AssumptionsPassive pressure neglects top 0 ft of soil.

Load Combinations

ASCE 7-10 (Strength) 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H 1.4D + 1.4F + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.2F + 1.6H 1.2D + 1.2F + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H 0.9D + 0.9F + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9F + 0.9H 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H 1.4D + 1.4F + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.2F + 1.6H + 1.0E 1.2D + 1.2F + 1.6H 1.2D + 1.2F + 0.9H + 1.0E 1.2D + 1.2F + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H 0.9D + 0.9F + 1.6H + 1.0E 0.9D + 0.9F + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9F + 0.9H + 1.0E 0.9D + 0.9F + 0.9H

Backfill Pressure

-0.5 ft2 ft

2 ft

20 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

-679.53 psf

2 ft 806.9 lb/in

2 ft

3.5

ft

-768.15 psf646.1 lb/in640.1 lb/in

87.54 lb/in

6.67

ft

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 2 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 16: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

Backfill Pressure (Water Layer)

γeff γsat γw - 140 lb ft³ / 62.4 lb ft³ / - 77.6 lb ft³ / = = = φ 32° φsat = γ 77.6 lb ft³ γeff / = φ φsat = γ γeff = Rankine Active Earth Pressure Theory

Ka tan² 45° φ2 - tan ² 45° 32°

2 - 0.3073 = = =

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 77.6 lb ft³ / 28.5 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 679.5 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure (water layer)

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 20 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 768.1 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure (water layer, stem only)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 3 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 17: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

Passive Pressure

2 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

3255 psf 8 ft

1085 lb/in 3.33

ft

Rankine Passive Earth Pressure Theory

Kp tan² 45° φ2 + tan ² 45° 32°

2 + 3.2546 = = =

σp γ H Kp 2 c Kp + 125 lb ft³ / 8 ft 3.2546 2 0 psf 3.2546 + 3255 psf = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

Water Pressure

20 ft

-1778.4 psf2 ft 2112 lb/in

2 ft

-1248 psf 1050 lb/in

σw γw Hw 62.4 lb ft³ / 28.5 ft 1778 psf = = = Lateral Water Pressure

σw γw Hw 62.4 lb ft³ / 20 ft 1248 psf = = = Lateral Water Pressure (stem only)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 4 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 18: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

Wall/Soil Weights

1372 lb/in

304.7 lb/in325 lb/in

150 lb/in0.18 lb/in

Bearing Pressure

628.2 psf549.4 psf2155 lb/in

21.47 ft

e = 5.88 in

1401 lb/in

F μ R 0.650 2155 lb in / 1401 lb in / = = = Friction

Bearing Pressure CalculationContributing Forces

Vert Force ...offset Horz Force ...offset OT MomentBackfill Pressure -0 lb/in - -806.95 lb/in 3.5 ft 406700 in·lb/ftWater Pressure -0 lb/in - -2111.85 lb/in 3.5 ft 1064372 in·lb/ftSeismic Force -2.74 lb/in 43.92 ft -4.25 lb/in -1.2 ft -18032.67 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -1372.4 lb/in 21.96 ft 0 lb/in - -4339515.63 in·lb/ftStem Weight -304.69 lb/in 30.63 ft 0 lb/in - -1343671.88 in·lb/ftStem Weight -325 lb/in 32.14 ft 0 lb/in - -1504100 in·lb/ftKey Weight -150 lb/in 42.92 ft 0 lb/in - -927000 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -0.18 lb/in 33.94 ft 0 lb/in - -870.24 in·lb/ft

-2155 lb/in -6662117.54 in·lb/ft6662117.54 in·lb ft / -

2155 lb in / - 21.47 ft =

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 5 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 19: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 1252 lb/in 5.83 ft 1051696 in·lb/ftWater pressure 3277 lb/in 5.83 ft 2752386 in·lb/ft

Total: 3804082 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (vert) 0 lb/in 43.92 ft 0 in·lb/ftPassive pressure @ toe 541.6 lb/in -3.33 ft -259950.48 in·l...Footing Weight -1372.4 lb/in 21.96 ft 4339516 in·lb/ftStem Weight -304.69 lb/in 30.63 ft 1343672 in·lb/ftStem Weight -325 lb/in 32.14 ft 1504100 in·lb/ftKey Weight -150 lb/in 42.92 ft 927000 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -312.5 lb/in 38.92 ft 1751250 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -6.41 lb/in 33.78 ft 31181 in·lb/ft

Total: 9636768 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 9636768 in·lb ft /

3804082 in·lb ft / 2.533 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckCheck not performed; restrained against sliding.

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure < allowable (1121 psf < 40000 psf) - OKBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (58.03 in < 87.83 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.243 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement 0.017 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.26 in

Stability Checks [Max Flood: 1.0D + 1.0F + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 6 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 20: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 1252 lb/in 5.83 ft 1051696 in·lb/ftWater pressure 1966 lb/in 5.83 ft 1651432 in·lb/ft

Total: 2703128 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (vert) 0 lb/in 43.92 ft 0 in·lb/ftPassive pressure @ toe 541.6 lb/in -3.33 ft -259950.48 in·l...Footing Weight -823.44 lb/in 21.96 ft 2603709 in·lb/ftStem Weight -182.81 lb/in 30.63 ft 806203 in·lb/ftStem Weight -195 lb/in 32.14 ft 902460 in·lb/ftKey Weight -90 lb/in 42.92 ft 556200 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -187.5 lb/in 38.92 ft 1050750 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -3.85 lb/in 33.78 ft 18709 in·lb/ft

Total: 5678081 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 5678081 in·lb ft /

2703128 in·lb ft / 2.101 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckCheck not performed; restrained against sliding.

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure < allowable (672.8 psf < 40000 psf) - OKBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (58.03 in < 87.83 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.243 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement 0.017 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.26 in

Stability Checks [Max Flood: 0.6D + 0.6F + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 7 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 21: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

19.5

17.55

15.6

13.65

11.7

9.75

7.8

5.85

3.9

1.95

0-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.21 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.99 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.21 in² in / 60000 psi 44.37 in 2.99 in 2 / - 490 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.24 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi 44.69 in 0.24 in 2 / - 41.45 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.13 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.86 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.13 in² in / 60000 psi 34.93 in 1.86 in 2 / - 241.7 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 5.83 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.13 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.86 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.13 in² in / 60000 psi 15.98 in 1.86 in 2 / - 107 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 17.38 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.24 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi 14.43 in 0.24 in 2 / - 13.31 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 18.44 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 12.5 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 19.5 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 12.69 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 19.5 ft from base [Positive bending]

Stem Flexural Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 8 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 22: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

19.5

17.55

15.6

13.65

11.7

9.75

7.8

5.85

3.9

1.95

0-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 44.37 in 75.29 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 75.29 k ft / 56.47 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 44.37 in 75.29 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 75.29 k ft / 56.47 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Negative shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.5 in 21.21 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 21.21 k ft / 15.91 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 19.5 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.5 in 21.21 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 21.21 k ft / 15.91 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 19.5 ft from base [Negative shear]

Stem Shear Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 9 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 23: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1 in 16.97 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 11.88 in = 8 db 8 1 in 8.0 minimum limit, does not control = =

Main vertical stem bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1 in 2 / + 2.5 in = = cb 2.5 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.5 in 0.0 +

1 in 2.50 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 1.0

2.5 1 in 25.46 in = = =

Main vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.27 in 2 / + 2.63 in = = cb 2.63 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 2.63 in 0.0 +

1.27 in

1.27 in 38.95 in = = =

Dowels for vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.63 in 10.61 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 7.42 in = 8 db 8 0.63 in 5.0 minimum limit, does not control = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 10 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 24: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 18 in 2 / 9 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.63 in 2 / + 2.31 in = = cb 2.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 3.70 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 11 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 25: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 342.2 ft·k ft < Mstem / 488.2 ft·k ft / = = Mu 342.2 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.38 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 5.29 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.38 in² in / 60000 psi 26.15 in 5.29 in 2 / - 476 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 476 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 342.2 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 26.15 in 44.38 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 44.38 k ft / 33.29 k ft / = = = φVn 33.29 k ft ≥ Vu / 18.07 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.38 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 5.29 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 26.15 in

5.29 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0089 = = =

εt 0.0089 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 476 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 342.2 ft·k ft / 456.2 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.88 in² in /

30 in 12 in 0.0024 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0024 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

342.2 ft·k ft / 476 ft·k ft / 0.7188 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 1.69 in 2 / + 3.85 in = = cb 3 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 3 in 0.0 +

1.69 in

1.69 in 60.8 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.7188 per 12.2.5: ld 43.71 in = ld_prov 164 in ≥ ld 43.71 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

30 in #14 @ 6 in

Unfactored Loads

375 psf

1121 psf511.8 psf

Toe Factored Loads

30 in #14 @ 6 in

Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

525 psf (Self-wt)

1570 psf716.6 psf

1570 psf716.6 psf

18.54 k/ft

Toe Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 12 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 26: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 31.72 ft·k ft < Mstem / 488.2 ft·k ft / = = Mu 31.72 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.1 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.41 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.1 in² in / 60000 psi 27.56 in 1.41 in 2 / - 145 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 145 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 31.72 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 27.56 in 46.78 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 46.78 k ft / 35.08 k ft / = = = φVn 35.08 k ft ≥ Vu / 5.87 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.1 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.41 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 27.56 in

1.41 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0439 = = =

εt 0.0439 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 145 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 31.72 ft·k ft / 42.3 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.88 in² in /

30 in 12 in 0.0024 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0024 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

31.72 ft·k ft / 145 ft·k ft / 0.2187 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.30 more than 12 inches cast below 27.13 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.88 in 2 / + 2.44 in = = cb 2.44 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.44 in 0.0 +

0.88 in 2.7857 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.30 1.0 1.0

2.5 0.88 in 28.96 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.2187 per 12.2.5: ld 6.33 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 405 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads

30 in

#7 @ 6 in

Unfactored Loads

375 psf (Concrete self-wt)375 psf (Soil weight)

432.3 psf229.1 psf

Heel Factored Loads

30 in

#7 @ 6 in

Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

525 psf (Concrete self-wt)525 psf (Soil weight)

320.8-605.2 psf (Bearing pressu

605.2 psf320.8 psf5.87 k/ft

Heel Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 13 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 27: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

Stem Internal Forces

-1643.9 psf-2336.97 psf54.24 k/ft

-488.18 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

19.5

17.06

14.63

12.19

9.75

7.31

4.88

2.44

0-500 -375 -250 -125 0Moment (ft·k/ft)

Moment

Stem Internal Forces

19.5

17.06

14.63

12.19

9.75

7.31

4.88

2.44

00 15 30 45 60Shear (k/ft)

Shear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 54.24 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

-1643.9 psf -2336.97 psf

Stem Forces [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 14 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 28: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

19.5

17.55

15.6

13.65

11.7

9.75

7.8

5.85

3.9

1.95

0-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

φMn 490 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 488.2 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 0 ft from base

φMn 241.7 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 232.7 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 5.83 ft from base

φMn 240.8 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 232.7 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 5.91 ft from base

φMn 107 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 22.4 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 17.38 ft from base

φMn 99.37 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 21.06 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 17.53 ft from base

φMn 0 ft·k ft < Mu / 10.46 ft·k ft / = =

Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 19.5 ft from base

Stem Moment Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 15 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 29: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

19.5

17.55

15.6

13.65

11.7

9.75

7.8

5.85

3.9

1.95

0-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

φVn 56.47 k ft ≥ Vu / 54.24 k ft / = = Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 0 ft from base

φVn 15.91 k ft ≥ Vu / 4.19 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 19.5 ft from base

Stem Shear Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 16 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 30: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

φMn 490 ft·k ft < 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 488.2 ft·k ft / 650.9 ft·k ft / = = =

As_min3 F'c

fyd 3 5000 psi

60000 psi 44.37 in 0.16 in² in / = = =

200 d fy / 200 44.37 in 60000 psi / 0.15 in² in / = = As 0.21 in² in ≥ As_min / 0.16 in² in / = =

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 241.7 ft·k ft < 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 232.7 ft·k ft / 310.2 ft·k ft / = = =

As_min3 F'c

fyd 3 5000 psi

60000 psi 34.93 in 0.12 in² in / = = =

200 d fy / 200 34.93 in 60000 psi / 0.12 in² in / = = As 0.13 in² in ≥ As_min / 0.12 in² in / = =

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 5.83 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft < 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 10.46 ft·k ft / 13.95 ft·k ft / = = =

As_min3 F'c

fyd 3 5000 psi

60000 psi 12.5 in 0.04 in² in / = = =

200 d fy / 200 12.5 in 60000 psi / 0.04 in² in / = = As 0.13 in² in ≥ As_min / 0.04 in² in / = =

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 19.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.21 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.99 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 44.37 in

2.99 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0326 = = =

εt 0.0326 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.13 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.86 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 34.93 in

1.86 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0421 = = =

εt 0.0421 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 5.83 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.13 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.86 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.5 in

1.86 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0131 = = =

εt 0.0131 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 19.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 17 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 31: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 15 in 0.0034 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0034 ≥ ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 15 in 45 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

MuφMn

488.2 ft·k ft / 490 ft·k ft / 0.9963 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.27 in 21.55 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 15.09 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.9963 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 15.03 in = 8 db 8 1.27 in 10.160 minimum limit, does not control = = ldh_prov 27 in ≥ ldh 15.03 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.27 in 2 / + 2.63 in = = cb 2.63 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyF'c

ψt ψe ψs λ cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.63 in 0.0 +

1.27 in

1.27 in 38.95 in = = =

llap 1.3 ld 1.3 38.95 in 50.64 in = = = llap_prov 70 in ≥ llap 50.64 in = = 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 50.64 in 10.1281 > 6.0 = = strans 0 in ≤ 6.0 =

Lap Splice Checks (ACI 318-05 12.14.2.3, 12.15.1, 12.15.2) - #8 lap with #10, from 0 ft to 5.83 ft (from stem base)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H] (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 18 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 32: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 147.8 ft·k ft < Mstem / 198.4 ft·k ft / = = Mu 147.8 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.38 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 5.29 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.38 in² in / 60000 psi 26.15 in 5.29 in 2 / - 476 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 476 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 147.8 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 26.15 in 44.38 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 44.38 k ft / 33.29 k ft / = = = φVn 33.29 k ft ≥ Vu / 8.88 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.38 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 5.29 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 26.15 in

5.29 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0089 = = =

εt 0.0089 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 476 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 147.8 ft·k ft / 197 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.88 in² in /

30 in 12 in 0.0024 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0024 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

147.8 ft·k ft / 476 ft·k ft / 0.3104 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 1.69 in 2 / + 3.85 in = = cb 3 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 3 in 0.0 +

1.69 in

1.69 in 60.8 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.3104 per 12.2.5: ld 18.87 in = ld_prov 164 in ≥ ld 18.87 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

30 in #14 @ 6 in

Unfactored Loads

375 psf

628.2 psf 574.4 psf

Toe Factored Loads

30 in #14 @ 6 in

Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

525 psf (Self-wt)

878.4 psf 803.2 psf878.4 psf 803.2 psf

9.47 k/ft

Toe Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 19 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 33: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

Mhgov INF = ♦♦♦ Heel is bent 'upwards' QuickRWall does not handle this configuration. Check heel manually.

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.1 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.41 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.1 in² in / 60000 psi 27.56 in 1.41 in 2 / - 145 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 145 ft·k ft < Mu / INF = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 27.56 in 46.78 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 46.78 k ft / 35.08 k ft / = = = φVn 35.08 k ft ≥ Vu / 2.55 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.1 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.41 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 27.56 in

1.41 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0439 = = =

εt 0.0439 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 145 ft·k ft < 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / INF INF = = =

As_min3 F'c

fyd 3 5000 psi

60000 psi 27.56 in 0.1 in² in / = = =

200 d fy / 200 27.56 in 60000 psi / 0.09 in² in / = = As 0.1 in² in ≥ As_min / 0.1 in² in / = =

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.88 in² in /

30 in 12 in 0.0024 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0024 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

INF145 ft·k ft / INF ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.30 more than 12 inches cast below 27.13 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.88 in 2 / + 2.44 in = = cb 2.44 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.44 in 0.0 +

0.88 in 2.7857 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.30 1.0 1.0

2.5 0.88 in 28.96 in = = =

ld_prov 405 in ≥ ld 28.96 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads

30 in

#7 @ 6 in

Unfactored Loads

375 psf (Concrete self-wt)62.5-0 psf (Soil weight)

567.4 psf 549.4 psf

Heel Factored Loads

30 in

#7 @ 6 in

Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

525 psf (Concrete self-wt)87.5-0 psf (Soil weight)

793.3 psf 768.2 psf793.3 psf 768.2 psf

2.55 k/ft

Heel Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 20 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 34: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

Stem Internal Forces

-1217.7 psf-1731.09 psf29.76 k/ft

-198.42 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

19.5

17.06

14.63

12.19

9.75

7.31

4.88

2.44

0-200 -150 -100 -50 0Moment (ft·k/ft)

Moment

Stem Internal Forces

19.5

17.06

14.63

12.19

9.75

7.31

4.88

2.44

00 7.5 15 22.5 30Shear (k/ft)

Shear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 29.76 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

-1217.7 psf -1731.09 psf

Stem Forces [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 21 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 35: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

19.5

17.55

15.6

13.65

11.7

9.75

7.8

5.85

3.9

1.95

0-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

φMn 490 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 198.4 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 0 ft from base

φMn 241.7 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 69.39 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 5.83 ft from base

φMn 240.8 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 69.39 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 5.91 ft from base

φMn 107 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.47 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 17.38 ft from base

φMn 99.37 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.37 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 17.53 ft from base

φMn 0 ft·k ft < Mu / 0 ft·k ft / = =

Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 19.5 ft from base

Stem Moment Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 22 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 36: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

19.5

17.55

15.6

13.65

11.7

9.75

7.8

5.85

3.9

1.95

0-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

φVn 56.47 k ft ≥ Vu / 29.76 k ft / = = Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 0 ft from base

φVn 15.91 k ft ≥ Vu / 0.02 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 19.5 ft from base

Stem Shear Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 23 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 37: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

φMn 490 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 198.4 ft·k ft / 264.6 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 241.7 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 69.39 ft·k ft / 92.52 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 5.83 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft < 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = =

As_min3 F'c

fyd 3 5000 psi

60000 psi 12.5 in 0.04 in² in / = = =

200 d fy / 200 12.5 in 60000 psi / 0.04 in² in / = = As 0.13 in² in ≥ As_min / 0.04 in² in / = =

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 19.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.21 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.99 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 44.37 in

2.99 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0326 = = =

εt 0.0326 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.13 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.86 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 34.93 in

1.86 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0421 = = =

εt 0.0421 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 5.83 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.13 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.86 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.5 in

1.86 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0131 = = =

εt 0.0131 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 19.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 15 in 0.0034 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0034 ≥ ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 15 in 45 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 24 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 38: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Labyrinth Weir Wall Section

MuφMn

198.4 ft·k ft / 490 ft·k ft / 0.4049 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.27 in 21.55 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 15.09 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.4049 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 6.11 in = 8 db 8 1.27 in 10.160 = = 8db minimum controlsldh_prov 27 in ≥ ldh 10.16 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.27 in 2 / + 2.63 in = = cb 2.63 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyF'c

ψt ψe ψs λ cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.63 in 0.0 +

1.27 in

1.27 in 38.95 in = = =

llap 1.3 ld 1.3 38.95 in 50.64 in = = = llap_prov 70 in ≥ llap 50.64 in = = 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 50.64 in 10.1281 > 6.0 = = strans 0 in ≤ 6.0 =

Lap Splice Checks (ACI 318-05 12.14.2.3, 12.15.1, 12.15.2) - #8 lap with #10, from 0 ft to 5.83 ft (from stem base)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H] (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 25 of 25 Thursday 11/05/15 2:00 PM

Page 39: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

US Embankment Wall Section

Page 40: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

Concrete f'c = 5000 psiRebar Fy = 60000 psiUnit Weight = 150 lb/ft³15 in

35.17 ft

25 ft4 ft

30 in

33.5

ft

31 ft

70 in

2.5

ft

1 ft

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#8 @ 6 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 18 in#10 @ 6 in (lapped dowels)

Heel Bars: #7 @ 6 inToe Bars: #14 @ 6 inFooting S/T Bars: #6 @ 12 in

70 in

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#8 @ 6 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 18 in

Design Detail

Check SummaryRatio Check Provided Required Combination

----- Stability Checks -----0.543 Overturning 2.76 1.50 0.6D + 0.6F + 1.0H0.060 Bearing Pressure 40000 psf 2401 psf 1.0D + 1.0F + 1.0H + 0.7E0.510 Bearing Eccentricity 35.85 in 70.33 in 1.0D + 1.0F + 1.0H + 0.7E

----- Toe Checks -----0.986 Shear 33.29 k/ft 32.83 k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.886 Moment 476 ft·k/ft 421.8 ft·k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.452 Min Strain 0.0089 0.0040 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.247 Min Steel 0.38 in² 0.09 in² 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.453 Development 119 in 53.88 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.736 S&T Min Rho 0.0024 0.0018 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

----- Heel Checks -----0.356 Shear 35.08 k/ft 12.5 k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.171 Moment 145 ft·k/ft 24.83 ft·k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.091 Min Strain 0.0439 0.0040 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0.1 in² 0 in² 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.032 Development 372 in 12 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.736 S&T Min Rho 0.0024 0.0018 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

----- Stem Checks -----0.705 Moment 798.6 ft·k/ft 563.1 ft·k/ft Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.655 Shear 90.83 k/ft 59.5 k/ft Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.053 Max Steel 0.0750 0.0040 Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0 in²/in 0 in²/in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.394 Base Development 27 in 10.64 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.723 Lap Splice Length 70 in 50.64 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.000 Lap Splice Spacing 0 in 6 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.581 Horz Bar Rho 0.0034 0.0020 Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.667 Horz Bar Spacing 12 in 18 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

Criteria

Building Code IBC 2012Concrete Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (Strength)Masonry Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Stability Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Restrained Against Sliding YesNeglect Bearing At Heel NoUse Vert. Comp. for OT YesUse Vert. Comp. for Sliding YesUse Vert. Comp. for Bearing YesUse Surcharge for Sliding & OT YesUse Surcharge for Bearing YesNeglect Soil Over Toe NoNeglect Backfill Wt. for Coulomb NoFactor Soil Weight As Dead YesUse Passive Force for OT YesAssume Pressure To Top YesExtend Backfill Pressure To Key Bottom YesUse Toe Passive Pressure for Bearing NoRequired F.S. for OT 1.50Required F.S. for Sliding 1.50Has Different Safety Factors for Seismic YesSeismic F.S. for OT 1.20Seismic F.S. for Sliding 1.20Allowable Bearing Pressure 40000 psfReq'd Bearing Location Middle thirdWall Friction Angle 25°Friction Coefficent 0.65Soil Reaction Modulus 288000 lb/ft³

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 1 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 41: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

Loads

30 ft

2.5

ft

32.5

ft

30 ft

1 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

2.5

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

20 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psfKh = 0.10Kv = 0.05

Loading Options/AssumptionsPassive pressure neglects top 0 ft of soil.

Load Combinations

ASCE 7-10 (Strength) 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H 1.4D + 1.4F + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.2F + 1.6H 1.2D + 1.2F + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H 0.9D + 0.9F + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9F + 0.9H 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H 1.4D + 1.4F + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.2F + 1.6H + 1.0E 1.2D + 1.2F + 1.6H 1.2D + 1.2F + 0.9H + 1.0E 1.2D + 1.2F + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H 0.9D + 0.9F + 1.6H + 1.0E 0.9D + 0.9F + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9F + 0.9H + 1.0E 0.9D + 0.9F + 0.9H

Backfill Pressure

30 ft

2.5

ft

32.5

ft

30 ft

1 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

-384.07 psf

-920.55 psf

-384.07 psf

32.5

ft

1383 lb/in32.5

ft

11.5

7 ft

-384.07 psf

-1152.22 psf

-384.07 psf1458 lb/in1440 lb/in

228.4 lb/in

10 ft

Rankine Active Earth Pressure Theory

Ka tan² 45° φ2 - tan ² 45° 32°

2 - 0.3073 = = =

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 10 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 384.1 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 10 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 384.1 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure (stem only)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 2 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 42: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

Backfill Pressure (Water Layer)

γeff γsat γw - 140 lb ft³ / 62.4 lb ft³ / - 77.6 lb ft³ / = = = φ 32° φsat = γ 77.6 lb ft³ γeff / = φ φsat = γ γeff = Rankine Active Earth Pressure Theory

Ka tan² 45° φ2 - tan ² 45° 32°

2 - 0.3073 = = =

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 77.6 lb ft³ / 22.5 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 536.5 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = = qob Habove γabove 10 ft 125 lb ft³ / 1250 psf overburden pressure from layer above = = = K qob 0.3073 1250 psf 384.1 psf = = σtop 384.1 psf = σbottom 920.5 psf =

Lateral Earth Pressure (water layer)

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 20 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 768.1 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = = qob Habove γabove 10 ft 125 lb ft³ / 1250 psf overburden pressure from layer above = = = K qob 0.3073 1250 psf 384.1 psf = = σtop 384.1 psf = σbottom 1152 psf =

Lateral Earth Pressure (water layer, stem only)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 3 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 43: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

Passive Pressure

2.5

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

1017 psf

2.5

ft

105.9 lb/in

0.83 ft

Rankine Passive Earth Pressure Theory

Kp tan² 45° φ2 + tan ² 45° 32°

2 + 3.2546 = = =

σp γ H Kp 2 c Kp + 125 lb ft³ / 2.5 ft 3.2546 2 0 psf 3.2546 + 1017 psf = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

Water Pressure

20 ft

-1404 psf32.5

ft

1316 lb/in32.5

ft

-1248 psf 1053 lb/in

σw γw Hw 62.4 lb ft³ / 22.5 ft 1404 psf = = = Lateral Water Pressure

σw γw Hw 62.4 lb ft³ / 20 ft 1248 psf = = = Lateral Water Pressure (stem only)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 4 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 44: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

Wall/Soil Weights

1099 lb/in

484.4 lb/in

952.6 lb/in

1250 lb/in743.4 lb/in

0 lb/in

Bearing Pressure

789.3 psf2431 psf

4718 lb/in

20.57 ft

e = 35.85 in

3067 lb/in

F μ R 0.650 4718 lb in / 3067 lb in / = = = Friction

Bearing Pressure CalculationContributing Forces

Vert Force ...offset Horz Force ...offset OT MomentBackfill Pressure -0 lb/in - -1383.11 lb/in 11.57 ft 2305115 in·lb/ftWater Pressure -0 lb/in - -1316.25 lb/in 7.5 ft 1421550 in·lb/ftSeismic Force -188.75 lb/in 35.17 ft -279.7 lb/in 19.5 ft -170416.92 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -1098.96 lb/in 17.58 ft 0 lb/in - -2782562.5 in·lb/ftStem Weight -484.38 lb/in 25.63 ft 0 lb/in - -1787343.75 in·lb/ftStem Weight -952.6 lb/in 27.89 ft 0 lb/in - -3825658.33 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -1250 lb/in 33.17 ft 0 lb/in - -5970000 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -743.45 lb/in 29.58 ft 0 lb/in - -3166798.91 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in - 0 lb/in - -0 in·lb/ft

-4718.13 lb/in -13976115.5 in·lb/ft13976115.5 in·lb ft / -

4718.13 lb in / - 20.57 ft =

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 5 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 45: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 1162 lb/in 11.29 ft 1889115 in·lb/ftWater pressure 2263 lb/in 9.83 ft 3203912 in·lb/ft

Total: 5093027 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (vert) 0 lb/in 35.17 ft 0 in·lb/ftPassive pressure @ toe 52.89 lb/in 0.83 ft 6346 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -1098.96 lb/in 17.58 ft 2782562 in·lb/ftStem Weight -484.38 lb/in 25.63 ft 1787344 in·lb/ftStem Weight -952.6 lb/in 27.89 ft 3825658 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -1250 lb/in 33.17 ft 5970000 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -743.45 lb/in 29.58 ft 3166799 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in 12.5 ft 0 in·lb/ft

Total: 17538710 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 17538710 in·lb ft /

5093027 in·lb ft / 3.444 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckCheck not performed; restrained against sliding.

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure < allowable (1938 psf < 40000 psf) - OKBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (17.86 in < 70.33 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.121 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement -0.029 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.092 in

Stability Checks [Max Flood: 1.0D + 1.0F + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 6 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 46: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 1162 lb/in 11.29 ft 1889115 in·lb/ftWater pressure 1358 lb/in 9.83 ft 1922347 in·lb/ft

Total: 3811462 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (vert) 0 lb/in 35.17 ft 0 in·lb/ftPassive pressure @ toe 52.89 lb/in 0.83 ft 6346 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -659.37 lb/in 17.58 ft 1669537 in·lb/ftStem Weight -290.63 lb/in 25.63 ft 1072406 in·lb/ftStem Weight -571.56 lb/in 27.89 ft 2295395 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -750 lb/in 33.17 ft 3582000 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -446.07 lb/in 29.58 ft 1900079 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in 12.5 ft 0 in·lb/ft

Total: 10525765 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 10525765 in·lb ft /

3811462 in·lb ft / 2.762 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckCheck not performed; restrained against sliding.

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure < allowable (1163 psf < 40000 psf) - OKBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (17.86 in < 70.33 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.121 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement -0.029 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.092 in

Stability Checks [Max Flood: 0.6D + 0.6F + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 7 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 47: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

31

27.9

24.8

21.7

18.6

15.5

12.4

9.3

6.2

3.1

0-800 -650 -500 -350 -200 -50 100Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.21 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.99 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.21 in² in / 60000 psi 71.36 in 2.99 in 2 / - 798.6 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.24 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi 71.69 in 0.24 in 2 / - 66.56 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.13 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.86 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.13 in² in / 60000 psi 60.4 in 1.86 in 2 / - 422.8 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 5.83 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.13 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.86 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.13 in² in / 60000 psi 16.54 in 1.86 in 2 / - 111 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 28.88 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.24 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi 14.71 in 0.24 in 2 / - 13.56 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 29.94 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 12.5 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 31 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 12.69 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 31 ft from base [Positive bending]

Stem Flexural Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 8 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 48: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

31

27.9

24.8

21.7

18.6

15.5

12.4

9.3

6.2

3.1

0-100 -66.67 -33.33 0 33.33 66.67 100Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 71.36 in 121.1 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 121.1 k ft / 90.83 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 71.36 in 121.1 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 121.1 k ft / 90.83 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Negative shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.5 in 21.21 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 21.21 k ft / 15.91 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 31 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.5 in 21.21 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 21.21 k ft / 15.91 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 31 ft from base [Negative shear]

Stem Shear Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 9 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 49: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1 in 16.97 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 11.88 in = 8 db 8 1 in 8.0 minimum limit, does not control = =

Main vertical stem bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1 in 2 / + 2.5 in = = cb 2.5 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.5 in 0.0 +

1 in 2.50 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 1.0

2.5 1 in 25.46 in = = =

Main vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.27 in 2 / + 2.63 in = = cb 2.63 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 2.63 in 0.0 +

1.27 in

1.27 in 38.95 in = = =

Dowels for vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.63 in 10.61 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 7.42 in = 8 db 8 0.63 in 5.0 minimum limit, does not control = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 10 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 50: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 18 in 2 / 9 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.63 in 2 / + 2.31 in = = cb 2.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 3.70 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 11 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 51: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 421.8 ft·k ft < Mstem / 563.1 ft·k ft / = = Mu 421.8 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.38 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 5.29 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.38 in² in / 60000 psi 26.15 in 5.29 in 2 / - 476 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 476 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 421.8 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 26.15 in 44.38 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 44.38 k ft / 33.29 k ft / = = = φVn 33.29 k ft ≥ Vu / 32.83 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.38 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 5.29 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 26.15 in

5.29 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0089 = = =

εt 0.0089 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 476 ft·k ft < 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 421.8 ft·k ft / 562.4 ft·k ft / = = =

As_min3 F'c

fyd 3 5000 psi

60000 psi 26.15 in 0.09 in² in / = = =

200 d fy / 200 26.15 in 60000 psi / 0.09 in² in / = = As 0.38 in² in ≥ As_min / 0.09 in² in / = =

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.88 in² in /

30 in 12 in 0.0024 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0024 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

421.8 ft·k ft / 476 ft·k ft / 0.8861 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 1.69 in 2 / + 3.85 in = = cb 3 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 3 in 0.0 +

1.69 in

1.69 in 60.8 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.8861 per 12.2.5: ld 53.88 in = ld_prov 119 in ≥ ld 53.88 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

30 in #14 @ 6 in

Unfactored Loads

375 psf

1153 psf 1711 psf

Toe Factored Loads

30 in #14 @ 6 in

Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

525 psf (Self-wt)

1614 psf 2396 psf1614 psf2396 psf

37 k/ft

Toe Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 12 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 52: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 24.83 ft·k ft < Mstem / 563.1 ft·k ft / = = Mu 24.83 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.1 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.41 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.1 in² in / 60000 psi 27.56 in 1.41 in 2 / - 145 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 145 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 24.83 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 27.56 in 46.78 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 46.78 k ft / 35.08 k ft / = = = φVn 35.08 k ft ≥ Vu / 12.5 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.1 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.41 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 27.56 in

1.41 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0439 = = =

εt 0.0439 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 145 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 24.83 ft·k ft / 33.1 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.88 in² in /

30 in 12 in 0.0024 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0024 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

24.83 ft·k ft / 145 ft·k ft / 0.1712 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.30 more than 12 inches cast below 27.13 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.88 in 2 / + 2.44 in = = cb 2.44 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.44 in 0.0 +

0.88 in 2.7857 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.30 1.0 1.0

2.5 0.88 in 28.96 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.1712 per 12.2.5: ld 4.96 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 372 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads30 in

#7 @ 6 in

Unfactored Loads

375 psf (Concrete self-wt)3750 psf (Soil weight)

1849 psf 1938 psf

Heel Factored Loads

30 in

#7 @ 6 in

Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

525 psf (Concrete self-wt)5250 psf (Soil weight)

2713-2588 psf (Bearing pressure)

2588 psf2713 psf12.5 k/ft

Heel Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 13 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 53: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

Stem Internal Forces

-182.08 psf

-1820.79 psf

-182.08 psf

-2329.6 psf59.5 k/ft

-563.12 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

31

27.13

23.25

19.38

15.5

11.63

7.75

3.88

0-600 -450 -300 -150 0Moment (ft·k/ft)

Moment

Stem Internal Forces

31

27.13

23.25

19.38

15.5

11.63

7.75

3.88

00 15 30 45 60Shear (k/ft)

Shear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 59.5 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

-182.08 psf

-1820.79 psf

-182.08 psf

-2329.6 psf

Stem Forces [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 14 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 54: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

31

27.9

24.8

21.7

18.6

15.5

12.4

9.3

6.2

3.1

0-800 -650 -500 -350 -200 -50 100Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

φMn 798.6 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 563.1 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 0 ft from base

φMn 422.8 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 278.3 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 5.83 ft from base

φMn 421.2 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 278.3 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 5.95 ft from base

φMn 111 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.02 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 28.88 ft from base

φMn 98.28 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.01 ft·k ft / = =

Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 29.12 ft from base

Stem Moment Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 15 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 55: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

31

27.9

24.8

21.7

18.6

15.5

12.4

9.3

6.2

3.1

0-100 -66.67 -33.33 0 33.33 66.67 100Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

φVn 90.83 k ft ≥ Vu / 59.5 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 0 ft from base

Stem Shear Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 16 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 56: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

φMn 798.6 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 563.1 ft·k ft / 750.8 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 422.8 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 278.3 ft·k ft / 371.1 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 5.83 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 31 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.21 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.99 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 71.36 in

2.99 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0543 = = =

εt 0.0543 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.13 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.86 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 60.4 in

1.86 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0750 = = =

εt 0.0750 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 5.83 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.13 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.86 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.5 in

1.86 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0131 = = =

εt 0.0131 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 31 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 15 in 0.0034 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0034 ≥ ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 15 in 45 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 17 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 57: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

US Embankment Wall Section

MuφMn

563.1 ft·k ft / 798.6 ft·k ft / 0.7051 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.27 in 21.55 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 15.09 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.7051 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 10.64 in = 8 db 8 1.27 in 10.160 minimum limit, does not control = = ldh_prov 27 in ≥ ldh 10.64 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.27 in 2 / + 2.63 in = = cb 2.63 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyF'c

ψt ψe ψs λ cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.63 in 0.0 +

1.27 in

1.27 in 38.95 in = = =

llap 1.3 ld 1.3 38.95 in 50.64 in = = = llap_prov 70 in ≥ llap 50.64 in = = 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 50.64 in 10.1281 > 6.0 = = strans 0 in ≤ 6.0 =

Lap Splice Checks (ACI 318-05 12.14.2.3, 12.15.1, 12.15.2) - #8 lap with #10, from 0 ft to 5.83 ft (from stem base)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H] (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 18 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 1:58 PM

Page 58: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

Page 59: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

Concrete f'c = 5000 psiRebar Fy = 60000 psiUnit Weight = 150 lb/ft³

15 in

33.92 ft

20 ft 10 ft

30 in

22 ft 19

.5 ft

70 in

2 ft

9.5

ft

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#9 @ 6 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 18 in#11 @ 6 in (lapped dowels)

Heel Bars: #7 @ 6 inToe Bars: #14 @ 6 inFooting S/T Bars: #6 @ 12 in

70 in

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#9 @ 6 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 18 in

Design Detail

Check SummaryRatio Check Provided Required Combination

----- Stability Checks -----0.863 Overturning 1.74 1.50 0.6D + 0.6F + 1.0H0.048 Bearing Pressure 40000 psf 1932 psf 1.0D + 1.0F + 1.0H0.949 Bearing Eccentricity 64.36 in 67.83 in 1.0D + 1.0F + 1.0H

----- Toe Checks -----0.796 Shear 33.29 k/ft 26.49 k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.698 Moment 476 ft·k/ft 332.5 ft·k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.452 Min Strain 0.0089 0.0040 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0.38 in² 0 in² 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.259 Development 164 in 42.47 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.736 S&T Min Rho 0.0024 0.0018 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

----- Heel Checks -----0.518 Shear 35.08 k/ft 18.16 k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.671 Moment 145 ft·k/ft 97.25 ft·k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.091 Min Strain 0.0439 0.0040 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0.1 in² 0 in² 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.068 Development 285 in 19.42 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.736 S&T Min Rho 0.0024 0.0018 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

----- Stem Checks -----0.819 Moment 596.1 ft·k/ft 488.2 ft·k/ft Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.962 Shear 56.38 k/ft 54.24 k/ft Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.123 Max Steel 0.0326 0.0040 Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.740 Min Steel 0.17 in²/in 0.12 in²/in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.508 Base Development 27 in 13.72 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.869 Lap Splice Length 70 in 60.81 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.000 Lap Splice Spacing 0 in 6 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.581 Horz Bar Rho 0.0034 0.0020 Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.667 Horz Bar Spacing 12 in 18 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

Criteria

Building Code IBC 2012Concrete Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (Strength)Masonry Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Stability Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Restrained Against Sliding YesNeglect Bearing At Heel NoUse Vert. Comp. for OT YesUse Vert. Comp. for Sliding YesUse Vert. Comp. for Bearing YesUse Surcharge for Sliding & OT YesUse Surcharge for Bearing YesNeglect Soil Over Toe NoNeglect Backfill Wt. for Coulomb NoFactor Soil Weight As Dead YesUse Passive Force for OT YesAssume Pressure To Top YesExtend Backfill Pressure To Key Bottom YesUse Toe Passive Pressure for Bearing NoRequired F.S. for OT 1.50Required F.S. for Sliding 1.50Has Different Safety Factors for Seismic YesSeismic F.S. for OT 1.20Seismic F.S. for Sliding 1.20Allowable Bearing Pressure 40000 psfReq'd Bearing Location Middle thirdWall Friction Angle 25°Friction Coefficent 0.65Soil Reaction Modulus 288000 lb/ft³

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 1 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 60: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

Loads

9.5

ft

2 ft

12 ft 10 ft

10 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

2 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

20 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psfKh = 0.10Kv = 0.05

Loading Options/AssumptionsPassive pressure neglects top 0 ft of soil.

Load Combinations

ASCE 7-10 (Strength) 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H 1.4D + 1.4F + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.2F + 1.6H 1.2D + 1.2F + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H 0.9D + 0.9F + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9F + 0.9H 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H 1.4D + 1.4F + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.2F + 1.6H + 1.0E 1.2D + 1.2F + 1.6H 1.2D + 1.2F + 0.9H + 1.0E 1.2D + 1.2F + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H 0.9D + 0.9F + 1.6H + 1.0E 0.9D + 0.9F + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9F + 0.9H + 1.0E 0.9D + 0.9F + 0.9H

Backfill Pressure

9.5

ft

2 ft

12 ft 10 ft

10 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

-536.47 psf

12 ft 502.9 lb/in

12 ft

7.5

ft

-768.15 psf

646.1 lb/in640.1 lb/in

87.54 lb/in

6.67

ft

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 2 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 61: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

Backfill Pressure (Water Layer)

γeff γsat γw - 140 lb ft³ / 62.4 lb ft³ / - 77.6 lb ft³ / = = = φ 32° φsat = γ 77.6 lb ft³ γeff / = φ φsat = γ γeff = Rankine Active Earth Pressure Theory

Ka tan² 45° φ2 - tan ² 45° 32°

2 - 0.3073 = = =

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 77.6 lb ft³ / 22.5 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 536.5 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure (water layer)

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 20 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 768.1 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure (water layer, stem only)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 3 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 62: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

Passive Pressure

2 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

813.6 psf 2 ft 67.8 lb/in

0.67 ft

Rankine Passive Earth Pressure Theory

Kp tan² 45° φ2 + tan ² 45° 32°

2 + 3.2546 = = =

σp γ H Kp 2 c Kp + 125 lb ft³ / 2 ft 3.2546 2 0 psf 3.2546 + 813.6 psf = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

Water Pressure

20 ft

-1404 psf12 ft 1316 lb/in

12 ft

-1248 psf1050 lb/in

σw γw Hw 62.4 lb ft³ / 22.5 ft 1404 psf = = = Lateral Water Pressure

σw γw Hw 62.4 lb ft³ / 20 ft 1248 psf = = = Lateral Water Pressure (stem only)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 4 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 63: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

Wall/Soil Weights

1060 lb/in

304.7 lb/in

325 lb/in

989.6 lb/in64.28 lb/in

Bearing Pressure

882.2 psf1077 psf2768 lb/in

17.52 ft

e = 6.73 in

1799 lb/in

F μ R 0.650 2768 lb in / 1799 lb in / = = = Friction

Bearing Pressure CalculationContributing Forces

Vert Force ...offset Horz Force ...offset OT MomentBackfill Pressure -0 lb/in - -502.94 lb/in 7.5 ft 543179 in·lb/ftWater Pressure -0 lb/in - -1316.25 lb/in 7.5 ft 1421550 in·lb/ftSeismic Force -24.62 lb/in 33.92 ft -38.22 lb/in 7.2 ft -80611.98 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -1059.9 lb/in 16.96 ft 0 lb/in - -2588265.63 in·lb/ftStem Weight -304.69 lb/in 20.63 ft 0 lb/in - -904921.88 in·lb/ftStem Weight -325 lb/in 22.14 ft 0 lb/in - -1036100 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -989.58 lb/in 28.92 ft 0 lb/in - -4120625 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -64.28 lb/in 23.48 ft 0 lb/in - -217374 in·lb/ft

-2768.07 lb/in -6983169.18 in·lb/ft6983169.18 in·lb ft / -

2768.07 lb in / - 17.52 ft =

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 5 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 64: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 864.6 lb/in 9.83 ft 1224226 in·lb/ftWater pressure 2263 lb/in 9.83 ft 3203912 in·lb/ft

Total: 4428139 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (vert) 0 lb/in 33.92 ft 0 in·lb/ftPassive pressure @ toe 33.85 lb/in 0.67 ft 3249 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -1059.9 lb/in 16.96 ft 2588266 in·lb/ftStem Weight -304.69 lb/in 20.63 ft 904922 in·lb/ftStem Weight -325 lb/in 22.14 ft 1036100 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -1041.67 lb/in 28.92 ft 4337500 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -71.23 lb/in 23.46 ft 240624 in·lb/ft

Total: 9110661 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 9110661 in·lb ft /

4428139 in·lb ft / 2.057 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckCheck not performed; restrained against sliding.

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure < allowable (1932 psf < 40000 psf) - OKBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (64.36 in < 67.83 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.243 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement 0.045 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.288 in

Stability Checks [Max Flood: 1.0D + 1.0F + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 6 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 65: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 864.6 lb/in 9.83 ft 1224226 in·lb/ftWater pressure 1358 lb/in 9.83 ft 1922347 in·lb/ft

Total: 3146574 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (vert) 0 lb/in 33.92 ft 0 in·lb/ftPassive pressure @ toe 33.85 lb/in 0.67 ft 3249 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -635.94 lb/in 16.96 ft 1552959 in·lb/ftStem Weight -182.81 lb/in 20.63 ft 542953 in·lb/ftStem Weight -195 lb/in 22.14 ft 621660 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -625 lb/in 28.92 ft 2602500 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -42.74 lb/in 23.46 ft 144374 in·lb/ft

Total: 5467696 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 5467696 in·lb ft /

3146574 in·lb ft / 1.738 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckCheck not performed; restrained against sliding.

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure < allowable (1159 psf < 40000 psf) - OKBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (64.36 in < 67.83 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.243 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement 0.045 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.288 in

Stability Checks [Max Flood: 0.6D + 0.6F + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 7 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 66: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

19.5

17.55

15.6

13.65

11.7

9.75

7.8

5.85

3.9

1.95

0-600 -483.33 -366.67 -250 -133.33 -16.67 100Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 3.67 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi 44.3 in 3.67 in 2 / - 596.1 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.24 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi 44.69 in 0.24 in 2 / - 41.45 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.17 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.35 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.17 in² in / 60000 psi 34.86 in 2.35 in 2 / - 303.2 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 5.83 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.17 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.35 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.17 in² in / 60000 psi 16.75 in 2.35 in 2 / - 140.2 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 16.87 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.24 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi 14.43 in 0.24 in 2 / - 13.31 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 18.44 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 12.44 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 19.5 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 12.69 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 19.5 ft from base [Positive bending]

Stem Flexural Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 8 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 67: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

19.5

17.55

15.6

13.65

11.7

9.75

7.8

5.85

3.9

1.95

0-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 44.3 in 75.17 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 75.17 k ft / 56.38 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 44.3 in 75.17 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 75.17 k ft / 56.38 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Negative shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.44 in 21.1 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 21.1 k ft / 15.83 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 19.5 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.44 in 21.1 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 21.1 k ft / 15.83 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 19.5 ft from base [Negative shear]

Stem Shear Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 9 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 68: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.13 in 19.14 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 13.4 in = 8 db 8 1.13 in 9.0240 minimum limit, does not control = =

Main vertical stem bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.13 in 2 / + 2.56 in = = cb 2.56 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 2.56 in 0.0 +

1.13 in

1.13 in 31.58 in = = =

Main vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.41 in 2 / + 2.71 in = = cb 2.71 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 2.71 in 0.0 +

1.41 in

1.41 in 46.77 in = = =

Dowels for vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.63 in 10.61 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 7.42 in = 8 db 8 0.63 in 5.0 minimum limit, does not control = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 10 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 69: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 18 in 2 / 9 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.63 in 2 / + 2.31 in = = cb 2.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 3.70 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 11 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 70: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 332.5 ft·k ft < Mstem / 488.2 ft·k ft / = = Mu 332.5 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.38 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 5.29 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.38 in² in / 60000 psi 26.15 in 5.29 in 2 / - 476 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 476 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 332.5 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 26.15 in 44.38 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 44.38 k ft / 33.29 k ft / = = = φVn 33.29 k ft ≥ Vu / 26.49 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.38 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 5.29 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 26.15 in

5.29 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0089 = = =

εt 0.0089 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 476 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 332.5 ft·k ft / 443.3 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.88 in² in /

30 in 12 in 0.0024 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0024 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

332.5 ft·k ft / 476 ft·k ft / 0.6985 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 1.69 in 2 / + 3.85 in = = cb 3 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 3 in 0.0 +

1.69 in

1.69 in 60.8 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.6985 per 12.2.5: ld 42.47 in = ld_prov 164 in ≥ ld 42.47 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

30 in #14 @ 6 in

Unfactored Loads

375 psf

1932 psf822.8 psf

Toe Factored Loads

30 in #14 @ 6 in

Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

525 psf (Self-wt)

2705 psf1152 psf

2705 psf1152 psf

28.07 k/ft

Toe Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 12 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 71: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 97.25 ft·k ft < Mstem / 488.2 ft·k ft / = = Mu 97.25 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.1 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.41 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.1 in² in / 60000 psi 27.56 in 1.41 in 2 / - 145 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 145 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 97.25 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 27.56 in 46.78 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 46.78 k ft / 35.08 k ft / = = = φVn 35.08 k ft ≥ Vu / 18.16 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.1 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.41 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 27.56 in

1.41 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0439 = = =

εt 0.0439 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 145 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 97.25 ft·k ft / 129.7 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.88 in² in /

30 in 12 in 0.0024 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0024 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

97.25 ft·k ft / 145 ft·k ft / 0.6706 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.30 more than 12 inches cast below 27.13 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.88 in 2 / + 2.44 in = = cb 2.44 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.44 in 0.0 +

0.88 in 2.7857 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.30 1.0 1.0

2.5 0.88 in 28.96 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.6706 per 12.2.5: ld 19.42 in = ld_prov 285 in ≥ ld 19.42 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads

30 in

#7 @ 6 in

Unfactored Loads

375 psf (Concrete self-wt)1250 psf (Soil weight)

605.5 psf50.79 psf

Heel Factored Loads

30 in

#7 @ 6 in

Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

525 psf (Concrete self-wt)1750 psf (Soil weight)

71.1-847.7 psf (Bearing pressure

847.7 psf

71.1 psf18.16 k/ft

Heel Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 13 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 72: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

Stem Internal Forces

-1643.9 psf-2336.97 psf54.24 k/ft

-488.18 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

19.5

17.06

14.63

12.19

9.75

7.31

4.88

2.44

0-500 -375 -250 -125 0Moment (ft·k/ft)

Moment

Stem Internal Forces

19.5

17.06

14.63

12.19

9.75

7.31

4.88

2.44

00 15 30 45 60Shear (k/ft)

Shear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 54.24 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

-1643.9 psf -2336.97 psf

Stem Forces [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 14 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 73: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

19.5

17.55

15.6

13.65

11.7

9.75

7.8

5.85

3.9

1.95

0-600 -483.33 -366.67 -250 -133.33 -16.67 100Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

φMn 596.1 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 488.2 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 0 ft from base

φMn 303.2 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 232.7 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 5.83 ft from base

φMn 302.1 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 232.7 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 5.91 ft from base

φMn 140.2 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 25.26 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 16.87 ft from base

φMn 136.4 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 25.26 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 16.94 ft from base

φMn 0 ft·k ft < Mu / 10.46 ft·k ft / = =

Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 19.5 ft from base

Stem Moment Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 15 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 74: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

19.5

17.55

15.6

13.65

11.7

9.75

7.8

5.85

3.9

1.95

0-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

φVn 56.38 k ft ≥ Vu / 54.24 k ft / = = Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 0 ft from base

φVn 15.83 k ft ≥ Vu / 4.19 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 19.5 ft from base

Stem Shear Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 16 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 75: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

φMn 596.1 ft·k ft < 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 488.2 ft·k ft / 650.9 ft·k ft / = = =

As_min3 F'c

fyd 3 5000 psi

60000 psi 44.3 in 0.16 in² in / = = =

200 d fy / 200 44.3 in 60000 psi / 0.15 in² in / = = As 0.26 in² in ≥ As_min / 0.16 in² in / = =

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 303.2 ft·k ft < 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 232.7 ft·k ft / 310.2 ft·k ft / = = =

As_min3 F'c

fyd 3 5000 psi

60000 psi 34.86 in 0.12 in² in / = = =

200 d fy / 200 34.86 in 60000 psi / 0.12 in² in / = = As 0.17 in² in ≥ As_min / 0.12 in² in / = =

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 5.83 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft < 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 10.46 ft·k ft / 13.95 ft·k ft / = = =

As_min3 F'c

fyd 3 5000 psi

60000 psi 12.44 in 0.04 in² in / = = =

200 d fy / 200 12.44 in 60000 psi / 0.04 in² in / = = As 0.17 in² in ≥ As_min / 0.04 in² in / = =

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 19.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 3.67 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 44.3 in

3.67 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0260 = = =

εt 0.0260 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.17 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.35 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 34.86 in

2.35 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0326 = = =

εt 0.0326 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 5.83 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.17 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.35 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.44 in

2.35 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0097 = = =

εt 0.0097 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 19.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 17 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 76: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check Weir Wall US Embankment-19.5'

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 15 in 0.0034 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0034 ≥ ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 15 in 45 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

MuφMn

488.2 ft·k ft / 596.1 ft·k ft / 0.8189 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.41 in 23.93 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 16.75 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.8189 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 13.72 in = 8 db 8 1.41 in 11.280 minimum limit, does not control = = ldh_prov 27 in ≥ ldh 13.72 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.41 in 2 / + 2.71 in = = cb 2.71 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyF'c

ψt ψe ψs λ cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.71 in 0.0 +

1.41 in

1.41 in 46.77 in = = =

llap 1.3 ld 1.3 46.77 in 60.81 in = = = llap_prov 70 in ≥ llap 60.81 in = = 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 60.81 in 12.1611 > 6.0 = = strans 0 in ≤ 6.0 =

Lap Splice Checks (ACI 318-05 12.14.2.3, 12.15.1, 12.15.2) - #9 lap with #11, from 0 ft to 5.83 ft (from stem base)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H] (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 18 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:04 PM

Page 77: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

Page 78: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

Concrete f'c = 5000 psiRebar Fy = 60000 psiUnit Weight = 150 lb/ft³15 in

29.67 ft

20 ft 4 ft

30 in

30.5

ft

28 ft

70 in

2.5

ft

1 ft

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#9 @ 6 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 18 in#11 @ 6 in (lapped dowels)

Heel Bars: #7 @ 6 inToe Bars: #14 @ 6 inFooting S/T Bars: #6 @ 12 in

70 in

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#9 @ 6 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 18 in

Design Detail

Check SummaryRatio Check Provided Required Combination

----- Stability Checks -----0.635 Overturning 2.36 1.50 0.6D + 0.6F + 1.0H0.067 Bearing Pressure 40000 psf 2676 psf 1.0D + 1.0H + 0.7E0.666 Bearing Eccentricity 39.54 in 59.33 in 1.0D + 1.0H + 0.7E

----- Toe Checks -----0.938 Shear 33.29 k/ft 31.21 k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.752 Moment 476 ft·k/ft 358.1 ft·k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.452 Min Strain 0.0089 0.0040 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.247 Min Steel 0.38 in² 0.09 in² 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.405 Development 113 in 45.74 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.736 S&T Min Rho 0.0024 0.0018 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

----- Heel Checks -----0.372 Shear 35.08 k/ft 13.06 k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.181 Moment 145 ft·k/ft 26.21 ft·k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.091 Min Strain 0.0439 0.0040 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0.1 in² 0 in² 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.039 Development 306 in 12 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.736 S&T Min Rho 0.0024 0.0018 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

----- Stem Checks -----0.548 Moment 891 ft·k/ft 488.2 ft·k/ft Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.653 Shear 83.11 k/ft 54.24 k/ft Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.076 Max Steel 0.0525 0.0040 Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0 in²/in 0 in²/in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.418 Base Development 27 in 11.28 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.869 Lap Splice Length 70 in 60.81 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.000 Lap Splice Spacing 0 in 6 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.581 Horz Bar Rho 0.0034 0.0020 Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.667 Horz Bar Spacing 12 in 18 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

Criteria

Building Code IBC 2012Concrete Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (Strength)Masonry Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Stability Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Restrained Against Sliding YesNeglect Bearing At Heel NoUse Vert. Comp. for OT YesUse Vert. Comp. for Sliding YesUse Vert. Comp. for Bearing YesUse Surcharge for Sliding & OT YesUse Surcharge for Bearing YesNeglect Soil Over Toe NoNeglect Backfill Wt. for Coulomb NoFactor Soil Weight As Dead YesUse Passive Force for OT YesAssume Pressure To Top YesExtend Backfill Pressure To Key Bottom YesUse Toe Passive Pressure for Bearing NoRequired F.S. for OT 1.50Required F.S. for Sliding 1.50Has Different Safety Factors for Seismic YesSeismic F.S. for OT 1.20Seismic F.S. for Sliding 1.20Allowable Bearing Pressure 40000 psfReq'd Bearing Location Middle thirdWall Friction Angle 25°Friction Coefficent 0.65Soil Reaction Modulus 288000 lb/ft³

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 1 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 79: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

Loads

27 ft

2.5

ft

29.5

ft

27 ft

1 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

2.5

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psfKh = 0.10Kv = 0.05

Loading Options/AssumptionsPassive pressure neglects top 0 ft of soil.

Load Combinations

ASCE 7-10 (Strength) 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H 1.4D + 1.4F + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.2F + 1.6H 1.2D + 1.2F + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H 0.9D + 0.9F + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9F + 0.9H 1.4D + 1.6H 1.4D + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E 1.2D + 1.6H 1.2D + 0.9H + 1.0E 1.2D + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H + 1.0E 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H + 1.0E 0.9D + 0.9H

Backfill Pressure

27 ft

2.5

ft

29.5

ft

27 ft

1 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf -1133.02 psf

29.5

ft

1393 lb/in29.5

ft

9.83

ft

-1037 psf

1181 lb/in1167 lb/in

184 lb/in

9 ft

Rankine Active Earth Pressure Theory

Ka tan² 45° φ2 - tan ² 45° 32°

2 - 0.3073 = = =

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 29.5 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 1133 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 27 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 1037 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure (stem only)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 2 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 80: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

Backfill Pressure (Water Layer)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 3 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 81: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

Passive Pressure

2.5

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

1017 psf

2.5

ft

105.9 lb/in

0.83 ft

Rankine Passive Earth Pressure Theory

Kp tan² 45° φ2 + tan ² 45° 32°

2 + 3.2546 = = =

σp γ H Kp 2 c Kp + 125 lb ft³ / 2.5 ft 3.2546 2 0 psf 3.2546 + 1017 psf = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

Water Pressure

There is no water table in this load case.

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 4 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 82: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

Wall/Soil Weights

927.1 lb/in

437.5 lb/in

772.9 lb/in

1125 lb/in598.9 lb/in

0 lb/in

Bearing Pressure

541.9 psf

2707 psf4017 lb/in

18.13 ft

e = 39.54 in

2611 lb/in

F μ R 0.650 4017 lb in / 2611 lb in / = = = Friction

Bearing Pressure CalculationContributing Forces

Vert Force ...offset Horz Force ...offset OT MomentBackfill Pressure -0 lb/in - -1392.67 lb/in 9.83 ft 1972014 in·lb/ftSeismic Force -155.24 lb/in 29.67 ft -230.47 lb/in 17.7 ft -75774.54 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -927.08 lb/in 14.83 ft 0 lb/in - -1980250 in·lb/ftStem Weight -437.5 lb/in 20.63 ft 0 lb/in - -1299375 in·lb/ftStem Weight -772.92 lb/in 22.72 ft 0 lb/in - -2528983.33 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -1125 lb/in 27.67 ft 0 lb/in - -4482000 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -598.91 lb/in 24.25 ft 0 lb/in - -2091143.44 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in - 0 lb/in - -0 in·lb/ft

-4016.65 lb/in -10485512.29 in·lb/ft10485512.29 in·lb ft / -

4016.65 lb in / - 18.13 ft =

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 5 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 83: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 864.6 lb/in 9.83 ft 1224226 in·lb/ftWater pressure 2263 lb/in 9.83 ft 3203912 in·lb/ft

Total: 4428139 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (vert) 0 lb/in 29.67 ft 0 in·lb/ftPassive pressure @ toe 52.89 lb/in 0.83 ft 6346 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -927.08 lb/in 14.83 ft 1980250 in·lb/ftStem Weight -437.5 lb/in 20.63 ft 1299375 in·lb/ftStem Weight -772.92 lb/in 22.72 ft 2528983 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -1125 lb/in 27.67 ft 4482000 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -598.91 lb/in 24.25 ft 2091143 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in 10 ft 0 in·lb/ft

Total: 12388098 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 12388098 in·lb ft /

4428139 in·lb ft / 2.798 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckCheck not performed; restrained against sliding.

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure < allowable (1729 psf < 40000 psf) - OKBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (6.35 in < 59.33 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.118 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement 0.013 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.131 in

Stability Checks [Max Flood: 1.0D + 1.0F + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 6 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 84: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 864.6 lb/in 9.83 ft 1224226 in·lb/ftWater pressure 1358 lb/in 9.83 ft 1922347 in·lb/ft

Total: 3146574 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (vert) 0 lb/in 29.67 ft 0 in·lb/ftPassive pressure @ toe 52.89 lb/in 0.83 ft 6346 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -556.25 lb/in 14.83 ft 1188150 in·lb/ftStem Weight -262.5 lb/in 20.63 ft 779625 in·lb/ftStem Weight -463.75 lb/in 22.72 ft 1517390 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -675 lb/in 27.67 ft 2689200 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -359.35 lb/in 24.25 ft 1254686 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in 10 ft 0 in·lb/ft

Total: 7435398 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 7435398 in·lb ft /

3146574 in·lb ft / 2.363 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckCheck not performed; restrained against sliding.

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure < allowable (1037 psf < 40000 psf) - OKBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (6.35 in < 59.33 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.118 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement 0.013 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.131 in

Stability Checks [Max Flood: 0.6D + 0.6F + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 7 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 85: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

28

25.2

22.4

19.6

16.8

14

11.2

8.4

5.6

2.8

0-900 -733.33 -566.67 -400 -233.33 -66.67 100Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 3.67 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi 65.3 in 3.67 in 2 / - 891 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.24 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi 65.69 in 0.24 in 2 / - 60.98 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.17 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.35 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.17 in² in / 60000 psi 54.39 in 2.35 in 2 / - 479 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 5.83 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.17 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.35 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.17 in² in / 60000 psi 17.42 in 2.35 in 2 / - 146.2 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 25.37 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.24 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi 14.7 in 0.24 in 2 / - 13.55 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 26.94 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 12.44 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 28 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 12.69 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 28 ft from base [Positive bending]

Stem Flexural Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 8 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 86: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

28

25.2

22.4

19.6

16.8

14

11.2

8.4

5.6

2.8

0-100 -66.67 -33.33 0 33.33 66.67 100Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 65.3 in 110.8 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 110.8 k ft / 83.11 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 65.3 in 110.8 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 110.8 k ft / 83.11 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Negative shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.44 in 21.1 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 21.1 k ft / 15.83 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 28 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.44 in 21.1 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 21.1 k ft / 15.83 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 28 ft from base [Negative shear]

Stem Shear Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 9 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 87: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.13 in 19.14 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 13.4 in = 8 db 8 1.13 in 9.0240 minimum limit, does not control = =

Main vertical stem bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.13 in 2 / + 2.56 in = = cb 2.56 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 2.56 in 0.0 +

1.13 in

1.13 in 31.58 in = = =

Main vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.41 in 2 / + 2.71 in = = cb 2.71 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 2.71 in 0.0 +

1.41 in

1.41 in 46.77 in = = =

Dowels for vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.63 in 10.61 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 7.42 in = 8 db 8 0.63 in 5.0 minimum limit, does not control = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 10 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 88: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 18 in 2 / 9 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.63 in 2 / + 2.31 in = = cb 2.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 3.70 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 11 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 89: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 358.1 ft·k ft < Mstem / 488.2 ft·k ft / = = Mu 358.1 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.38 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 5.29 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.38 in² in / 60000 psi 26.15 in 5.29 in 2 / - 476 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 476 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 358.1 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 26.15 in 44.38 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 44.38 k ft / 33.29 k ft / = = = φVn 33.29 k ft ≥ Vu / 31.21 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.38 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 5.29 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 26.15 in

5.29 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0089 = = =

εt 0.0089 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 476 ft·k ft < 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 358.1 ft·k ft / 477.5 ft·k ft / = = =

As_min3 F'c

fyd 3 5000 psi

60000 psi 26.15 in 0.09 in² in / = = =

200 d fy / 200 26.15 in 60000 psi / 0.09 in² in / = = As 0.38 in² in ≥ As_min / 0.09 in² in / = =

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.88 in² in /

30 in 12 in 0.0024 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0024 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

358.1 ft·k ft / 476 ft·k ft / 0.7523 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 1.69 in 2 / + 3.85 in = = cb 3 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 3 in 0.0 +

1.69 in

1.69 in 60.8 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.7523 per 12.2.5: ld 45.74 in = ld_prov 113 in ≥ ld 45.74 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

30 in #14 @ 6 in

Unfactored Loads

375 psf

1729 psf 1504 psf

Toe Factored Loads

30 in #14 @ 6 in

Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

525 psf (Self-wt)

2421 psf 2105 psf2421 psf 2105 psf

34.76 k/ft

Toe Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 12 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 90: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 26.21 ft·k ft < Mstem / 488.2 ft·k ft / = = Mu 26.21 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.1 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.41 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.1 in² in / 60000 psi 27.56 in 1.41 in 2 / - 145 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 145 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 26.21 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 27.56 in 46.78 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 46.78 k ft / 35.08 k ft / = = = φVn 35.08 k ft ≥ Vu / 13.06 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.1 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.41 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 27.56 in

1.41 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0439 = = =

εt 0.0439 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 145 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 26.21 ft·k ft / 34.95 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.88 in² in /

30 in 12 in 0.0024 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0024 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

26.21 ft·k ft / 145 ft·k ft / 0.1807 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.30 more than 12 inches cast below 27.13 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.88 in 2 / + 2.44 in = = cb 2.44 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.44 in 0.0 +

0.88 in 2.7857 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.30 1.0 1.0

2.5 0.88 in 28.96 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.1807 per 12.2.5: ld 5.23 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 306 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads30 in

#7 @ 6 in

Unfactored Loads

375 psf (Concrete self-wt)3375 psf (Soil weight)

1440 psf 1395 psf

Heel Factored Loads

30 in

#7 @ 6 in

Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

525 psf (Concrete self-wt)4725 psf (Soil weight)

1953-2016 psf (Bearing pressure)

2016 psf1953 psf13.06 k/ft

Heel Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 13 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 91: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

Stem Internal Forces

-1638.93 psf-2329.91 psf54.24 k/ft

-488.18 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

28

24.5

21

17.5

14

10.5

7

3.5

0-500 -375 -250 -125 0Moment (ft·k/ft)

Moment

Stem Internal Forces

28

24.5

21

17.5

14

10.5

7

3.5

00 15 30 45 60Shear (k/ft)

Shear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 54.24 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

-1638.93 psf -2329.91 psf

Stem Forces [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 14 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 92: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

28

25.2

22.4

19.6

16.8

14

11.2

8.4

5.6

2.8

0-900 -733.33 -566.67 -400 -233.33 -66.67 100Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

φMn 891 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 488.2 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 0 ft from base

φMn 479 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 231.7 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 5.83 ft from base

φMn 477.2 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 231.7 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 5.94 ft from base

φMn 146.2 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.09 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 25.37 ft from base

φMn 141.4 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.09 ft·k ft / = =

Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 25.45 ft from base

Stem Moment Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 15 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 93: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

28

25.2

22.4

19.6

16.8

14

11.2

8.4

5.6

2.8

0-100 -66.67 -33.33 0 33.33 66.67 100Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

φVn 83.11 k ft ≥ Vu / 54.24 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 0 ft from base

Stem Shear Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 16 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 94: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

φMn 891 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 488.2 ft·k ft / 650.9 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 479 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 231.7 ft·k ft / 308.9 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 5.83 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 28 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 3.67 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 65.3 in

3.67 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0397 = = =

εt 0.0397 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.17 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.35 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 54.39 in

2.35 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0525 = = =

εt 0.0525 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 5.83 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.17 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.35 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.44 in

2.35 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0097 = = =

εt 0.0097 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 28 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 15 in 0.0034 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0034 ≥ ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 15 in 45 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 17 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 95: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check US Embankment Wall Section-28'

MuφMn

488.2 ft·k ft / 891 ft·k ft / 0.5479 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.41 in 23.93 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 16.75 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.5479 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 9.18 in = 8 db 8 1.41 in 11.280 = = 8db minimum controlsldh_prov 27 in ≥ ldh 11.28 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.41 in 2 / + 2.71 in = = cb 2.71 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyF'c

ψt ψe ψs λ cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.71 in 0.0 +

1.41 in

1.41 in 46.77 in = = =

llap 1.3 ld 1.3 46.77 in 60.81 in = = = llap_prov 70 in ≥ llap 60.81 in = = 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 60.81 in 12.1611 > 6.0 = = strans 0 in ≤ 6.0 =

Lap Splice Checks (ACI 318-05 12.14.2.3, 12.15.1, 12.15.2) - #9 lap with #11, from 0 ft to 5.83 ft (from stem base)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H] (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 18 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:16 PM

Page 96: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

DS Embankment Wall Section

Page 97: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

Concrete f'c = 5000 psiRebar Fy = 60000 psiUnit Weight = 150 lb/ft³15 in

29.42 ft

21 ft4 ft

24 in

33 ft 31

ft

85 in

2 ft

1 ft

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#10 @ 12 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 18 in#14 @ 12 in (lapped dowels)

Heel Bars: #6 @ 12 inToe Bars: #11 @ 6 inFooting S/T Bars: #5 @ 12 in

85 in

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#10 @ 12 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 18 in

Design Detail

Check SummaryRatio Check Provided Required Combination

----- Stability Checks -----0.583 Overturning 2.57 1.50 0.6D + 0.6F + 1.0H0.056 Bearing Pressure 40000 psf 2224 psf 1.0D + 1.0H + 0.7E0.483 Bearing Eccentricity 28.43 in 58.83 in 1.0D + 1.0H + 0.7E

----- Toe Checks -----0.955 Shear 25.83 k/ft 24.66 k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.937 Moment 259.2 ft·k/ft 242.8 ft·k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.389 Min Strain 0.0103 0.0040 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.276 Min Steel 0.26 in² 0.07 in² 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.403 Development 98 in 39.51 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.836 S&T Min Rho 0.0022 0.0018 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

----- Heel Checks -----0.447 Shear 24.98 k/ft 11.16 k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.573 Moment 38.35 ft·k/ft 21.96 ft·k/ft 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.045 Min Strain 0.0880 0.0040 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0.04 in² 0 in² 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.040 Development 301 in 12 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.836 S&T Min Rho 0.0022 0.0018 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

----- Stem Checks -----0.659 Moment 494.4 ft·k/ft 325.7 ft·k/ft Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.587 Shear 63.83 k/ft 37.48 k/ft Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.063 Max Steel 0.0640 0.0040 Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0 in²/in 0 in²/in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.645 Base Development 21 in 13.54 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.980 Lap Splice Length 85 in 83.31 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.000 Lap Splice Spacing 0 in 6 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.581 Horz Bar Rho 0.0034 0.0020 Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H0.667 Horz Bar Spacing 12 in 18 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

Criteria

Building Code IBC 2012Concrete Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (Strength)Masonry Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Stability Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Restrained Against Sliding YesNeglect Bearing At Heel NoUse Vert. Comp. for OT YesUse Vert. Comp. for Sliding YesUse Vert. Comp. for Bearing YesUse Surcharge for Sliding & OT YesUse Surcharge for Bearing YesNeglect Soil Over Toe NoNeglect Backfill Wt. for Coulomb NoFactor Soil Weight As Dead YesUse Passive Force for OT YesAssume Pressure To Top YesExtend Backfill Pressure To Key Bottom YesUse Toe Passive Pressure for Bearing NoRequired F.S. for OT 1.50Required F.S. for Sliding 1.50Has Different Safety Factors for Seismic YesSeismic F.S. for OT 1.20Seismic F.S. for Sliding 1.20Allowable Bearing Pressure 40000 psfReq'd Bearing Location Middle thirdWall Friction Angle 25°Friction Coefficent 0.65Soil Reaction Modulus 288000 lb/ft³

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 1 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 98: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

Loads

30 ft

2 ft

32 ft

30 ft

1 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

2 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psfKh = 0.10Kv = 0.05

Loading Options/AssumptionsPassive pressure neglects top 0 ft of soil.

Load Combinations

ASCE 7-10 (Strength) 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H 1.4D + 1.4F + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.2F + 1.6H 1.2D + 1.2F + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H 0.9D + 0.9F + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9F + 0.9H 1.4D + 1.6H 1.4D + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E 1.2D + 1.6H 1.2D + 0.9H + 1.0E 1.2D + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H + 1.0E 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H + 1.0E 0.9D + 0.9H

Backfill Pressure

30 ft

2 ft

32 ft

30 ft

1 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf -1229.03 psf

32 ft

1639 lb/in

32 ft

10.6

7 ft

-1152.22 psf

1448 lb/in1440 lb/in

147.1 lb/in

10 ft

Rankine Active Earth Pressure Theory

Ka tan² 45° φ2 - tan ² 45° 32°

2 - 0.3073 = = =

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 32 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 1229 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 30 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 1152 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure (stem only)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 2 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 99: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

Backfill Pressure (Water Layer)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 3 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 100: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

Passive Pressure

2 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

813.6 psf 2 ft 67.8 lb/in

0.67 ft

Rankine Passive Earth Pressure Theory

Kp tan² 45° φ2 + tan ² 45° 32°

2 + 3.2546 = = =

σp γ H Kp 2 c Kp + 125 lb ft³ / 2 ft 3.2546 2 0 psf 3.2546 + 813.6 psf = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

Water Pressure

There is no water table in this load case.

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 4 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 101: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

Wall/Soil Weights

735.4 lb/in

484.4 lb/in

613.6 lb/in

1250 lb/in478.8 lb/in

0 lb/in

Bearing Pressure

785.2 psf2254 psf

3725 lb/in

17.08 ft

e = 28.43 in

2421 lb/in

F μ R 0.650 3725 lb in / 2421 lb in / = = = Friction

Bearing Pressure CalculationContributing Forces

Vert Force ...offset Horz Force ...offset OT MomentBackfill Pressure -0 lb/in - -1638.71 lb/in 10.67 ft 2517062 in·lb/ftSeismic Force -162.83 lb/in 29.42 ft -272.81 lb/in 19.2 ft 64502 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -735.42 lb/in 14.71 ft 0 lb/in - -1557612.5 in·lb/ftStem Weight -484.43 lb/in 21.63 ft 0 lb/in - -1508505.94 in·lb/ftStem Weight -613.61 lb/in 23.31 ft 0 lb/in - -2059267.24 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -1250 lb/in 27.42 ft 0 lb/in - -4935000 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -478.78 lb/in 24.4 ft 0 lb/in - -1681912.44 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in - 0 lb/in - -0 in·lb/ft

-3725.07 lb/in -9160733.95 in·lb/ft9160733.95 in·lb ft / -

3725.07 lb in / - 17.08 ft =

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 5 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 102: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 1463 lb/in 11.27 ft 2373955 in·lb/ftWater pressure 751.4 lb/in 5.67 ft 613142 in·lb/ft

Total: 2987098 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (vert) 0 lb/in 29.42 ft 0 in·lb/ftPassive pressure @ toe 67.8 lb/in 0.67 ft 6509 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -735.42 lb/in 14.71 ft 1557613 in·lb/ftStem Weight -484.43 lb/in 21.63 ft 1508506 in·lb/ftStem Weight -613.61 lb/in 23.31 ft 2059267 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -1250 lb/in 27.42 ft 4935000 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -478.78 lb/in 24.4 ft 1681912 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in 10.5 ft 0 in·lb/ft

Total: 11748807 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 11748807 in·lb ft /

2987098 in·lb ft / 3.933 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckCheck not performed; restrained against sliding.

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure < allowable (2153 psf < 40000 psf) - OKBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (28.32 in < 58.83 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.163 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement -0.061 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.102 in

Stability Checks [Max Flood: 1.0D + 1.0F + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 6 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 103: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 1463 lb/in 11.27 ft 2373955 in·lb/ftWater pressure 450.8 lb/in 5.67 ft 367885 in·lb/ft

Total: 2741841 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (vert) 0 lb/in 29.42 ft 0 in·lb/ftPassive pressure @ toe 67.8 lb/in 0.67 ft 6509 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -441.25 lb/in 14.71 ft 934567 in·lb/ftStem Weight -290.66 lb/in 21.63 ft 905104 in·lb/ftStem Weight -368.16 lb/in 23.31 ft 1235560 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -750 lb/in 27.42 ft 2961000 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -287.27 lb/in 24.4 ft 1009147 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in 10.5 ft 0 in·lb/ft

Total: 7051888 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 7051888 in·lb ft /

2741841 in·lb ft / 2.572 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckCheck not performed; restrained against sliding.

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure < allowable (1292 psf < 40000 psf) - OKBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (28.32 in < 58.83 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.163 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement -0.061 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.102 in

Stability Checks [Max Flood: 0.6D + 0.6F + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 7 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 104: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

31

27.9

24.8

21.7

18.6

15.5

12.4

9.3

6.2

3.1

0-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.19 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.65 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.19 in² in / 60000 psi 50.15 in 2.65 in 2 / - 494.4 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.24 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi 50.69 in 0.24 in 2 / - 47.03 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.11 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.49 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.11 in² in / 60000 psi 41.68 in 1.49 in 2 / - 233.9 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 7.08 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.11 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.49 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.11 in² in / 60000 psi 16.34 in 1.49 in 2 / - 89.14 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 27.76 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.24 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi 13.99 in 0.24 in 2 / - 12.9 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 29.94 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 12.37 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 31 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 12.69 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 31 ft from base [Positive bending]

Stem Flexural Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 8 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 105: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

31

27.9

24.8

21.7

18.6

15.5

12.4

9.3

6.2

3.1

0-80 -53.33 -26.67 0 26.67 53.33 80Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 50.15 in 85.11 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 85.11 k ft / 63.83 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 50.15 in 85.11 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 85.11 k ft / 63.83 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Negative shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.37 in 20.98 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 20.98 k ft / 15.74 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 31 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.37 in 20.98 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 20.98 k ft / 15.74 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 31 ft from base [Negative shear]

Stem Shear Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 9 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 106: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.27 in 21.55 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 15.09 in = 8 db 8 1.27 in 10.160 minimum limit, does not control = =

Main vertical stem bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.27 in 2 / + 2.63 in = = cb 2.63 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 2.63 in 0.0 +

1.27 in

1.27 in 38.95 in = = =

Main vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.69 in 2 / + 2.85 in = = cb 2.85 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 2.85 in 0.0 +

1.69 in

1.69 in 64.08 in = = =

Dowels for vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.63 in 10.61 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 7.42 in = 8 db 8 0.63 in 5.0 minimum limit, does not control = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 10 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 107: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 18 in 2 / 9 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.63 in 2 / + 2.31 in = = cb 2.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 3.70 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 11 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 108: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 242.8 ft·k ft < Mstem / 325.7 ft·k ft / = = Mu 242.8 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 3.67 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi 20.3 in 3.67 in 2 / - 259.2 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 259.2 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 242.8 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 20.3 in 34.44 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 34.44 k ft / 25.83 k ft / = = = φVn 25.83 k ft ≥ Vu / 24.66 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 3.67 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 20.3 in

3.67 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0103 = = =

εt 0.0103 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 259.2 ft·k ft < 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 242.8 ft·k ft / 323.8 ft·k ft / = = =

As_min3 F'c

fyd 3 5000 psi

60000 psi 20.3 in 0.07 in² in / = = =

200 d fy / 200 20.3 in 60000 psi / 0.07 in² in / = = As 0.26 in² in ≥ As_min / 0.07 in² in / = =

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

242.8 ft·k ft / 259.2 ft·k ft / 0.9369 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 1.41 in 2 / + 3.71 in = = cb 3 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 3 in 0.0 +

1.41 in

1.41 in 42.17 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.9369 per 12.2.5: ld 39.51 in = ld_prov 98 in ≥ ld 39.51 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

24 in #11 @ 6 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf

753.8 psf1752 psf

Toe Factored Loads

24 in #11 @ 6 in

Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

420 psf (Self-wt)

1055 psf2453 psf1055 psf

2453 psf

28.02 k/ft

Toe Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 12 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 109: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 21.96 ft·k ft < Mstem / 325.7 ft·k ft / = = Mu 21.96 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi 19.63 in 0.52 in 2 / - 38.35 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 38.35 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 21.96 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 19.63 in 33.3 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 33.3 k ft / 24.98 k ft / = = = φVn 24.98 k ft ≥ Vu / 11.16 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 19.63 in

0.52 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0880 = = =

εt 0.0880 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 38.35 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 21.96 ft·k ft / 29.28 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

21.96 ft·k ft / 38.35 ft·k ft / 0.5727 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.30 more than 12 inches cast below 19.25 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 4 in 0.75 in 2 / + 4.38 in = = cb 4.38 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 4.38 in 0.0 +

0.75 in 5.8333 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.30 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.75 in 19.86 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.5727 per 12.2.5: ld 11.37 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 301 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads24 in

#6 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf (Concrete self-wt)3750 psf (Soil weight)

1962 psf 2153 psf

Heel Factored Loads

24 in

#6 @ 12 in

Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H

420 psf (Concrete self-wt)5250 psf (Soil weight)

3014-2747 psf (Bearing pressure)

2747 psf 3014 psf11.16 k/ft

Heel Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 13 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 110: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

Stem Internal Forces

-917 psf

-1834.01 psf

-917 psf

-1303.62 psf37.48 k/ft

-325.67 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

31

27.13

23.25

19.38

15.5

11.63

7.75

3.88

0-400 -300 -200 -100 0Moment (ft·k/ft)

Moment

Stem Internal Forces

31

27.13

23.25

19.38

15.5

11.63

7.75

3.88

00 10 20 30 40Shear (k/ft)

Shear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 37.48 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

-917 psf

-1834.01 psf

-917 psf

-1303.62 psf

Stem Forces [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 14 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 111: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

31

27.9

24.8

21.7

18.6

15.5

12.4

9.3

6.2

3.1

0-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

φMn 494.4 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 325.7 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 0 ft from base

φMn 233.9 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 128.2 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 7.08 ft from base

φMn 233.1 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 128.2 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 7.2 ft from base

φMn 89.14 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.1 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 27.76 ft from base

φMn 85.99 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.1 ft·k ft / = =

Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 27.87 ft from base

Stem Moment Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 15 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 112: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

31

27.9

24.8

21.7

18.6

15.5

12.4

9.3

6.2

3.1

0-80 -53.33 -26.67 0 26.67 53.33 80Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

φVn 63.83 k ft ≥ Vu / 37.48 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 0 ft from base

Stem Shear Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 16 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 113: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

φMn 494.4 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 325.7 ft·k ft / 434.2 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 233.9 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 128.2 ft·k ft / 171 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 7.08 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 31 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.19 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.65 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 50.15 in

2.65 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0425 = = =

εt 0.0425 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.11 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.49 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 41.68 in

1.49 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0640 = = =

εt 0.0640 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 7.08 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.11 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.49 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.37 in

1.49 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0169 = = =

εt 0.0169 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 31 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 15 in 0.0034 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0034 ≥ ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 15 in 45 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 17 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 114: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

DS Embankment Wall Section

MuφMn

325.7 ft·k ft / 494.4 ft·k ft / 0.6587 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.69 in 28.73 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 20.11 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.6587 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 13.25 in = 8 db 8 1.69 in 13.5440 = = 8db minimum controlsldh_prov 21 in ≥ ldh 13.54 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.69 in 2 / + 2.85 in = = cb 2.85 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyF'c

ψt ψe ψs λ cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.85 in 0.0 +

1.69 in

1.69 in 64.08 in = = =

llap 1.3 ld 1.3 64.08 in 83.31 in = = = llap_prov 85 in ≥ llap 83.31 in = = 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 83.31 in 16.6611 > 6.0 = = strans 0 in ≤ 6.0 =

Lap Splice Checks (ACI 318-05 12.14.2.3, 12.15.1, 12.15.2) - #10 lap with #14, from 0 ft to 7.08 ft (from stem base)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.6H] (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 18 of 18 Thursday 11/05/15 2:10 PM

Page 115: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

Page 116: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

Concrete f'c = 5000 psiRebar Fy = 60000 psiUnit Weight = 150 lb/ft³15 in

24 ft

17 ft 4 ft

24 in

19 ft 17

ft

85 in

2 ft

1 ft

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#10 @ 12 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 18 in#14 @ 12 in (lapped dowels)

Heel Bars: #6 @ 12 inToe Bars: #11 @ 6 inFooting S/T Bars: #5 @ 12 in

85 in

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#10 @ 12 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 18 in

Design Detail

Check SummaryRatio Check Provided Required Combination

----- Stability Checks -----0.237 Overturning 6.33 1.50 0.6D + 1.0H0.046 Bearing Pressure 40000 psf 1846 psf 1.0D + 1.0H0.989 Bearing Eccentricity 47.49 in 48 in 1.0D + 1.0H

----- Toe Checks -----0.263 Shear 25.83 k/ft 6.79 k/ft 1.4D + 1.6H0.138 Moment 259.2 ft·k/ft 35.7 ft·k/ft 1.4D + 1.6H0.389 Min Strain 0.0103 0.0040 1.4D + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0.26 in² 0 in² 1.4D + 1.6H0.148 Development 81 in 12 in 1.4D + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.4D + 1.6H0.836 S&T Min Rho 0.0022 0.0018 1.4D + 1.6H

----- Heel Checks -----0.148 Shear 24.98 k/ft 3.69 k/ft 1.4D + 1.6H0.179 Moment 38.35 ft·k/ft 6.86 ft·k/ft 1.4D + 1.6H0.045 Min Strain 0.0880 0.0040 1.4D + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0.04 in² 0 in² 1.4D + 1.6H0.051 Development 236 in 12 in 1.4D + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.4D + 1.6H0.836 S&T Min Rho 0.0022 0.0018 1.4D + 1.6H

----- Stem Checks -----0.153 Moment 322.3 ft·k/ft 49.32 ft·k/ft Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E0.205 Shear 42.2 k/ft 8.63 k/ft Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E0.109 Max Steel 0.0365 0.0040 Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0 in²/in 0 in²/in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H0.645 Base Development 21 in 13.54 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H0.980 Lap Splice Length 85 in 83.31 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H0.000 Lap Splice Spacing 0 in 6 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H0.581 Horz Bar Rho 0.0034 0.0020 Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H0.667 Horz Bar Spacing 12 in 18 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H

Criteria

Building Code IBC 2012Concrete Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (Strength)Masonry Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Stability Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Restrained Against Sliding YesNeglect Bearing At Heel NoUse Vert. Comp. for OT YesUse Vert. Comp. for Sliding YesUse Vert. Comp. for Bearing YesUse Surcharge for Sliding & OT YesUse Surcharge for Bearing YesNeglect Soil Over Toe NoNeglect Backfill Wt. for Coulomb NoFactor Soil Weight As Dead YesUse Passive Force for OT YesAssume Pressure To Top YesExtend Backfill Pressure To Key Bottom YesUse Toe Passive Pressure for Bearing NoRequired F.S. for OT 1.50Required F.S. for Sliding 1.50Has Different Safety Factors for Seismic YesSeismic F.S. for OT 1.20Seismic F.S. for Sliding 1.20Allowable Bearing Pressure 40000 psfReq'd Bearing Location Middle thirdWall Friction Angle 25°Friction Coefficent 0.65Soil Reaction Modulus 288000 lb/ft³

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 1 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 117: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

Loads

16 ft

2 ft

18 ft 16

ft1

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

2 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psfKh = 0.10Kv = 0.05

Loading Options/AssumptionsPassive pressure neglects top 0 ft of soil.

Load Combinations

ASCE 7-10 (Strength) 1.4D + 1.6H 1.4D + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.6H 1.2D + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H 1.4D + 1.6H 1.4D + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E 1.2D + 1.6H 1.2D + 0.9H + 1.0E 1.2D + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H + 1.0E 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H + 1.0E 0.9D + 0.9H

Backfill Pressure

16 ft

2 ft

18 ft 16

ft1

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf -691.33 psf

18 ft

518.5 lb/in

18 ft

6 ft

-614.52 psf

411.8 lb/in409.7 lb/in

42.17 lb/in

5.33

ft

Rankine Active Earth Pressure Theory

Ka tan² 45° φ2 - tan ² 45° 32°

2 - 0.3073 = = =

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 18 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 691.3 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 16 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 614.5 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure (stem only)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 2 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 118: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

Passive Pressure

2 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

813.6 psf 2 ft 67.8 lb/in

0.67 ft

Rankine Passive Earth Pressure Theory

Kp tan² 45° φ2 + tan ² 45° 32°

2 + 3.2546 = = =

σp γ H Kp 2 c Kp + 125 lb ft³ / 2 ft 3.2546 2 0 psf 3.2546 + 813.6 psf = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

Wall/Soil Weights

600 lb/in

265.6 lb/in

185.9 lb/in

666.7 lb/in137.3 lb/in

0 lb/in

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 3 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 119: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

Bearing Pressure

74.77 psf

1832 psf1907 lb/in

15.69 ft

e = 44.24 in

1240 lb/in

F μ R 0.650 1907 lb in / 1240 lb in / = = = Friction

Bearing Pressure CalculationContributing Forces

Vert Force ...offset Horz Force ...offset OT MomentBackfill Pressure -0 lb/in - -518.5 lb/in 6 ft 447983 in·lb/ftSeismic Force -51.61 lb/in 24 ft -86.31 lb/in 10.8 ft -44133.01 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -600 lb/in 12 ft 0 lb/in - -1036800 in·lb/ftStem Weight -265.63 lb/in 17.63 ft 0 lb/in - -674156.25 in·lb/ftStem Weight -185.94 lb/in 18.83 ft 0 lb/in - -504262.5 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -666.67 lb/in 22 ft 0 lb/in - -2112000 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -137.25 lb/in 19.45 ft 0 lb/in - -384442.91 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in - 0 lb/in - -0 in·lb/ft

-1907.09 lb/in -4307811.74 in·lb/ft4307811.74 in·lb ft / -

1907.09 lb in / - 15.69 ft =

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 4 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 120: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 518.5 lb/in 6 ft 447983 in·lb/ft

Total: 447983 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (vert) 0 lb/in 24 ft 0 in·lb/ftPassive pressure @ toe 67.8 lb/in 0.67 ft 6509 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -600 lb/in 12 ft 1036800 in·lb/ftStem Weight -265.63 lb/in 17.63 ft 674156 in·lb/ftStem Weight -185.94 lb/in 18.83 ft 504263 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -666.67 lb/in 22 ft 2112000 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -137.25 lb/in 19.45 ft 384443 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in 8.5 ft 0 in·lb/ft

Total: 4718171 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 4718171 in·lb ft /

447983 in·lb ft / 10.532 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckCheck not performed; restrained against sliding.

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure < allowable (1846 psf < 40000 psf) - OKBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (47.49 in < 48 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.019 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement -0.054 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) -0.035 in

Stability Checks [Max Flood: 1.0D + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 5 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 121: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 518.5 lb/in 6 ft 447983 in·lb/ft

Total: 447983 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (vert) 0 lb/in 24 ft 0 in·lb/ftPassive pressure @ toe 67.8 lb/in 0.67 ft 6509 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -360 lb/in 12 ft 622080 in·lb/ftStem Weight -159.38 lb/in 17.63 ft 404494 in·lb/ftStem Weight -111.56 lb/in 18.83 ft 302558 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -400 lb/in 22 ft 1267200 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -82.35 lb/in 19.45 ft 230666 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in 8.5 ft 0 in·lb/ft

Total: 2833506 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 2833506 in·lb ft /

447983 in·lb ft / 6.325 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckCheck not performed; restrained against sliding.

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure < allowable (1107 psf < 40000 psf) - OKBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (47.49 in < 48 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.019 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement -0.054 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) -0.035 in

Stability Checks [Max Flood: 0.6D + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 6 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 122: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

17

15.3

13.6

11.9

10.2

8.5

6.8

5.1

3.4

1.7

0-350 -283.33 -216.67 -150 -83.33 -16.67 50Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.19 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.65 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.19 in² in / 60000 psi 33.15 in 2.65 in 2 / - 322.3 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.24 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi 33.69 in 0.24 in 2 / - 31.22 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.11 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.49 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.11 in² in / 60000 psi 24.61 in 1.49 in 2 / - 136.4 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 7.08 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.11 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.49 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.11 in² in / 60000 psi 16.37 in 1.49 in 2 / - 89.31 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 13.75 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.24 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi 14 in 0.24 in 2 / - 12.9 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 15.94 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 12.37 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 17 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 12.69 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 17 ft from base [Positive bending]

Stem Flexural Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 7 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 123: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

17

15.3

13.6

11.9

10.2

8.5

6.8

5.1

3.4

1.7

0-50 -33.33 -16.67 0 16.67 33.33 50Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 33.15 in 56.26 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 56.26 k ft / 42.2 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 33.15 in 56.26 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 56.26 k ft / 42.2 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Negative shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.37 in 20.98 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 20.98 k ft / 15.74 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 17 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.37 in 20.98 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 20.98 k ft / 15.74 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 17 ft from base [Negative shear]

Stem Shear Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 8 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 124: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.27 in 21.55 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 15.09 in = 8 db 8 1.27 in 10.160 minimum limit, does not control = =

Main vertical stem bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.27 in 2 / + 2.63 in = = cb 2.63 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 2.63 in 0.0 +

1.27 in

1.27 in 38.95 in = = =

Main vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.69 in 2 / + 2.85 in = = cb 2.85 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 2.85 in 0.0 +

1.69 in

1.69 in 64.08 in = = =

Dowels for vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.63 in 10.61 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 7.42 in = 8 db 8 0.63 in 5.0 minimum limit, does not control = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 9 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 125: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 18 in 2 / 9 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.63 in 2 / + 2.31 in = = cb 2.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 3.70 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 10 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 126: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 28.99 ft·k ft < Mstem / 41.95 ft·k ft / = = Mu 28.99 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 3.67 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi 20.3 in 3.67 in 2 / - 259.2 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 259.2 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 28.99 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 20.3 in 34.44 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 34.44 k ft / 25.83 k ft / = = = φVn 25.83 k ft ≥ Vu / 6.3 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 3.67 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 20.3 in

3.67 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0103 = = =

εt 0.0103 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 259.2 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 28.99 ft·k ft / 38.65 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

28.99 ft·k ft / 259.2 ft·k ft / 0.1119 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 1.41 in 2 / + 3.71 in = = cb 3 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 3 in 0.0 +

1.41 in

1.41 in 42.17 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.1119 per 12.2.5: ld 4.72 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 81 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

24 in #11 @ 6 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf

9.86 psf1310 psf

Toe Factored Loads

24 in #11 @ 6 in

Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H

420 psf (Self-wt)

13.8 psf1834 psf

13.8 psf

1834 psf

8.57 k/ft

Toe Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 11 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 127: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 6.23 ft·k ft < Mstem / 41.95 ft·k ft / = = Mu 6.23 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi 19.63 in 0.52 in 2 / - 38.35 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 38.35 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 6.23 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 19.63 in 33.3 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 33.3 k ft / 24.98 k ft / = = = φVn 24.98 k ft ≥ Vu / 3.4 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 19.63 in

0.52 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0880 = = =

εt 0.0880 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 38.35 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 6.23 ft·k ft / 8.31 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

6.23 ft·k ft / 38.35 ft·k ft / 0.1625 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.30 more than 12 inches cast below 19.25 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 4 in 0.75 in 2 / + 4.38 in = = cb 4.38 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 4.38 in 0.0 +

0.75 in 5.8333 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.30 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.75 in 19.86 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.1625 per 12.2.5: ld 3.23 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 236 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads24 in

#6 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf (Concrete self-wt)2000 psf (Soil weight)

1540 psf 1846 psf

Heel Factored Loads

24 in

#6 @ 12 in

Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H

420 psf (Concrete self-wt)2800 psf (Soil weight)

2584-2156 psf (Bearing pressure)

2156 psf 2584 psf3.4 k/ft

Heel Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 12 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 128: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

Stem Internal Forces

-978.06 psf7.87 k/ft

-41.95 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

17

14.88

12.75

10.63

8.5

6.38

4.25

2.13

0-50 -37.5 -25 -12.5 0Moment (ft·k/ft)

Moment

Stem Internal Forces

17

14.88

12.75

10.63

8.5

6.38

4.25

2.13

00 2 4 6 8Shear (k/ft)

Shear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 7.87 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

-978.06 psf

Stem Forces [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 13 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 129: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

17

15.3

13.6

11.9

10.2

8.5

6.8

5.1

3.4

1.7

0-350 -283.33 -216.67 -150 -83.33 -16.67 50Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

φMn 322.3 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 41.95 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 0 ft from base

φMn 136.4 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 7.37 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 7.08 ft from base

φMn 135.5 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 6.95 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 7.21 ft from base

φMn 89.31 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.12 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 13.75 ft from base

φMn 85.04 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.09 ft·k ft / = =

Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 13.91 ft from base

Stem Moment Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 14 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 130: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

17

15.3

13.6

11.9

10.2

8.5

6.8

5.1

3.4

1.7

0-50 -33.33 -16.67 0 16.67 33.33 50Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

φVn 42.2 k ft ≥ Vu / 7.87 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 0 ft from base

Stem Shear Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 15 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 131: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

φMn 322.3 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 41.95 ft·k ft / 55.93 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 136.4 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 7.37 ft·k ft / 9.82 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 7.08 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 17 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.19 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.65 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 33.15 in

2.65 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0271 = = =

εt 0.0271 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.11 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.49 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 24.61 in

1.49 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0365 = = =

εt 0.0365 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 7.08 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.11 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.49 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.37 in

1.49 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0169 = = =

εt 0.0169 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 17 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 15 in 0.0034 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0034 ≥ ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 15 in 45 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 16 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 132: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

MuφMn

41.95 ft·k ft / 322.3 ft·k ft / 0.1302 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.69 in 28.73 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 20.11 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.1302 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 2.62 in = 8 db 8 1.69 in 13.5440 = = 8db minimum controlsldh_prov 21 in ≥ ldh 13.54 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.69 in 2 / + 2.85 in = = cb 2.85 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyF'c

ψt ψe ψs λ cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.85 in 0.0 +

1.69 in

1.69 in 64.08 in = = =

llap 1.3 ld 1.3 64.08 in 83.31 in = = = llap_prov 85 in ≥ llap 83.31 in = = 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 83.31 in 16.6611 > 6.0 = = strans 0 in ≤ 6.0 =

Lap Splice Checks (ACI 318-05 12.14.2.3, 12.15.1, 12.15.2) - #10 lap with #14, from 0 ft to 7.08 ft (from stem base)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H] (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 17 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 133: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 35.7 ft·k ft < Mstem / 41.95 ft·k ft / = = Mu 35.7 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 3.67 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi 20.3 in 3.67 in 2 / - 259.2 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 259.2 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 35.7 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 20.3 in 34.44 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 34.44 k ft / 25.83 k ft / = = = φVn 25.83 k ft ≥ Vu / 6.79 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 3.67 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 20.3 in

3.67 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0103 = = =

εt 0.0103 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 259.2 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 35.7 ft·k ft / 47.61 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

35.7 ft·k ft / 259.2 ft·k ft / 0.1378 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 1.41 in 2 / + 3.71 in = = cb 3 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 3 in 0.0 +

1.41 in

1.41 in 42.17 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.1378 per 12.2.5: ld 5.81 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 81 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

24 in #11 @ 6 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf

74.77 psf1320 psf

Toe Factored Loads

24 in #11 @ 6 in

Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H

420 psf (Self-wt)

101.8 psf1798 psf

9.01 k/ft

Toe Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 18 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 134: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 6.86 ft·k ft < Mstem / 41.95 ft·k ft / = = Mu 6.86 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi 19.63 in 0.52 in 2 / - 38.35 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 38.35 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 6.86 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 19.63 in 33.3 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 33.3 k ft / 24.98 k ft / = = = φVn 24.98 k ft ≥ Vu / 3.69 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 19.63 in

0.52 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0880 = = =

εt 0.0880 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 38.35 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 6.86 ft·k ft / 9.14 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

6.86 ft·k ft / 38.35 ft·k ft / 0.1788 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.30 more than 12 inches cast below 19.25 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 4 in 0.75 in 2 / + 4.38 in = = cb 4.38 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 4.38 in 0.0 +

0.75 in 5.8333 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.30 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.75 in 19.86 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.1788 per 12.2.5: ld 3.55 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 236 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads24 in

#6 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf (Concrete self-wt)2000 psf (Soil weight)

1539 psf 1832 psf

Heel Factored Loads

24 in

#6 @ 12 in

Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H

420 psf (Concrete self-wt)2800 psf (Soil weight)

2496-2097 psf (Bearing pressure)

2097 psf 2496 psf3.69 k/ft

Heel Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 19 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 135: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

Stem Internal Forces

-978.06 psf7.87 k/ft

-41.95 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

17

14.88

12.75

10.63

8.5

6.38

4.25

2.13

0-50 -37.5 -25 -12.5 0Moment (ft·k/ft)

Moment

Stem Internal Forces

17

14.88

12.75

10.63

8.5

6.38

4.25

2.13

00 2 4 6 8Shear (k/ft)

Shear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 7.87 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

-978.06 psf

Stem Forces [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 20 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 136: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

17

15.3

13.6

11.9

10.2

8.5

6.8

5.1

3.4

1.7

0-350 -283.33 -216.67 -150 -83.33 -16.67 50Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

φMn 322.3 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 41.95 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 0 ft from base

φMn 136.4 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 7.37 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 7.08 ft from base

φMn 135.5 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 6.95 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 7.21 ft from base

φMn 89.31 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.12 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 13.75 ft from base

φMn 85.04 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.09 ft·k ft / = =

Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 13.91 ft from base

Stem Moment Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 21 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 137: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

17

15.3

13.6

11.9

10.2

8.5

6.8

5.1

3.4

1.7

0-50 -33.33 -16.67 0 16.67 33.33 50Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

φVn 42.2 k ft ≥ Vu / 7.87 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 0 ft from base

Stem Shear Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 22 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 138: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

φMn 322.3 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 41.95 ft·k ft / 55.93 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 136.4 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 7.37 ft·k ft / 9.82 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 7.08 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 17 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.19 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.65 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 33.15 in

2.65 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0271 = = =

εt 0.0271 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.11 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.49 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 24.61 in

1.49 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0365 = = =

εt 0.0365 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 7.08 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.11 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.49 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.37 in

1.49 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0169 = = =

εt 0.0169 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 17 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 15 in 0.0034 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0034 ≥ ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 15 in 45 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 23 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 139: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

MuφMn

41.95 ft·k ft / 322.3 ft·k ft / 0.1302 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.69 in 28.73 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 20.11 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.1302 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 2.62 in = 8 db 8 1.69 in 13.5440 = = 8db minimum controlsldh_prov 21 in ≥ ldh 13.54 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.69 in 2 / + 2.85 in = = cb 2.85 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyF'c

ψt ψe ψs λ cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.85 in 0.0 +

1.69 in

1.69 in 64.08 in = = =

llap 1.3 ld 1.3 64.08 in 83.31 in = = = llap_prov 85 in ≥ llap 83.31 in = = 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 83.31 in 16.6611 > 6.0 = = strans 0 in ≤ 6.0 =

Lap Splice Checks (ACI 318-05 12.14.2.3, 12.15.1, 12.15.2) - #10 lap with #14, from 0 ft to 7.08 ft (from stem base)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H] (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 24 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 140: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 32.52 ft·k ft < Mstem / 49.32 ft·k ft / = = Mu 32.52 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 3.67 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi 20.3 in 3.67 in 2 / - 259.2 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 259.2 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 32.52 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 20.3 in 34.44 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 34.44 k ft / 25.83 k ft / = = = φVn 25.83 k ft ≥ Vu / 6.08 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.26 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 3.67 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 20.3 in

3.67 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0103 = = =

εt 0.0103 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 259.2 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 32.52 ft·k ft / 43.36 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

32.52 ft·k ft / 259.2 ft·k ft / 0.1255 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 6 in 2 / 3 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 1.41 in 2 / + 3.71 in = = cb 3 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 3 in 0.0 +

1.41 in

1.41 in 42.17 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.1255 per 12.2.5: ld 5.29 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 81 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

24 in #11 @ 6 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf

74.77 psf1320 psf

Toe Factored Loads

24 in #11 @ 6 in

Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E

360 psf (Self-wt)

89.32 psf1577 psf

32.52 ft·k/ft

8.04 k/ft

Toe Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 25 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 141: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 5.5 ft·k ft < Mstem / 49.32 ft·k ft / = = Mu 5.5 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi 19.63 in 0.52 in 2 / - 38.35 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 38.35 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 5.5 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 19.63 in 33.3 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 33.3 k ft / 24.98 k ft / = = = φVn 24.98 k ft ≥ Vu / 2.98 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 19.63 in

0.52 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0880 = = =

εt 0.0880 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 38.35 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 5.5 ft·k ft / 7.34 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

5.5 ft·k ft / 38.35 ft·k ft / 0.1435 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.30 more than 12 inches cast below 19.25 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 4 in 0.75 in 2 / + 4.38 in = = cb 4.38 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 4.38 in 0.0 +

0.75 in 5.8333 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.30 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.75 in 19.86 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.1435 per 12.2.5: ld 2.85 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 236 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads24 in

#6 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf (Concrete self-wt)2000 psf (Soil weight)

1539 psf 1832 psf

Heel Factored Loads

24 in

#6 @ 12 in

Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E

360 psf (Concrete self-wt)2400 psf (Soil weight)

2189-1839 psf (Bearing pressure)

2400 psf

2.98 k/ft

Heel Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 26 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 142: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

Stem Internal Forces

-978.06 psf-19.1 psf

-76.4 psf

8.63 k/ft

-49.32 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

17

14.88

12.75

10.63

8.5

6.38

4.25

2.13

0-50 -37.5 -25 -12.5 0Moment (ft·k/ft)

Moment

Stem Internal Forces

17

14.88

12.75

10.63

8.5

6.38

4.25

2.13

00 2.25 4.5 6.75 9Shear (k/ft)

Shear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 8.63 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

-978.06 psf -19.1 psf

-76.4 psf

Stem Forces [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 27 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 143: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

17

15.3

13.6

11.9

10.2

8.5

6.8

5.1

3.4

1.7

0-350 -283.33 -216.67 -150 -83.33 -16.67 50Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

φMn 322.3 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 49.32 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 0 ft from base

φMn 136.4 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 10.02 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 7.08 ft from base

φMn 135.5 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 9.51 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 7.21 ft from base

φMn 89.31 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.31 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 13.75 ft from base

φMn 85.04 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.26 ft·k ft / = =

Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 13.91 ft from base

Stem Moment Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 28 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 144: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

17

15.3

13.6

11.9

10.2

8.5

6.8

5.1

3.4

1.7

0-50 -33.33 -16.67 0 16.67 33.33 50Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

φVn 42.2 k ft ≥ Vu / 8.63 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 0 ft from base

Stem Shear Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 29 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 145: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

φMn 322.3 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 49.32 ft·k ft / 65.76 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 136.4 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 10.02 ft·k ft / 13.36 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 7.08 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 17 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.19 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 2.65 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 33.15 in

2.65 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0271 = = =

εt 0.0271 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.11 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.49 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 24.61 in

1.49 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0365 = = =

εt 0.0365 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 7.08 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.11 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.49 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.37 in

1.49 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0169 = = =

εt 0.0169 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 17 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 15 in 0.0034 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0034 ≥ ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 15 in 45 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 30 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 146: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Check DS Embankment Section-17'

MuφMn

49.32 ft·k ft / 322.3 ft·k ft / 0.1530 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.69 in 28.73 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 20.11 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.1530 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 3.08 in = 8 db 8 1.69 in 13.5440 = = 8db minimum controlsldh_prov 21 in ≥ ldh 13.54 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.69 in 2 / + 2.85 in = = cb 2.85 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyF'c

ψt ψe ψs λ cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.85 in 0.0 +

1.69 in

1.69 in 64.08 in = = =

llap 1.3 ld 1.3 64.08 in 83.31 in = = = llap_prov 85 in ≥ llap 83.31 in = = 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 83.31 in 16.6611 > 6.0 = = strans 0 in ≤ 6.0 =

Lap Splice Checks (ACI 318-05 12.14.2.3, 12.15.1, 12.15.2) - #10 lap with #14, from 0 ft to 7.08 ft (from stem base)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E] (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 31 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:20 PM

Page 147: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Spillway Wall Section 1

Page 148: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

Concrete f'c = 5000 psiRebar Fy = 60000 psiUnit Weight = 150 lb/ft³15 in

13.25 ft

10 ft2 ft

24 in

19 ft 17

ft

42 in

2 ft

1 ft

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#7 @ 12 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 18 in#9 @ 12 in (lapped dowels)

Heel Bars: #5 @ 12 inToe Bars: #8 @ 12 inFooting S/T Bars: #5 @ 12 in

42 in

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#7 @ 12 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 18 in

Design Detail

Check SummaryRatio Check Provided Required Combination

----- Stability Checks -----0.848 Overturning 1.77 1.50 0.6D + 1.0H0.030 Bearing Pressure 40000 psf 1211 psf 1.0D + 1.0H + 0.7E0.395 Bearing Eccentricity 10.46 in 26.5 in 1.0D + 1.0H + 0.7E

----- Toe Checks -----0.296 Shear 26.09 k/ft 7.74 k/ft 1.4D + 1.6H0.627 Moment 71.23 ft·k/ft 44.67 ft·k/ft 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E0.080 Min Strain 0.0499 0.0040 1.4D + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0.07 in² 0 in² 1.4D + 1.6H0.443 Development 36 in 15.96 in 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.4D + 1.6H0.836 S&T Min Rho 0.0022 0.0018 1.4D + 1.6H

----- Heel Checks -----0.194 Shear 25.06 k/ft 4.87 k/ft 1.4D + 1.6H0.181 Moment 27.21 ft·k/ft 4.92 ft·k/ft 1.4D + 1.6H0.032 Min Strain 0.1266 0.0040 1.4D + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0.03 in² 0 in² 1.4D + 1.6H0.092 Development 131 in 12 in 1.4D + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.4D + 1.6H0.836 S&T Min Rho 0.0022 0.0018 1.4D + 1.6H

----- Stem Checks -----0.936 Moment 53.31 ft·k/ft 49.9 ft·k/ft Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E0.549 Shear 15.83 k/ft 8.69 k/ft Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E0.101 Max Steel 0.0397 0.0040 Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H0.888 Min Steel 0.05 in²/in 0.04 in²/in Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E0.597 Base Development 21 in 12.54 in Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E0.978 Lap Splice Length 42 in 41.06 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H0.000 Lap Splice Spacing 0 in 6 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H0.581 Horz Bar Rho 0.0034 0.0020 Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H0.667 Horz Bar Spacing 12 in 18 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H

Criteria

Building Code IBC 2012Concrete Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (Strength)Masonry Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Stability Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Restrained Against Sliding YesNeglect Bearing At Heel NoUse Vert. Comp. for OT YesUse Vert. Comp. for Sliding YesUse Vert. Comp. for Bearing YesUse Surcharge for Sliding & OT YesUse Surcharge for Bearing YesNeglect Soil Over Toe NoNeglect Backfill Wt. for Coulomb NoFactor Soil Weight As Dead YesUse Passive Force for OT YesAssume Pressure To Top YesExtend Backfill Pressure To Key Bottom YesUse Toe Passive Pressure for Bearing NoRequired F.S. for OT 1.50Required F.S. for Sliding 1.50Has Different Safety Factors for Seismic YesSeismic F.S. for OT 1.20Seismic F.S. for Sliding 1.20Allowable Bearing Pressure 40000 psfReq'd Bearing Location Middle thirdWall Friction Angle 25°Friction Coefficent 0.65Soil Reaction Modulus 288000 lb/ft³

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 1 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 149: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

Loads

16 ft

2 ft

18 ft 16

ft1

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

2 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psfKh = 0.10Kv = 0.05

Loading Options/AssumptionsPassive pressure neglects top 0 ft of soil.

Load Combinations

ASCE 7-10 (Strength) 1.4D + 1.6H 1.4D + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.6H 1.2D + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H 1.4D + 1.6H 1.4D + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E 1.2D + 1.6H 1.2D + 0.9H + 1.0E 1.2D + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H + 1.0E 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H + 1.0E 0.9D + 0.9H

Backfill Pressure

16 ft

2 ft

18 ft 16

ft1

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf -691.33 psf

18 ft

518.5 lb/in

18 ft

6 ft

-614.52 psf

409.7 lb/in

5.33

ftRankine Active Earth Pressure Theory

Ka tan² 45° φ2 - tan ² 45° 32°

2 - 0.3073 = = =

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 18 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 691.3 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 16 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 614.5 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure (stem only)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 2 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 150: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

Passive Pressure2

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

813.6 psf 2 ft 67.8 lb/in

0.67 ft

Rankine Passive Earth Pressure Theory

Kp tan² 45° φ2 + tan ² 45° 32°

2 + 3.2546 = = =

σp γ H Kp 2 c Kp + 125 lb ft³ / 2 ft 3.2546 2 0 psf 3.2546 + 813.6 psf = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

Wall/Soil Weights

331.3 lb/in

265.6 lb/in 333.3 lb/in

0 lb/in

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 3 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 151: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

Bearing Pressure

1226 psf532.1 psf

970.9 lb/in

5.75 ft

e = 10.46 in

631.1 lb/in

F μ R 0.650 970.9 lb in / 631.1 lb in / = = = Friction

Bearing Pressure CalculationContributing Forces

Vert Force ...offset Horz Force ...offset OT MomentBackfill Pressure -0 lb/in - -518.5 lb/in 6 ft 447983 in·lb/ftSeismic Force -40.7 lb/in 13.25 ft -87.29 lb/in 10.8 ft 58089 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -331.25 lb/in 6.63 ft 0 lb/in - -316012.5 in·lb/ftStem Weight -265.63 lb/in 10.63 ft 0 lb/in - -406406.25 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -333.33 lb/in 12.25 ft 0 lb/in - -588000 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in - 0 lb/in - -0 in·lb/ft

-970.91 lb/in -804347.23 in·lb/ft804347.23 in·lb ft / -

970.91 lb in / - 5.75 ft =

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 4 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 152: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 518.5 lb/in 6 ft 447983 in·lb/ft

Total: 447983 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (vert) 0 lb/in 13.25 ft 0 in·lb/ftPassive pressure @ toe 67.8 lb/in 0.67 ft 6509 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -331.25 lb/in 6.63 ft 316013 in·lb/ftStem Weight -265.63 lb/in 10.63 ft 406406 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -333.33 lb/in 12.25 ft 588000 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in 5 ft 0 in·lb/ft

Total: 1316928 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 1316928 in·lb ft /

447983 in·lb ft / 2.940 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckCheck not performed; restrained against sliding.

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure < allowable (913.6 psf < 40000 psf) - OKBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (2.24 in < 26.5 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.184 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement 0.008 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.191 in

Stability Checks [Max Flood: 1.0D + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 5 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 153: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 518.5 lb/in 6 ft 447983 in·lb/ft

Total: 447983 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (vert) 0 lb/in 13.25 ft 0 in·lb/ftPassive pressure @ toe 67.8 lb/in 0.67 ft 6509 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -198.75 lb/in 6.63 ft 189608 in·lb/ftStem Weight -159.38 lb/in 10.63 ft 243844 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -200 lb/in 12.25 ft 352800 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in 5 ft 0 in·lb/ft

Total: 792760 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 792760 in·lb ft /

447983 in·lb ft / 1.770 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckCheck not performed; restrained against sliding.

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure < allowable (548.2 psf < 40000 psf) - OKBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (2.24 in < 26.5 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.184 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement 0.008 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.191 in

Stability Checks [Max Flood: 0.6D + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 6 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 154: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

17

15.3

13.6

11.9

10.2

8.5

6.8

5.1

3.4

1.7

0-60 -46.67 -33.33 -20 -6.67 6.67 20Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.08 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.18 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.08 in² in / 60000 psi 12.44 in 1.18 in 2 / - 53.31 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.24 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi 12.69 in 0.24 in 2 / - 11.69 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.05 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.71 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.05 in² in / 60000 psi 12.56 in 0.71 in 2 / - 32.97 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 3.5 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.05 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.71 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.05 in² in / 60000 psi 12.56 in 0.71 in 2 / - 32.97 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 15.14 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.24 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi 12.69 in 0.24 in 2 / - 11.69 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 15.94 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 12.56 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 17 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 12.69 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 17 ft from base [Positive bending]

Stem Flexural Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 7 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 155: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

17

15.3

13.6

11.9

10.2

8.5

6.8

5.1

3.4

1.7

0-20 -13.33 -6.67 0 6.67 13.33 20Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.44 in 21.1 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 21.1 k ft / 15.83 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.44 in 21.1 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 21.1 k ft / 15.83 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Negative shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.56 in 21.32 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 21.32 k ft / 15.99 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 17 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.56 in 21.32 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 21.32 k ft / 15.99 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 17 ft from base [Negative shear]

Stem Shear Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 8 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 156: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.88 in 14.85 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 10.39 in = 8 db 8 0.88 in 7.0 minimum limit, does not control = =

Main vertical stem bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.88 in 2 / + 2.44 in = = cb 2.44 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.44 in 0.0 +

0.88 in 2.7857 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 1.0

2.5 0.88 in 22.27 in = = =

Main vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.13 in 2 / + 2.56 in = = cb 2.56 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi1.0 5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 2.56 in 0.0 +

1.13 in

1.13 in 31.58 in = = =

Dowels for vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.63 in 10.61 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 7.42 in = 8 db 8 0.63 in 5.0 minimum limit, does not control = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 9 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 157: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 18 in 2 / 9 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.63 in 2 / + 2.31 in = = cb 2.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 3.70 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 10 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 158: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 40.45 ft·k ft < Mstem / 41.95 ft·k ft / = = Mu 40.45 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.07 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.93 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.07 in² in / 60000 psi 20.5 in 0.93 in 2 / - 71.23 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 71.23 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 40.45 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 20.5 in 34.79 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 34.79 k ft / 26.09 k ft / = = = φVn 26.09 k ft ≥ Vu / 6.6 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.07 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.93 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 20.5 in

0.93 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0499 = = =

εt 0.0499 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 71.23 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 40.45 ft·k ft / 53.93 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

40.45 ft·k ft / 71.23 ft·k ft / 0.5679 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 1 in 2 / + 3.5 in = = cb 3.5 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 3.5 in 0.0 +

1 in 3.50 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 1.0

2.5 1 in 25.46 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.5679 per 12.2.5: ld 14.46 in = ld_prov 36 in ≥ ld 14.46 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

24 in #8 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf

913.6 psf 806.2 psf

Toe Factored Loads

24 in #8 @ 12 in

Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H

420 psf (Self-wt)

1279 psf 1129 psf1279 psf 1129 psf

7.84 k/ft

Toe Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 11 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 159: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 4.26 ft·k ft < Mstem / 41.95 ft·k ft / = = Mu 4.26 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 19.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 27.21 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 27.21 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 4.26 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 19.69 in 33.41 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 33.41 k ft / 25.06 k ft / = = = φVn 25.06 k ft ≥ Vu / 4.25 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 19.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.1266 = = =

εt 0.1266 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 27.21 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 4.26 ft·k ft / 5.68 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

4.26 ft·k ft / 27.21 ft·k ft / 0.1566 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.30 more than 12 inches cast below 19.38 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 4 in 0.63 in 2 / + 4.31 in = = cb 4.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 4.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 6.90 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.30 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 16.55 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.1566 per 12.2.5: ld 2.59 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 131 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf (Concrete self-wt)2000 psf (Soil weight)

792.8 psf 771.3 psf

Heel Factored Loads

24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H

420 psf (Concrete self-wt)2800 psf (Soil weight)

1080-1110 psf (Bearing pressure)

1110 psf1080 psf4.25 k/ft

Heel Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 12 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 160: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

Stem Internal Forces

-983.23 psf7.87 k/ft

-41.95 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

17

14.88

12.75

10.63

8.5

6.38

4.25

2.13

0-50 -37.5 -25 -12.5 0Moment (ft·k/ft)

Moment

Stem Internal Forces

17

14.88

12.75

10.63

8.5

6.38

4.25

2.13

00 2 4 6 8Shear (k/ft)

Shear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 7.87 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

-983.23 psf

Stem Forces [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 13 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 161: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

17

15.3

13.6

11.9

10.2

8.5

6.8

5.1

3.4

1.7

0-60 -46.67 -33.33 -20 -6.67 6.67 20Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

φMn 53.31 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 41.95 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 0 ft from base

φMn 32.97 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 20.32 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 3.5 ft from base

φMn 32.97 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 19.5 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 3.61 ft from base

φMn 32.97 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.01 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 15.14 ft from base

φMn 30.5 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0 ft·k ft / = =

Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 15.28 ft from base

Stem Moment Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 14 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 162: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

17

15.3

13.6

11.9

10.2

8.5

6.8

5.1

3.4

1.7

0-20 -13.33 -6.67 0 6.67 13.33 20Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

φVn 15.83 k ft ≥ Vu / 7.87 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 0 ft from base

Stem Shear Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 15 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 163: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

φMn 53.31 ft·k ft < 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 41.95 ft·k ft / 55.93 ft·k ft / = = =

As_min3 F'c

fyd 3 5000 psi

60000 psi 12.44 in 0.04 in² in / = = =

200 d fy / 200 12.44 in 60000 psi / 0.04 in² in / = = As 0.08 in² in ≥ As_min / 0.04 in² in / = =

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 32.97 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 20.32 ft·k ft / 27.09 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 3.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 17 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.08 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.18 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.44 in

1.18 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0224 = = =

εt 0.0224 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.05 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.71 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.56 in

0.71 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0397 = = =

εt 0.0397 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 3.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.05 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.71 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.56 in

0.71 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0397 = = =

εt 0.0397 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 17 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 15 in 0.0034 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0034 ≥ ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 15 in 45 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 16 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 164: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

MuφMn

41.95 ft·k ft / 53.31 ft·k ft / 0.7869 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.13 in 19.14 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 13.4 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.7869 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 10.54 in = 8 db 8 1.13 in 9.0240 minimum limit, does not control = = ldh_prov 21 in ≥ ldh 10.54 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.13 in 2 / + 2.56 in = = cb 2.56 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyF'c

ψt ψe ψs λ cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.56 in 0.0 +

1.13 in

1.13 in 31.58 in = = =

llap 1.3 ld 1.3 31.58 in 41.06 in = = = llap_prov 42 in ≥ llap 41.06 in = = 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 41.06 in 8.2111 > 6.0 = = strans 0 in ≤ 6.0 =

Lap Splice Checks (ACI 318-05 12.14.2.3, 12.15.1, 12.15.2) - #7 lap with #9, from 0 ft to 3.5 ft (from stem base)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H] (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 17 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 165: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 49.54 ft·k ft ≥ Mstem / 41.95 ft·k ft / = = Mu 41.95 ft·k ft stem base moment controls / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.07 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.93 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.07 in² in / 60000 psi 20.5 in 0.93 in 2 / - 71.23 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 71.23 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 41.95 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 20.5 in 34.79 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 34.79 k ft / 26.09 k ft / = = = φVn 26.09 k ft ≥ Vu / 7.74 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.07 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.93 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 20.5 in

0.93 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0499 = = =

εt 0.0499 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 71.23 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 41.95 ft·k ft / 55.93 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

41.95 ft·k ft / 71.23 ft·k ft / 0.5890 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 1 in 2 / + 3.5 in = = cb 3.5 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 3.5 in 0.0 +

1 in 3.50 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 1.0

2.5 1 in 25.46 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.5890 per 12.2.5: ld 14.99 in = ld_prov 36 in ≥ ld 14.99 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

24 in #8 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf

1226 psf 702.5 psf

Toe Factored Loads

24 in #8 @ 12 in

Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H

420 psf (Self-wt)

1645 psf 942.2 psf1645 psf

942.2 psf

8.74 k/ft

Toe Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 18 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 166: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 4.92 ft·k ft < Mstem / 41.95 ft·k ft / = = Mu 4.92 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 19.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 27.21 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 27.21 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 4.92 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 19.69 in 33.41 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 33.41 k ft / 25.06 k ft / = = = φVn 25.06 k ft ≥ Vu / 4.87 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 19.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.1266 = = =

εt 0.1266 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 27.21 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 4.92 ft·k ft / 6.56 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

4.92 ft·k ft / 27.21 ft·k ft / 0.1808 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.30 more than 12 inches cast below 19.38 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 4 in 0.63 in 2 / + 4.31 in = = cb 4.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 4.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 6.90 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.30 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 16.55 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.1808 per 12.2.5: ld 2.99 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 131 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf (Concrete self-wt)2000 psf (Soil weight)

636.9 psf 532.1 psf

Heel Factored Loads

24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H

420 psf (Concrete self-wt)2800 psf (Soil weight)

713.8-854.3 psf (Bearing pressure)

854.3 psf713.8 psf4.87 k/ft

Heel Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 19 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 167: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

Stem Internal Forces

-983.23 psf7.87 k/ft

-41.95 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

17

14.88

12.75

10.63

8.5

6.38

4.25

2.13

0-50 -37.5 -25 -12.5 0Moment (ft·k/ft)

Moment

Stem Internal Forces

17

14.88

12.75

10.63

8.5

6.38

4.25

2.13

00 2 4 6 8Shear (k/ft)

Shear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 7.87 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

-983.23 psf

Stem Forces [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 20 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 168: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

17

15.3

13.6

11.9

10.2

8.5

6.8

5.1

3.4

1.7

0-60 -46.67 -33.33 -20 -6.67 6.67 20Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

φMn 53.31 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 41.95 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 0 ft from base

φMn 32.97 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 20.32 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 3.5 ft from base

φMn 32.97 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 19.5 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 3.61 ft from base

φMn 32.97 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.01 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 15.14 ft from base

φMn 30.5 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0 ft·k ft / = =

Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 15.28 ft from base

Stem Moment Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 21 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 169: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

17

15.3

13.6

11.9

10.2

8.5

6.8

5.1

3.4

1.7

0-20 -13.33 -6.67 0 6.67 13.33 20Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

φVn 15.83 k ft ≥ Vu / 7.87 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 0 ft from base

Stem Shear Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 22 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 170: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

φMn 53.31 ft·k ft < 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 41.95 ft·k ft / 55.93 ft·k ft / = = =

As_min3 F'c

fyd 3 5000 psi

60000 psi 12.44 in 0.04 in² in / = = =

200 d fy / 200 12.44 in 60000 psi / 0.04 in² in / = = As 0.08 in² in ≥ As_min / 0.04 in² in / = =

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 32.97 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 20.32 ft·k ft / 27.09 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 3.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 17 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.08 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.18 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.44 in

1.18 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0224 = = =

εt 0.0224 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.05 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.71 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.56 in

0.71 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0397 = = =

εt 0.0397 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 3.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.05 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.71 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.56 in

0.71 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0397 = = =

εt 0.0397 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 17 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 15 in 0.0034 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0034 ≥ ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 15 in 45 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 23 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 171: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

MuφMn

41.95 ft·k ft / 53.31 ft·k ft / 0.7869 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.13 in 19.14 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 13.4 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.7869 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 10.54 in = 8 db 8 1.13 in 9.0240 minimum limit, does not control = = ldh_prov 21 in ≥ ldh 10.54 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.13 in 2 / + 2.56 in = = cb 2.56 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyF'c

ψt ψe ψs λ cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.56 in 0.0 +

1.13 in

1.13 in 31.58 in = = =

llap 1.3 ld 1.3 31.58 in 41.06 in = = = llap_prov 42 in ≥ llap 41.06 in = = 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 41.06 in 8.2111 > 6.0 = = strans 0 in ≤ 6.0 =

Lap Splice Checks (ACI 318-05 12.14.2.3, 12.15.1, 12.15.2) - #7 lap with #9, from 0 ft to 3.5 ft (from stem base)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H] (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 24 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 172: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 44.67 ft·k ft < Mstem / 49.9 ft·k ft / = = Mu 44.67 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.07 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.93 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.07 in² in / 60000 psi 20.5 in 0.93 in 2 / - 71.23 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 71.23 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 44.67 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 20.5 in 34.79 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 34.79 k ft / 26.09 k ft / = = = φVn 26.09 k ft ≥ Vu / 6.98 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.07 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.93 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 20.5 in

0.93 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0499 = = =

εt 0.0499 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 71.23 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 44.67 ft·k ft / 59.56 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

44.67 ft·k ft / 71.23 ft·k ft / 0.6271 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 1 in 2 / + 3.5 in = = cb 3.5 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 3.5 in 0.0 +

1 in 3.50 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 1.0

2.5 1 in 25.46 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.6271 per 12.2.5: ld 15.96 in = ld_prov 36 in ≥ ld 15.96 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

24 in #8 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf

1226 psf 702.5 psf

Toe Factored Loads

24 in #8 @ 12 in

Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E

360 psf (Self-wt)

1462 psf 837.1 psf1462 psf

837.1 psf

7.89 k/ft

Toe Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 25 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 173: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 4.17 ft·k ft < Mstem / 49.9 ft·k ft / = = Mu 4.17 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 19.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 27.21 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 27.21 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 4.17 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 19.69 in 33.41 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 33.41 k ft / 25.06 k ft / = = = φVn 25.06 k ft ≥ Vu / 4.13 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 19.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.1266 = = =

εt 0.1266 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 27.21 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 4.17 ft·k ft / 5.56 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

4.17 ft·k ft / 27.21 ft·k ft / 0.1532 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.30 more than 12 inches cast below 19.38 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 4 in 0.63 in 2 / + 4.31 in = = cb 4.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 4.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 6.90 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.30 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 16.55 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.1532 per 12.2.5: ld 2.53 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 131 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf (Concrete self-wt)2000 psf (Soil weight)

636.9 psf 532.1 psf

Heel Factored Loads

24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E

360 psf (Concrete self-wt)2400 psf (Soil weight)

634.1-759 psf (Bearing pressure)

759 psf634.1 psf4.13 k/ft

Heel Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 26 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 174: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

Stem Internal Forces

-983.23 psf-20.69 psf

-82.76 psf

8.69 k/ft

-49.9 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

17

14.88

12.75

10.63

8.5

6.38

4.25

2.13

0-50 -37.5 -25 -12.5 0Moment (ft·k/ft)

Moment

Stem Internal Forces

17

14.88

12.75

10.63

8.5

6.38

4.25

2.13

00 2.25 4.5 6.75 9Shear (k/ft)

Shear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 8.69 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

-983.23 psf -20.69 psf

-82.76 psf

Stem Forces [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 27 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 175: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

17

15.3

13.6

11.9

10.2

8.5

6.8

5.1

3.4

1.7

0-60 -46.67 -33.33 -20 -6.67 6.67 20Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

φMn 53.31 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 49.9 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 0 ft from base

φMn 32.97 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 25.57 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 3.5 ft from base

φMn 32.97 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 24.62 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 3.61 ft from base

φMn 32.97 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.04 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 15.14 ft from base

φMn 30.5 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.02 ft·k ft / = =

Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 15.28 ft from base

Stem Moment Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 28 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 176: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

17

15.3

13.6

11.9

10.2

8.5

6.8

5.1

3.4

1.7

0-20 -13.33 -6.67 0 6.67 13.33 20Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

φVn 15.83 k ft ≥ Vu / 8.69 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 0 ft from base

Stem Shear Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 29 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 177: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

φMn 53.31 ft·k ft < 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 49.9 ft·k ft / 66.53 ft·k ft / = = =

As_min3 F'c

fyd 3 5000 psi

60000 psi 12.44 in 0.04 in² in / = = =

200 d fy / 200 12.44 in 60000 psi / 0.04 in² in / = = As 0.08 in² in ≥ As_min / 0.04 in² in / = =

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 32.97 ft·k ft < 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 25.57 ft·k ft / 34.1 ft·k ft / = = =

As_min3 F'c

fyd 3 5000 psi

60000 psi 12.56 in 0.04 in² in / = = =

200 d fy / 200 12.56 in 60000 psi / 0.04 in² in / = = As 0.05 in² in ≥ As_min / 0.04 in² in / = =

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 3.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 17 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.08 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 1.18 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.44 in

1.18 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0224 = = =

εt 0.0224 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.05 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.71 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.56 in

0.71 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0397 = = =

εt 0.0397 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 3.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.05 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.71 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.56 in

0.71 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0397 = = =

εt 0.0397 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 17 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 30 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 178: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 1

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 15 in 0.0034 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0034 ≥ ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 15 in 45 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

MuφMn

49.9 ft·k ft / 53.31 ft·k ft / 0.9359 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.13 in 19.14 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 13.4 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.9359 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 12.54 in = 8 db 8 1.13 in 9.0240 minimum limit, does not control = = ldh_prov 21 in ≥ ldh 12.54 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 1.0 bars are #7 or larger = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 1.13 in 2 / + 2.56 in = = cb 2.56 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement =

ld3.40

fyF'c

ψt ψe ψs λ cb Ktr +

db

db 3.40

60000 psi5000 psi

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.56 in 0.0 +

1.13 in

1.13 in 31.58 in = = =

llap 1.3 ld 1.3 31.58 in 41.06 in = = = llap_prov 42 in ≥ llap 41.06 in = = 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 41.06 in 8.2111 > 6.0 = = strans 0 in ≤ 6.0 =

Lap Splice Checks (ACI 318-05 12.14.2.3, 12.15.1, 12.15.2) - #7 lap with #9, from 0 ft to 3.5 ft (from stem base)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E] (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 31 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:21 PM

Page 179: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Spillway Wall Section 2

Page 180: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

Concrete f'c = 5000 psiRebar Fy = 60000 psiUnit Weight = 150 lb/ft³15 in

8.25 ft

5 ft 2 ft

24 in

14 ft 12

ft

36 in

2 ft

1 ft

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 12 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 18 in#6 @ 12 in (lapped dowels)

Heel Bars: #5 @ 12 inToe Bars: #5 @ 12 inFooting S/T Bars: #5 @ 12 in

36 in

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 12 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 18 in

Design Detail

Check SummaryRatio Check Provided Required Combination

----- Stability Checks -----0.804 Overturning 1.86 1.50 0.6D + 1.0H0.035 Bearing Pressure 40000 psf 1391 psf 1.0D + 1.0H + 0.7E0.499 Bearing Eccentricity 8.24 in 16.5 in 1.0D + 1.0H + 0.7E

----- Toe Checks -----0.153 Shear 26.33 k/ft 4.04 k/ft 1.4D + 1.6H0.477 Moment 28.6 ft·k/ft 13.63 ft·k/ft 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E0.030 Min Strain 0.1331 0.0040 1.4D + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0.03 in² 0 in² 1.4D + 1.6H0.333 Development 36 in 12 in 1.4D + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.4D + 1.6H0.836 S&T Min Rho 0.0022 0.0018 1.4D + 1.6H

----- Heel Checks -----0.124 Shear 25.06 k/ft 3.11 k/ft 1.4D + 1.6H0.118 Moment 27.21 ft·k/ft 3.21 ft·k/ft 1.4D + 1.6H0.032 Min Strain 0.1266 0.0040 1.4D + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0.03 in² 0 in² 1.4D + 1.6H0.169 Development 71 in 12 in 1.4D + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.4D + 1.6H0.836 S&T Min Rho 0.0022 0.0018 1.4D + 1.6H

----- Stem Checks -----0.662 Moment 24.49 ft·k/ft 16.21 ft·k/ft Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E0.256 Shear 16.07 k/ft 4.11 k/ft Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E0.050 Max Steel 0.0805 0.0040 Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0 in²/in 0 in²/in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H0.286 Base Development 21 in 6 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H0.552 Lap Splice Length 36 in 19.86 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H0.000 Lap Splice Spacing 0 in 3.97 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H0.581 Horz Bar Rho 0.0034 0.0020 Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H0.667 Horz Bar Spacing 12 in 18 in Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H

Criteria

Building Code IBC 2012Concrete Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (Strength)Masonry Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Stability Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Restrained Against Sliding YesNeglect Bearing At Heel NoUse Vert. Comp. for OT YesUse Vert. Comp. for Sliding YesUse Vert. Comp. for Bearing YesUse Surcharge for Sliding & OT YesUse Surcharge for Bearing YesNeglect Soil Over Toe NoNeglect Backfill Wt. for Coulomb NoFactor Soil Weight As Dead YesUse Passive Force for OT YesAssume Pressure To Top YesExtend Backfill Pressure To Key Bottom YesUse Toe Passive Pressure for Bearing NoRequired F.S. for OT 1.50Required F.S. for Sliding 1.50Has Different Safety Factors for Seismic YesSeismic F.S. for OT 1.20Seismic F.S. for Sliding 1.20Allowable Bearing Pressure 40000 psfReq'd Bearing Location Middle thirdWall Friction Angle 25°Friction Coefficent 0.65Soil Reaction Modulus 288000 lb/ft³

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 1 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 181: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

Loads

11 ft

2 ft

13 ft 11

ft1

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

2 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psfKh = 0.10Kv = 0.05

Loading Options/AssumptionsPassive pressure neglects top 0 ft of soil.

Load Combinations

ASCE 7-10 (Strength) 1.4D + 1.6H 1.4D + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.6H 1.2D + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H 1.4D + 1.6H 1.4D + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E 1.2D + 1.6H 1.2D + 0.9H + 1.0E 1.2D + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H + 1.0E 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H + 1.0E 0.9D + 0.9H

Backfill Pressure

11 ft

2 ft

13 ft 11

ft1

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf -499.3 psf

13 ft

270.5 lb/in

13 ft

4.33

ft

-422.48 psf193.6 lb/in

3.67

ftRankine Active Earth Pressure Theory

Ka tan² 45° φ2 - tan ² 45° 32°

2 - 0.3073 = = =

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 13 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 499.3 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 11 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 422.5 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure (stem only)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 2 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 182: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

Passive Pressure2

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

813.6 psf 2 ft

67.8 lb/in

0.67 ft

Rankine Passive Earth Pressure Theory

Kp tan² 45° φ2 + tan ² 45° 32°

2 + 3.2546 = = =

σp γ H Kp 2 c Kp + 125 lb ft³ / 2 ft 3.2546 2 0 psf 3.2546 + 813.6 psf = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

Wall/Soil Weights

206.3 lb/in

187.5 lb/in 229.2 lb/in

0 lb/in

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 3 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 183: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

Bearing Pressure

1405 psf469.3 psf

644.1 lb/in

3.44 ft

e = 8.24 in

418.7 lb/in

F μ R 0.650 644.1 lb in / 418.7 lb in / = = = Friction

Bearing Pressure CalculationContributing Forces

Vert Force ...offset Horz Force ...offset OT MomentBackfill Pressure -0 lb/in - -270.45 lb/in 4.33 ft 168762 in·lb/ftSeismic Force -21.23 lb/in 8.25 ft -45.53 lb/in 7.8 ft 25917 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -206.25 lb/in 4.13 ft 0 lb/in - -122512.5 in·lb/ftStem Weight -187.5 lb/in 5.63 ft 0 lb/in - -151875 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -229.17 lb/in 7.25 ft 0 lb/in - -239250 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in - 0 lb/in - -0 in·lb/ft

-644.15 lb/in -318959.07 in·lb/ft318959.07 in·lb ft / -

644.15 lb in / - 3.44 ft =

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 4 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 184: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 270.5 lb/in 4.33 ft 168762 in·lb/ft

Total: 168762 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (vert) 0 lb/in 8.25 ft 0 in·lb/ftPassive pressure @ toe 67.8 lb/in 0.67 ft 6509 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -206.25 lb/in 4.13 ft 122513 in·lb/ftStem Weight -187.5 lb/in 5.63 ft 151875 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -229.17 lb/in 7.25 ft 239250 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in 2.5 ft 0 in·lb/ft

Total: 520147 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 520147 in·lb ft /

168762 in·lb ft / 3.082 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckCheck not performed; restrained against sliding.

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure < allowable (1091 psf < 40000 psf) - OKBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (3.36 in < 16.5 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.029 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement 0.022 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.052 in

Stability Checks [Max Flood: 1.0D + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 5 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 185: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 270.5 lb/in 4.33 ft 168762 in·lb/ft

Total: 168762 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (vert) 0 lb/in 8.25 ft 0 in·lb/ftPassive pressure @ toe 67.8 lb/in 0.67 ft 6509 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -123.75 lb/in 4.13 ft 73508 in·lb/ftStem Weight -112.5 lb/in 5.63 ft 91125 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -137.5 lb/in 7.25 ft 143550 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -0 lb/in 2.5 ft 0 in·lb/ft

Total: 314692 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 314692 in·lb ft /

168762 in·lb ft / 1.865 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckCheck not performed; restrained against sliding.

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure < allowable (654.4 psf < 40000 psf) - OKBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (3.36 in < 16.5 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.029 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement 0.022 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.052 in

Stability Checks [Max Flood: 0.6D + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 6 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 186: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

12

10.8

9.6

8.4

7.2

6

4.8

3.6

2.4

1.2

0-25 -18.33 -11.67 -5 1.67 8.33 15Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi 12.63 in 0.52 in 2 / - 24.49 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.24 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi 12.69 in 0.24 in 2 / - 11.69 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 12.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 17.44 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 3 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 12.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 17.44 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 10.94 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.24 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.02 in² in / 60000 psi 12.69 in 0.24 in 2 / - 11.69 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 10.94 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 12.69 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 12 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 12.69 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 12 ft from base [Positive bending]

Stem Flexural Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 7 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 187: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

12

10.8

9.6

8.4

7.2

6

4.8

3.6

2.4

1.2

0-20 -13.33 -6.67 0 6.67 13.33 20Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.63 in 21.43 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 21.43 k ft / 16.07 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.63 in 21.43 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 21.43 k ft / 16.07 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Negative shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.69 in 21.53 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 21.53 k ft / 16.15 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 12 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 12.69 in 21.53 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 21.53 k ft / 16.15 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 12 ft from base [Negative shear]

Stem Shear Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 8 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 188: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.63 in 10.61 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 7.42 in = 8 db 8 0.63 in 5.0 minimum limit, does not control = =

Main vertical stem bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.63 in 2 / + 2.31 in = = cb 2.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 3.70 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

Main vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.75 in 2 / + 2.38 in = = cb 2.38 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.38 in 0.0 +

0.75 in 3.1667 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.75 in 15.27 in = = =

Dowels for vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.63 in 10.61 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 7.42 in = 8 db 8 0.63 in 5.0 minimum limit, does not control = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 9 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 189: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 18 in 2 / 9 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.63 in 2 / + 2.31 in = = cb 2.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 3.70 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 10 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 190: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 12.53 ft·k ft < Mstem / 13.63 ft·k ft / = = Mu 12.53 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 20.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 28.6 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 28.6 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 12.53 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 20.69 in 35.11 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 35.11 k ft / 26.33 k ft / = = = φVn 26.33 k ft ≥ Vu / 3.3 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 20.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.1331 = = =

εt 0.1331 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 28.6 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 12.53 ft·k ft / 16.71 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

12.53 ft·k ft / 28.6 ft·k ft / 0.4381 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 0.63 in 2 / + 3.31 in = = cb 3.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 3.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 5.30 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.4381 per 12.2.5: ld 5.58 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 36 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf

1091 psf 866.9 psf

Toe Factored Loads

24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H

420 psf (Self-wt)

1527 psf 1214 psf1527 psf 1214 psf

4.75 k/ft

Toe Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 11 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 191: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 2.59 ft·k ft < Mstem / 13.63 ft·k ft / = = Mu 2.59 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 19.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 27.21 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 27.21 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 2.59 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 19.69 in 33.41 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 33.41 k ft / 25.06 k ft / = = = φVn 25.06 k ft ≥ Vu / 2.54 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 19.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.1266 = = =

εt 0.1266 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 27.21 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 2.59 ft·k ft / 3.45 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

2.59 ft·k ft / 27.21 ft·k ft / 0.0951 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.30 more than 12 inches cast below 19.38 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 4 in 0.63 in 2 / + 4.31 in = = cb 4.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 4.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 6.90 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.30 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 16.55 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.0951 per 12.2.5: ld 1.57 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 71 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf (Concrete self-wt)1375 psf (Soil weight)

810.9 psf 721.4 psf

Heel Factored Loads

24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H

420 psf (Concrete self-wt)1925 psf (Soil weight)

1010-1135 psf (Bearing pressure)

1135 psf1010 psf2.54 k/ft

Heel Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 12 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 192: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

Stem Internal Forces

-675.97 psf3.72 k/ft

-13.63 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

12

10.5

9

7.5

6

4.5

3

1.5

0-14 -10.5 -7 -3.5 0Moment (ft·k/ft)

Moment

Stem Internal Forces

12

10.5

9

7.5

6

4.5

3

1.5

00 1 2 3 4Shear (k/ft)

Shear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 3.72 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

-675.97 psf

Stem Forces [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 13 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 193: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

12

10.8

9.6

8.4

7.2

6

4.8

3.6

2.4

1.2

0-25 -18.33 -11.67 -5 1.67 8.33 15Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

φMn 24.49 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 13.63 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 0 ft from base

φMn 17.44 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 5.18 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 3 ft from base

φMn 17.44 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 5.18 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 3.03 ft from base

φMn 17.44 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0 ft·k ft / = =

Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 10.94 ft from base

Stem Moment Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 14 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 194: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

12

10.8

9.6

8.4

7.2

6

4.8

3.6

2.4

1.2

0-20 -13.33 -6.67 0 6.67 13.33 20Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

φVn 16.07 k ft ≥ Vu / 3.72 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 0 ft from base

Stem Shear Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 15 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 195: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

φMn 24.49 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 13.63 ft·k ft / 18.18 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 17.44 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 5.18 ft·k ft / 6.91 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 3 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 12 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.63 in

0.52 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0555 = = =

εt 0.0555 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0805 = = =

εt 0.0805 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 3 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0805 = = =

εt 0.0805 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 12 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 15 in 0.0034 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0034 ≥ ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 15 in 45 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 16 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 196: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

MuφMn

13.63 ft·k ft / 24.49 ft·k ft / 0.5567 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.75 in 12.73 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 8.91 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.5567 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 4.96 in = 8 db 8 0.75 in 6.0 minimum limit, does not control = = 6 inch minimum controlsldh_prov 21 in ≥ ldh 6 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.75 in 2 / + 2.38 in = = cb 2.38 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.38 in 0.0 +

0.75 in 3.1667 = =

ld3.40

fyF'c

ψt ψe ψs λ 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi5000 psi

1.0 1.0 0.80 1.0 2.5 0.75 in 15.27 in = = =

llap 1.3 ld 1.3 15.27 in 19.86 in = = = llap_prov 36 in ≥ llap 19.86 in = = 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 19.86 in 3.9711 ≤ 6.0 = = strans 0 in ≤ 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 19.86 in 3.9711 = = =

Lap Splice Checks (ACI 318-05 12.14.2.3, 12.15.1, 12.15.2) - #5 lap with #6, from 0 ft to 3 ft (from stem base)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Max Flood: 1.4D + 1.6H] (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 17 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 197: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 15.32 ft·k ft ≥ Mstem / 13.63 ft·k ft / = = Mu 13.63 ft·k ft stem base moment controls / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 20.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 28.6 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 28.6 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 13.63 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 20.69 in 35.11 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 35.11 k ft / 26.33 k ft / = = = φVn 26.33 k ft ≥ Vu / 4.04 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 20.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.1331 = = =

εt 0.1331 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 28.6 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 13.63 ft·k ft / 18.18 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

13.63 ft·k ft / 28.6 ft·k ft / 0.4766 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 0.63 in 2 / + 3.31 in = = cb 3.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 3.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 5.30 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.4766 per 12.2.5: ld 6.07 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 36 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf

1405 psf 837.7 psf

Toe Factored Loads

24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H

420 psf (Self-wt)

1902 psf 1134 psf1902 psf

1134 psf

Toe Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 18 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 198: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 3.21 ft·k ft < Mstem / 13.63 ft·k ft / = = Mu 3.21 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 19.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 27.21 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 27.21 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 3.21 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 19.69 in 33.41 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 33.41 k ft / 25.06 k ft / = = = φVn 25.06 k ft ≥ Vu / 3.11 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 19.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.1266 = = =

εt 0.1266 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 27.21 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 3.21 ft·k ft / 4.29 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

3.21 ft·k ft / 27.21 ft·k ft / 0.1181 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.30 more than 12 inches cast below 19.38 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 4 in 0.63 in 2 / + 4.31 in = = cb 4.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 4.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 6.90 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.30 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 16.55 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.1181 per 12.2.5: ld 1.95 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 71 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf (Concrete self-wt)1375 psf (Soil weight)

696 psf 469.3 psf

Heel Factored Loads

24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H

420 psf (Concrete self-wt)1925 psf (Soil weight)

635.3-942.3 psf (Bearing pressure)

942.3 psf635.3 psf3.11 k/ft

Heel Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 19 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 199: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

Stem Internal Forces

-675.97 psf3.72 k/ft

-13.63 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

12

10.5

9

7.5

6

4.5

3

1.5

0-14 -10.5 -7 -3.5 0Moment (ft·k/ft)

Moment

Stem Internal Forces

12

10.5

9

7.5

6

4.5

3

1.5

00 1 2 3 4Shear (k/ft)

Shear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 3.72 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

-675.97 psf

Stem Forces [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 20 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 200: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

12

10.8

9.6

8.4

7.2

6

4.8

3.6

2.4

1.2

0-25 -18.33 -11.67 -5 1.67 8.33 15Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

φMn 24.49 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 13.63 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 0 ft from base

φMn 17.44 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 5.18 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 3 ft from base

φMn 17.44 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 5.18 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 3.03 ft from base

φMn 17.44 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0 ft·k ft / = =

Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 10.94 ft from base

Stem Moment Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 21 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 201: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

12

10.8

9.6

8.4

7.2

6

4.8

3.6

2.4

1.2

0-20 -13.33 -6.67 0 6.67 13.33 20Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

φVn 16.07 k ft ≥ Vu / 3.72 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 0 ft from base

Stem Shear Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 22 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 202: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

φMn 24.49 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 13.63 ft·k ft / 18.18 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 17.44 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 5.18 ft·k ft / 6.91 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 3 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 12 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.63 in

0.52 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0555 = = =

εt 0.0555 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0805 = = =

εt 0.0805 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 3 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0805 = = =

εt 0.0805 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 12 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 15 in 0.0034 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0034 ≥ ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 15 in 45 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 23 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 203: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

MuφMn

13.63 ft·k ft / 24.49 ft·k ft / 0.5567 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.75 in 12.73 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 8.91 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.5567 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 4.96 in = 8 db 8 0.75 in 6.0 minimum limit, does not control = = 6 inch minimum controlsldh_prov 21 in ≥ ldh 6 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.75 in 2 / + 2.38 in = = cb 2.38 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.38 in 0.0 +

0.75 in 3.1667 = =

ld3.40

fyF'c

ψt ψe ψs λ 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi5000 psi

1.0 1.0 0.80 1.0 2.5 0.75 in 15.27 in = = =

llap 1.3 ld 1.3 15.27 in 19.86 in = = = llap_prov 36 in ≥ llap 19.86 in = = 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 19.86 in 3.9711 ≤ 6.0 = = strans 0 in ≤ 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 19.86 in 3.9711 = = =

Lap Splice Checks (ACI 318-05 12.14.2.3, 12.15.1, 12.15.2) - #5 lap with #6, from 0 ft to 3 ft (from stem base)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Earthquake: 1.4D + 1.6H] (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 24 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 204: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 13.63 ft·k ft < Mstem / 16.21 ft·k ft / = = Mu 13.63 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 20.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 28.6 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 28.6 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 13.63 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 20.69 in 35.11 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 35.11 k ft / 26.33 k ft / = = = φVn 26.33 k ft ≥ Vu / 3.59 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 20.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.1331 = = =

εt 0.1331 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 28.6 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 13.63 ft·k ft / 18.18 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

13.63 ft·k ft / 28.6 ft·k ft / 0.4767 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 0.63 in 2 / + 3.31 in = = cb 3.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 3.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 5.30 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.4767 per 12.2.5: ld 6.07 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 36 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf

1405 psf 837.7 psf

Toe Factored Loads

24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E

360 psf (Self-wt)

1676 psf 999.8 psf

4.89 k/ft

Toe Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 25 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 205: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 2.72 ft·k ft < Mstem / 16.21 ft·k ft / = = Mu 2.72 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 19.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 27.21 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 27.21 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 2.72 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 19.69 in 33.41 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 33.41 k ft / 25.06 k ft / = = = φVn 25.06 k ft ≥ Vu / 2.63 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 19.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.1266 = = =

εt 0.1266 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 27.21 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 2.72 ft·k ft / 3.63 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

24 in 12 in 0.0022 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0022 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

2.72 ft·k ft / 27.21 ft·k ft / 0.0999 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.30 more than 12 inches cast below 19.38 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 4 in 0.63 in 2 / + 4.31 in = = cb 4.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 4.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 6.90 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.30 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 16.55 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.0999 per 12.2.5: ld 1.65 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 71 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

300 psf (Concrete self-wt)1375 psf (Soil weight)

696 psf 469.3 psf

Heel Factored Loads

24 in

#5 @ 12 in

Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E

360 psf (Concrete self-wt)1650 psf (Soil weight)

560-830.6 psf (Bearing pressure)

830.6 psf560 psf2.63 k/ft

Heel Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 26 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 206: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

Stem Internal Forces

-675.97 psf-14.22 psf

-56.9 psf

4.11 k/ft

-16.21 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

12

10.5

9

7.5

6

4.5

3

1.5

0-18 -13.5 -9 -4.5 0Moment (ft·k/ft)

Moment

Stem Internal Forces

12

10.5

9

7.5

6

4.5

3

1.5

00 1.25 2.5 3.75 5Shear (k/ft)

Shear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 4.11 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

-675.97 psf -14.22 psf

-56.9 psf

Stem Forces [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 27 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 207: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

12

10.8

9.6

8.4

7.2

6

4.8

3.6

2.4

1.2

0-25 -18.33 -11.67 -5 1.67 8.33 15Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

φMn 24.49 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 16.21 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 0 ft from base

φMn 17.44 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 6.66 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 3 ft from base

φMn 17.44 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 6.66 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 3.03 ft from base

φMn 17.44 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0 ft·k ft / = =

Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 10.94 ft from base

Stem Moment Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 28 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 208: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

12

10.8

9.6

8.4

7.2

6

4.8

3.6

2.4

1.2

0-20 -13.33 -6.67 0 6.67 13.33 20Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

φVn 16.07 k ft ≥ Vu / 4.11 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 0 ft from base

Stem Shear Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 29 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 209: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

φMn 24.49 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 16.21 ft·k ft / 21.62 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 17.44 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 6.66 ft·k ft / 8.89 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 3 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 12 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.63 in

0.52 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0555 = = =

εt 0.0555 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0805 = = =

εt 0.0805 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 3 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 12.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0805 = = =

εt 0.0805 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 12 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 15 in 0.0034 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0034 ≥ ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 15 in 45 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 30 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 210: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Spillway Wall Section 2

MuφMn

16.21 ft·k ft / 24.49 ft·k ft / 0.6622 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.75 in 12.73 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 8.91 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.6622 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 5.9 in = 8 db 8 0.75 in 6.0 minimum limit, does not control = = 6 inch minimum controlsldh_prov 21 in ≥ ldh 6 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.75 in 2 / + 2.38 in = = cb 2.38 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.38 in 0.0 +

0.75 in 3.1667 = =

ld3.40

fyF'c

ψt ψe ψs λ 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi5000 psi

1.0 1.0 0.80 1.0 2.5 0.75 in 15.27 in = = =

llap 1.3 ld 1.3 15.27 in 19.86 in = = = llap_prov 36 in ≥ llap 19.86 in = = 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 19.86 in 3.9711 ≤ 6.0 = = strans 0 in ≤ 1 5 / llap 1 5 / 19.86 in 3.9711 = = =

Lap Splice Checks (ACI 318-05 12.14.2.3, 12.15.1, 12.15.2) - #5 lap with #6, from 0 ft to 3 ft (from stem base)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [Earthquake: 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E] (continued)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eas...\QuickRWall - Millsite Spillway.rwd Page 31 of 31 Thursday 11/05/15 2:22 PM

Page 211: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Bridge Footing

Page 212: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

Concrete f'c = 5000 psiRebar Fy = 60000 psiUnit Weight = 150 lb/ft³16 in

5.83 ft

2.5 ft 2 ft

14 in

5.67

ft 4.5

ft

4.17

ft

1.5

ft

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 12 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 12 in

Heel Bars: #6 @ 12 inToe Bars: #6 @ 12 inFooting S/T Bars: #5 @ 12 in

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 12 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 12 in

Design Detail

Check SummaryRatio Check Provided Required Combination

----- Stability Checks -----0.292 Overturning 5.14 1.50 1.0D + 1.0L + 0.6H0.230 Sliding 6.53 1.50 1.0D + 1.0L + 0.6H2.304 Bearing Pressure 2500 psf 5759 psf 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0H0.094 Bearing Eccentricity 1.09 in 11.67 in 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0H

----- Toe Checks -----0.868 Shear 13.52 k/ft 11.74 k/ft 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.565 Moment 20.53 ft·k/ft 11.6 ft·k/ft 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.086 Min Strain 0.0463 0.0040 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0.04 in² 0 in² 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.324 Development 37 in 12 in 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.488 S&T Min Rho 0.0037 0.0018 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H

----- Heel Checks -----0.104 Shear 14.8 k/ft 1.54 k/ft 1.4D0.059 Moment 22.51 ft·k/ft 1.32 ft·k/ft 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.079 Min Strain 0.0509 0.0040 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0.04 in² 0 in² 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.273 Development 44 in 12 in 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.488 S&T Min Rho 0.0037 0.0018 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H

----- Stem Checks -----0.616 Moment 18.84 ft·k/ft 11.6 ft·k/ft 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.178 Shear 17.42 k/ft 3.11 k/ft 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.046 Max Steel 0.0871 0.0040 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0 in²/in 0 in²/in 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.545 Base Development 11 in 6 in 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.619 Horz Bar Rho 0.0032 0.0020 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.667 Horz Bar Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H

Criteria

Building Code IBC 2012Concrete Load Combs IBC 2012 (Strength)Masonry Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Stability Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Restrained Against Sliding NoNeglect Bearing At Heel YesUse Vert. Comp. for OT NoUse Vert. Comp. for Sliding NoUse Vert. Comp. for Bearing YesUse Surcharge for Sliding & OT YesUse Surcharge for Bearing YesNeglect Soil Over Toe NoNeglect Backfill Wt. for Coulomb NoFactor Soil Weight As Dead YesUse Passive Force for OT YesAssume Pressure To Top YesExtend Backfill Pressure To Key Bottom NoUse Toe Passive Pressure for Bearing NoRequired F.S. for OT 1.50Required F.S. for Sliding 1.50Has Different Safety Factors for Seismic YesSeismic F.S. for OT 1.20Seismic F.S. for Sliding 1.20Allowable Bearing Pressure 2500 psfReq'd Bearing Location Middle thirdWall Friction Angle 25°Friction Coefficent 0.35Soil Reaction Modulus 288000 lb/ft³

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 1 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 213: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

Loads

3 ft

4.17

ft

4.17

ft

-0 ft

1.5

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

4.17

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

-1770 psf

DL=11 k/ft, LL=16.11 k/ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psfKh = 0.10Kv = 0.05

Loading Options/AssumptionsPassive pressure neglects top 0 ft of soil.

Load Combinations

IBC 2012 (Strength) 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.9H 1.2D + 0.5L + 1.6H + 1.0E 1.2D + 0.5L + 1.6H 1.2D + 0.5L + 0.9H + 1.0E 1.2D + 0.5L + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E 1.2D + 1.6H 1.2D + 0.9H + 1.0E 1.2D + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H + 1.0E 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H + 1.0E 0.9D + 0.9H 1.4D

Backfill Pressure

3 ft

4.17

ft

4.17

ft

-0 ft

1.5

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

-160.03 psf

4.17

ft

27.78 lb/in4.17

ft

1.39

ft

-115.22 psf14.4 lb/in

1 ft

Rankine Active Earth Pressure Theory

Ka tan² 45° φ2 - tan ² 45° 32°

2 - 0.3073 = = =

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 4.17 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 160 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 3 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 115.2 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure (stem only)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 2 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 214: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

Passive Pressure

4.17

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

1696 psf

4.17

ft

294.8 lb/in 1.39 ft

Rankine Passive Earth Pressure Theory

Kp tan² 45° φ2 + tan ² 45° 32°

2 + 3.2546 = = =

σp γ H Kp 2 c Kp + 125 lb ft³ / 4.17 ft 3.2546 2 0 psf 3.2546 + 1696 psf = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 3 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 215: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

Seismic Pressure

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psfKh = 0.10Kv = 0.05

-5.95 psf

-23.78 psf

4.17

ft

5.16 lb/in

4.17

ft

2.5

ft

4.68 lb/in

2.18 lb/in

-4.28 psf

-17.12 psf2.68 lb/in

1.8

ft 2.42 lb/in

1.13 lb/in

Dynamic static force Mononobe Okabe equation - +

θ' atan kh1 kv - arctan 0.10

1 0.050 - 6.01° = = =

Kaesin² β φ θ' - +

cos θ' sin² β sin β θ' δ - - 1 sin φ δ + sin φ θ' α - - sin β δ θ' - - sin α β + + 2 ^

=

sin ² 90° 30° 6.01° - +

cos 6.01° sin ² 90° sin 90° 6.01° 25° - - 1 sin 30° 25° + sin 30° 6.01° 0° - - sin 90° 25° 6.01° - - sin 0° 90° + + 2 ^

=

0.37 lb in / =

Pae12 Kae γ H 2 ^ 1 kv - 1

2 0.37 lb in / 125 lb ft³ / 4.17 ft 2 ^ 1 0.050 - 31.92 lb in / = = =

Static only force Coulomb equation -

Kasin² β φ +

sin² β sin β δ - 1 sin φ δ + sin φ α - sin β δ - sin α β + + 2 ^

=

sin ² 90° 30° +

sin ² 90° sin 90° 25° - 1 sin 30° 25° + sin 30° 0° - sin 90° 25° - sin 0° 90° + + 2 ^

=

0.2959 =

Pa12 Ka γ H 2 ^ 1

2 0.2959 125 lb ft³ / 4.17 ft 2 ^ 26.76 lb in / = = =

Net dynamic forceΔPae Pae Pa - 31.92 lb in / 26.76 lb in / - 5.16 lb in / = = = αP 90° β δ + - 90° 90° 25° + - 25° resultant force angle with horizontal = = = To arrive at the pressure distribution illustrated above used to determine stem moments , apply inverted triangular pressure plus a uniform portion to bring resultant to 0.6H

σe_top85ΔPae

H 85

5.16 lb in / 4.17 ft 23.78 psf = = =

σe_bot25ΔPae

H 25

5.16 lb in / 4.17 ft 5.95 psf = = =

Seismic Pressure

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 4 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 216: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

Manually Specified Lateral Stem Pressure

-1770 psf 1770 lb/ft

Wall/Soil Weights

85.07 lb/in

75 lb/in62.5 lb/in78.21 lb/in

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 5 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 217: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

Bearing Pressure

5764 psf4778 psf2562 lb/in

2.83 ft

e = 1.09 in

896.7 lb/in

F μ R 0.350 2562 lb in / 896.7 lb in / = = = Friction

Bearing Pressure CalculationContributing Forces

Vert Force ...offset Horz Force ...offset OT MomentBackfill Pressure -0 lb/in - -27.78 lb/in 1.39 ft 5557 in·lb/ftManual Lateral Pressure -0 lb/in - -147.5 lb/in 5.17 ft 109740 in·lb/ftAxial Dead Load -916.67 lb/in 3.17 ft 0 lb/in - -418000 in·lb/ftAxial Live Load -1342.5 lb/in 3.17 ft 0 lb/in - -612180 in·lb/ftSeismic Force -2.18 lb/in 5.83 ft -4.68 lb/in 2.5 ft -148.26 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -85.07 lb/in 2.92 ft 0 lb/in - -35729.17 in·lb/ftStem Weight -75 lb/in 3.17 ft 0 lb/in - -34200 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -62.5 lb/in 4.83 ft 0 lb/in - -43500 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -78.21 lb/in 1.25 ft 0 lb/in - -14078.13 in·lb/ft

-2562.13 lb/in -1042538.94 in·lb/ft1042538.94 in·lb ft / -

2562.13 lb in / - 2.83 ft =

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 6 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 218: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 27.78 lb/in 1.39 ft 5557 in·lb/ftManual lateral pressure 147.5 lb/in 5.17 ft 109740 in·lb/ftSeismic force 0 lb/in 2.5 ft 0 in·lb/ft

Total: 115297 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentPassive pressure @ toe 294.8 lb/in 1.39 ft 58999 in·lb/ftAxial dead load -916.67 lb/in 3.17 ft 418000 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -85.07 lb/in 2.92 ft 35729 in·lb/ftStem Weight -75 lb/in 3.17 ft 34200 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -62.5 lb/in 4.83 ft 43500 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -78.21 lb/in 1.25 ft 14078 in·lb/ft

Total: 604506 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 604506 in·lb ft /

115297 in·lb ft / 5.243 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckSliding Force(s)

Backfill pressure 27.78 lb/inManual lateral pressure 147.5 lb/inSeismic force 0 lb/inTotal: 175.3 lb/in

Resisting Force(s)Passive pressure @ toe 294.8 lb/inFriction 896 lb/inTotal: 1191 lb/in

F.S. RFSF 1191 lb in /

175.3 lb in / 6.793 > 1.50 OK = = =

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure > allowable (5759 psf > 2500 psf) - FAILSBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (1.09 in < 11.67 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.005 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement 0.032 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.036 in

Stability Checks [1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 7 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 219: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 16.67 lb/in 1.39 ft 3334 in·lb/ftManual lateral pressure 147.5 lb/in 5.17 ft 109740 in·lb/ftSeismic force 0 lb/in 2.5 ft 0 in·lb/ft

Total: 113074 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentPassive pressure @ toe 176.9 lb/in 1.39 ft 35399 in·lb/ftAxial dead load -916.67 lb/in 3.17 ft 418000 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -85.07 lb/in 2.92 ft 35729 in·lb/ftStem Weight -75 lb/in 3.17 ft 34200 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -62.5 lb/in 4.83 ft 43500 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -78.21 lb/in 1.25 ft 14078 in·lb/ft

Total: 580907 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 580907 in·lb ft /

113074 in·lb ft / 5.137 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckSliding Force(s)

Backfill pressure 16.67 lb/inManual lateral pressure 147.5 lb/inSeismic force 0 lb/inTotal: 164.2 lb/in

Resisting Force(s)Passive pressure @ toe 176.9 lb/inFriction 896 lb/inTotal: 1073 lb/in

F.S. RFSF 1073 lb in /

164.2 lb in / 6.535 > 1.50 OK = = =

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure > allowable (5759 psf > 2500 psf) - FAILSBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (1.09 in < 11.67 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0.005 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement 0.032 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.036 in

Stability Checks [1.0D + 1.0L + 0.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 8 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 220: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

4.5

4.05

3.6

3.15

2.7

2.25

1.8

1.35

0.9

0.45

0-20 -13.33 -6.67 0 6.67 13.33 20Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 13.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 18.84 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 13.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 18.84 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 13.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 18.84 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 3.44 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 13.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 18.84 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 3.44 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 13.69 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 4.5 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 13.69 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 4.5 ft from base [Positive bending]

Stem Flexural Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 9 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 221: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

4.5

4.05

3.6

3.15

2.7

2.25

1.8

1.35

0.9

0.45

0-20 -13.33 -6.67 0 6.67 13.33 20Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 13.69 in 23.23 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 23.23 k ft / 17.42 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 13.69 in 23.23 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 23.23 k ft / 17.42 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Negative shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 13.69 in 23.23 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 23.23 k ft / 17.42 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 4.5 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 13.69 in 23.23 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 23.23 k ft / 17.42 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 4.5 ft from base [Negative shear]

Stem Shear Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 10 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 222: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.63 in 10.61 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 7.42 in = 8 db 8 0.63 in 5.0 minimum limit, does not control = =

Main vertical stem bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.63 in 2 / + 2.31 in = = cb 2.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 3.70 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

Main vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.63 in 2 / + 2.31 in = = cb 2.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 3.70 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 11 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 223: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 22.69 ft·k ft ≥ Mstem / 11.6 ft·k ft / = = Mu 11.6 ft·k ft stem base moment controls / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi 10.63 in 0.52 in 2 / - 20.53 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 20.53 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 11.6 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 10.63 in 18.03 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 18.03 k ft / 13.52 k ft / = = = φVn 13.52 k ft ≥ Vu / 11.74 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 10.63 in

0.52 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0463 = = =

εt 0.0463 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 20.53 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 11.6 ft·k ft / 15.47 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

14 in 12 in 0.0037 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0037 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

11.6 ft·k ft / 20.53 ft·k ft / 0.5654 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 0.75 in 2 / + 3.38 in = = cb 3.38 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 3.38 in 0.0 +

0.75 in 4.50 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.75 in 15.27 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.5654 per 12.2.5: ld 8.64 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 37 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

14 in #6 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

175 psf (Self-wt)375.4 psf (Soil)

5764 psf 5341 psf

Toe Factored Loads

14 in #6 @ 12 in

1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H

210 psf (Self-wt)450.5 psf (Soil)

8119 psf 7523 psf8119 psf 7523 psf

17.9 k/ft

Toe Checks [1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 12 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 224: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 1.32 ft·k ft < Mstem / 11.6 ft·k ft / = = Mu 1.32 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi 11.63 in 0.52 in 2 / - 22.51 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 22.51 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 1.32 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 11.63 in 19.73 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 19.73 k ft / 14.8 k ft / = = = φVn 14.8 k ft ≥ Vu / 1.32 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 11.63 in

0.52 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0509 = = =

εt 0.0509 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 22.51 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 1.32 ft·k ft / 1.76 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

14 in 12 in 0.0037 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0037 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

1.32 ft·k ft / 22.51 ft·k ft / 0.0587 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 11.25 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.75 in 2 / + 2.38 in = = cb 2.38 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.38 in 0.0 +

0.75 in 3.1667 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.75 in 15.27 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.0587 per 12.2.5: ld 0.9 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 44 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads14 in

#6 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

175 psf (Concrete self-wt)375 psf (Soil weight)

(neglect bearing pressure)

Heel Factored Loads

14 in

#6 @ 12 in

1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H

210 psf (Concrete self-wt)450 psf (Soil weight)

(neglect bearing pressure)1.32 k/ft

Heel Checks [1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 13 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 225: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

Stem Internal Forces

-184.36 psf

-2832 psf

3.11 k/ft

-11.6 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

4.5

3.94

3.38

2.81

2.25

1.69

1.13

0.56

0-12 -9 -6 -3 0Moment (ft·k/ft)

Moment

Stem Internal Forces

4.5

3.94

3.38

2.81

2.25

1.69

1.13

0.56

00 1 2 3 4Shear (k/ft)

Shear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 3.11 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

-184.36 psf

-2832 psf

Stem Forces [1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 14 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 226: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

4.5

4.05

3.6

3.15

2.7

2.25

1.8

1.35

0.9

0.45

0-20 -13.33 -6.67 0 6.67 13.33 20Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

φMn 18.84 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 11.6 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 0 ft from base

φMn 18.84 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 1.54 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 3.44 ft from base

φMn 18.57 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 1.54 ft·k ft / = =

Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 3.45 ft from base

Stem Moment Checks [1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 15 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 227: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

4.5

4.05

3.6

3.15

2.7

2.25

1.8

1.35

0.9

0.45

0-20 -13.33 -6.67 0 6.67 13.33 20Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

φVn 17.42 k ft ≥ Vu / 3.11 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 0 ft from base

Stem Shear Checks [1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 16 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 228: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

φMn 18.84 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 11.6 ft·k ft / 15.47 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 4.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 13.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0871 = = =

εt 0.0871 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 13.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0871 = = =

εt 0.0871 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 4.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 16 in 0.0032 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0032 ≥ ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 16 in 48 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

MuφMn

11.6 ft·k ft / 18.84 ft·k ft / 0.6160 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.63 in 10.61 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 7.42 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.6160 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 4.57 in = 8 db 8 0.63 in 5.0 minimum limit, does not control = = 6 inch minimum controlsldh_prov 11 in ≥ ldh 6 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 17 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 229: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 9.28 ft·k ft ≥ Mstem / 0 ft·k ft / - = = Mu 0 ft·k ft stem base moment controls / - =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi 10.63 in 0.52 in 2 / - 20.53 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 20.53 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0 ft·k ft / - = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 10.63 in 18.03 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 18.03 k ft / 13.52 k ft / = = = φVn 13.52 k ft ≥ Vu / 4.8 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 10.63 in

0.52 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0463 = = =

εt 0.0463 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 20.53 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / - 0 ft·k ft / - = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

14 in 12 in 0.0037 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0037 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

0 ft·k ft / - 20.53 ft·k ft / 0.0 ratio to represent excess reinforcement - = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 0.75 in 2 / + 3.38 in = = cb 3.38 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 3.38 in 0.0 +

0.75 in 4.50 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.75 in 15.27 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.0000 - per 12.2.5: ld 0 in - = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 37 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

14 in #6 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

175 psf (Self-wt)375.4 psf (Soil)

5764 psf 5341 psf

Toe Factored Loads

14 in #6 @ 12 in

1.4D

245 psf (Self-wt)525.6 psf (Soil)

3834 psf 3553 psf

525.6 psf7.31 k/ft

Toe Checks [1.4D]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 18 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 230: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 1.54 ft·k ft ≥ Mstem / 0 ft·k ft / - = = Mu 0 ft·k ft stem base moment controls / - =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi 11.63 in 0.52 in 2 / - 22.51 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 22.51 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0 ft·k ft / - = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 11.63 in 19.73 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 19.73 k ft / 14.8 k ft / = = = φVn 14.8 k ft ≥ Vu / 1.54 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.04 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.52 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 11.63 in

0.52 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0509 = = =

εt 0.0509 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 22.51 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / - 0 ft·k ft / - = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.62 in² in /

14 in 12 in 0.0037 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0037 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

0 ft·k ft / - 22.51 ft·k ft / 0.0 ratio to represent excess reinforcement - = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 11.25 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.75 in 2 / + 2.38 in = = cb 2.38 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.38 in 0.0 +

0.75 in 3.1667 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.75 in 15.27 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.0000 - per 12.2.5: ld 0 in - = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 44 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads14 in

#6 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

175 psf (Concrete self-wt)375 psf (Soil weight)

(neglect bearing pressure)

Heel Factored Loads

14 in

#6 @ 12 in

1.4D

245 psf (Concrete self-wt)525 psf (Soil weight)

(neglect bearing pressure)1.54 k/ft

Heel Checks [1.4D]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 19 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 231: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

Stem Internal Forces

0 k/ft

-0 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal ForcesMoment

Stem Internal ForcesShear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 0 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

Stem Forces [1.4D]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 20 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 232: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

4.5

4.05

3.6

3.15

2.7

2.25

1.8

1.35

0.9

0.45

0-20 -13.33 -6.67 0 6.67 13.33 20Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

MomentStem Moment Checks [1.4D]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 21 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 233: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

4.5

4.05

3.6

3.15

2.7

2.25

1.8

1.35

0.9

0.45

0-20 -13.33 -6.67 0 6.67 13.33 20Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

ShearStem Shear Checks [1.4D]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 22 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 234: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing

φMn 18.84 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 4.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 13.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0871 = = =

εt 0.0871 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 13.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0871 = = =

εt 0.0871 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 4.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 16 in 0.0032 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0032 ≥ ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 16 in 48 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

MuφMn

0 ft·k ft / 18.84 ft·k ft / 0.0 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.63 in 10.61 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 7.42 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.0000 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 0 in = 8 db 8 0.63 in 5.0 minimum limit, does not control = = 6 inch minimum controlsldh_prov 11 in ≥ ldh 6 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [1.4D]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 23 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 235: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

Page 236: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

Concrete f'c = 5000 psiRebar Fy = 60000 psiUnit Weight = 150 lb/ft³

124 in

13.33 ft

1.5 ft 1.5 ft

14 in

4.67

ft 3.5

ft4.

17 ft

0.5

ft

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 12 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 12 in

Heel Bars: #5 @ 12 inToe Bars: #5 @ 12 inFooting S/T Bars: #6 @ 12 in

#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 12 in#5 @ 12 in (S&T)#5 @ 12 in

Design Detail

Check SummaryRatio Check Provided Required Combination

----- Stability Checks -----0.197 Overturning 7.61 1.50 1.0D + 1.0L + 0.6H0.416 Sliding 3.60 1.50 1.0D + 1.0L + 0.6H2.266 Bearing Pressure 2500 psf 5664 psf 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0H0.197 Bearing Eccentricity 5.25 in 26.67 in 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0H

----- Toe Checks -----0.322 Shear 13.6 k/ft 4.38 k/ft 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.552 Moment 14.65 ft·k/ft 8.09 ft·k/ft 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.059 Min Strain 0.0673 0.0040 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0.03 in² 0 in² 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.086 Development 139 in 12 in 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.344 S&T Min Rho 0.0052 0.0018 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H

----- Heel Checks -----0.078 Shear 14.88 k/ft 1.16 k/ft 1.4D0.046 Moment 16.05 ft·k/ft 0.74 ft·k/ft 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.054 Min Strain 0.0739 0.0040 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0.03 in² 0 in² 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.086 Development 140 in 12 in 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.667 S&T Max Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.344 S&T Min Rho 0.0052 0.0018 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H

----- Stem Checks -----0.186 Moment 169.5 ft·k/ft 31.57 ft·k/ft 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.069 Shear 154.9 k/ft 10.71 k/ft 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.005 Max Steel 0.7978 0.0040 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.000 Min Steel 0 in²/in 0 in²/in 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.545 Base Development 11 in 6 in 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H4.800 Horz Bar Rho 0.0004 0.0020 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H0.667 Horz Bar Spacing 12 in 18 in 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H

Criteria

Building Code IBC 2012Concrete Load Combs IBC 2012 (Strength)Masonry Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Stability Load Combs ASCE 7-10 (ASD)Restrained Against Sliding NoNeglect Bearing At Heel YesUse Vert. Comp. for OT NoUse Vert. Comp. for Sliding NoUse Vert. Comp. for Bearing YesUse Surcharge for Sliding & OT YesUse Surcharge for Bearing YesNeglect Soil Over Toe NoNeglect Backfill Wt. for Coulomb NoFactor Soil Weight As Dead YesUse Passive Force for OT YesAssume Pressure To Top YesExtend Backfill Pressure To Key Bottom NoUse Toe Passive Pressure for Bearing NoRequired F.S. for OT 1.50Required F.S. for Sliding 1.50Has Different Safety Factors for Seismic YesSeismic F.S. for OT 1.20Seismic F.S. for Sliding 1.20Allowable Bearing Pressure 2500 psfReq'd Bearing Location Middle thirdWall Friction Angle 25°Friction Coefficent 0.35Soil Reaction Modulus 288000 lb/ft³

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 1 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 237: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

Loads

3 ft

4.17

ft

4.17

ft

0.5

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf4.

17 ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

-6520 psf

DL=22 k/ft, LL=32.22 k/ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psfKh = 0.10Kv = 0.05

Loading Options/AssumptionsPassive pressure neglects top 0 ft of soil.

Load Combinations

IBC 2012 (Strength) 1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.9H 1.2D + 0.5L + 1.6H + 1.0E 1.2D + 0.5L + 1.6H 1.2D + 0.5L + 0.9H + 1.0E 1.2D + 0.5L + 0.9H 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.0E 1.2D + 1.6H 1.2D + 0.9H + 1.0E 1.2D + 0.9H 0.9D + 1.6H + 1.0E 0.9D + 1.6H 0.9D + 0.9H + 1.0E 0.9D + 0.9H 1.4D

Backfill Pressure

3 ft

4.17

ft

4.17

ft

-0 ft 0.5

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

-160.03 psf

4.17

ft

27.78 lb/in4.17

ft

1.39

ft

-115.22 psf14.4 lb/in

1 ft

Rankine Active Earth Pressure Theory

Ka tan² 45° φ2 - tan ² 45° 32°

2 - 0.3073 = = =

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 4.17 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 160 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

σa γ H Ka 2 c Ka - 125 lb ft³ / 3 ft 0.3073 2 0 psf 0.3073 - 115.2 psf = = = αP α 0° 0° resultant force angle with horizontal = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure (stem only)

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 2 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 238: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

Passive Pressure

4.17

ft

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psf

1696 psf

4.17

ft

294.8 lb/in 1.39 ft

Rankine Passive Earth Pressure Theory

Kp tan² 45° φ2 + tan ² 45° 32°

2 + 3.2546 = = =

σp γ H Kp 2 c Kp + 125 lb ft³ / 4.17 ft 3.2546 2 0 psf 3.2546 + 1696 psf = = =

Lateral Earth Pressure

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 3 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 239: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

Seismic Pressure

γ = 125 lb/ft³φ = 32°c = 0 psfKh = 0.10Kv = 0.05

-5.95 psf

-23.78 psf

4.17

ft

5.16 lb/in

4.17

ft

2.5

ft

4.68 lb/in

2.18 lb/in

-4.28 psf

-17.12 psf 2.68 lb/in

1.8

ft

2.42 lb/in

1.13 lb/in

Dynamic static force Mononobe Okabe equation - +

θ' atan kh1 kv - arctan 0.10

1 0.050 - 6.01° = = =

Kaesin² β φ θ' - +

cos θ' sin² β sin β θ' δ - - 1 sin φ δ + sin φ θ' α - - sin β δ θ' - - sin α β + + 2 ^

=

sin ² 90° 30° 6.01° - +

cos 6.01° sin ² 90° sin 90° 6.01° 25° - - 1 sin 30° 25° + sin 30° 6.01° 0° - - sin 90° 25° 6.01° - - sin 0° 90° + + 2 ^

=

0.37 lb in / =

Pae12 Kae γ H 2 ^ 1 kv - 1

2 0.37 lb in / 125 lb ft³ / 4.17 ft 2 ^ 1 0.050 - 31.92 lb in / = = =

Static only force Coulomb equation -

Kasin² β φ +

sin² β sin β δ - 1 sin φ δ + sin φ α - sin β δ - sin α β + + 2 ^

=

sin ² 90° 30° +

sin ² 90° sin 90° 25° - 1 sin 30° 25° + sin 30° 0° - sin 90° 25° - sin 0° 90° + + 2 ^

=

0.2959 =

Pa12 Ka γ H 2 ^ 1

2 0.2959 125 lb ft³ / 4.17 ft 2 ^ 26.76 lb in / = = =

Net dynamic forceΔPae Pae Pa - 31.92 lb in / 26.76 lb in / - 5.16 lb in / = = = αP 90° β δ + - 90° 90° 25° + - 25° resultant force angle with horizontal = = = To arrive at the pressure distribution illustrated above used to determine stem moments , apply inverted triangular pressure plus a uniform portion to bring resultant to 0.6H

σe_top85ΔPae

H 85

5.16 lb in / 4.17 ft 23.78 psf = = =

σe_bot25ΔPae

H 25

5.16 lb in / 4.17 ft 5.95 psf = = =

Seismic Pressure

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 4 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 240: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

Manually Specified Lateral Stem Pressure

-6520 psf6520 lb/ft

Wall/Soil Weights

194.4 lb/in

452.1 lb/in 46.88 lb/in46.93 lb/in

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 5 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 241: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

Bearing Pressure

5666 psf3803 psf

5261 lb/in

6.23 ft

e = 5.25 in

1841 lb/in

F μ R 0.350 5261 lb in / 1841 lb in / = = = Friction

Bearing Pressure CalculationContributing Forces

Vert Force ...offset Horz Force ...offset OT MomentBackfill Pressure -0 lb/in - -27.78 lb/in 1.39 ft 5557 in·lb/ftManual Lateral Pressure -0 lb/in - -543.33 lb/in 4.17 ft 326000 in·lb/ftAxial Dead Load -1833.33 lb/in 6.67 ft 0 lb/in - -1760000 in·lb/ftAxial Live Load -2685 lb/in 6.67 ft 0 lb/in - -2577600 in·lb/ftSeismic Force -2.18 lb/in 13.33 ft -4.68 lb/in 2.5 ft -2503.75 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -194.44 lb/in 6.67 ft 0 lb/in - -186666.67 in·lb/ftStem Weight -452.08 lb/in 6.67 ft 0 lb/in - -434000 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -46.88 lb/in 12.58 ft 0 lb/in - -84937.5 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -46.93 lb/in 0.75 ft 0 lb/in - -5068.13 in·lb/ft

-5260.84 lb/in -4719219.43 in·lb/ft4719219.43 in·lb ft / -

5260.84 lb in / - 6.23 ft =

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 6 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 242: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 27.78 lb/in 1.39 ft 5557 in·lb/ftManual lateral pressure 543.3 lb/in 4.17 ft 326000 in·lb/ftSeismic force 0 lb/in 2.5 ft 0 in·lb/ft

Total: 331557 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentPassive pressure @ toe 294.8 lb/in 1.39 ft 58999 in·lb/ftAxial dead load -1833.33 lb/in 6.67 ft 1760000 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -194.44 lb/in 6.67 ft 186667 in·lb/ftStem Weight -452.08 lb/in 6.67 ft 434000 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -46.88 lb/in 12.58 ft 84938 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -46.93 lb/in 0.75 ft 5068 in·lb/ft

Total: 2529671 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 2529671 in·lb ft /

331557 in·lb ft / 7.630 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckSliding Force(s)

Backfill pressure 27.78 lb/inManual lateral pressure 543.3 lb/inSeismic force 0 lb/inTotal: 571.1 lb/in

Resisting Force(s)Passive pressure @ toe 294.8 lb/inFriction 1841 lb/inTotal: 2135 lb/in

F.S. RFSF 2135 lb in /

571.1 lb in / 3.739 > 1.50 OK = = =

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure > allowable (5664 psf > 2500 psf) - FAILSBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (5.25 in < 26.67 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement 0.02 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.02 in

Stability Checks [1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 7 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 243: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

Overturning CheckOverturning Moments

Force Distance MomentBackfill pressure (horz) 16.67 lb/in 1.39 ft 3334 in·lb/ftManual lateral pressure 543.3 lb/in 4.17 ft 326000 in·lb/ftSeismic force 0 lb/in 2.5 ft 0 in·lb/ft

Total: 329334 in·lb/ftResisting Moments

Force Distance MomentPassive pressure @ toe 176.9 lb/in 1.39 ft 35399 in·lb/ftAxial dead load -1833.33 lb/in 6.67 ft 1760000 in·lb/ftFooting Weight -194.44 lb/in 6.67 ft 186667 in·lb/ftStem Weight -452.08 lb/in 6.67 ft 434000 in·lb/ftBackfill Weight -46.88 lb/in 12.58 ft 84938 in·lb/ftSoil over toe Weight -46.93 lb/in 0.75 ft 5068 in·lb/ft

Total: 2506072 in·lb/ft

F.S. RMOTM 2506072 in·lb ft /

329334 in·lb ft / 7.610 > 1.50 OK = = =

Sliding CheckSliding Force(s)

Backfill pressure 16.67 lb/inManual lateral pressure 543.3 lb/inSeismic force 0 lb/inTotal: 560 lb/in

Resisting Force(s)Passive pressure @ toe 176.9 lb/inFriction 1841 lb/inTotal: 2017 lb/in

F.S. RFSF 2017 lb in /

560 lb in / 3.602 > 1.50 OK = = =

Bearing Capacity CheckBearing pressure > allowable (5664 psf > 2500 psf) - FAILSBearing resultant eccentricity < allowable (5.25 in < 26.67 in) - OK

Wall Top Displacement(based on unfactored service loads)

Deflection due to stem flexural displacement 0 inDeflection due to rotation from settlement 0.02 inTotal deflection at top of wall (positive towards toe) 0.02 in

Stability Checks [1.0D + 1.0L + 0.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 8 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 244: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

3.5

3.15

2.8

2.45

2.1

1.75

1.4

1.05

0.7

0.35

0-200 -133.33 -66.67 0 66.67 133.3 200Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 121.7 in 0.36 in 2 / - 169.5 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 121.7 in 0.36 in 2 / - 169.5 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 0 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 121.7 in 0.36 in 2 / - 169.5 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 2.44 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 121.7 in 0.36 in 2 / - 169.5 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 2.44 ft from base [Positive bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 121.7 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 3.5 ft from base [Negative bending]

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0 in² in / 60000 psi 121.7 in 0 in 2 / - 0 ft·k ft / = = =

Capacity (ACI 318-11 10.2) @ 3.5 ft from base [Positive bending]

Stem Flexural Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 9 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 245: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

3.5

3.15

2.8

2.45

2.1

1.75

1.4

1.05

0.7

0.35

0-200 -133.33 -66.67 0 66.67 133.3 200Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 121.7 in 206.5 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 206.5 k ft / 154.9 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 121.7 in 206.5 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 206.5 k ft / 154.9 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 0 ft from base [Negative shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 121.7 in 206.5 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 206.5 k ft / 154.9 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 3.5 ft from base [Positive shear]

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 121.7 in 206.5 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 206.5 k ft / 154.9 k ft / = = =

Shear Capacity (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.2.1) @ 3.5 ft from base [Negative shear]

Stem Shear Capacity

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 10 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 246: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.63 in 10.61 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 7.42 in = 8 db 8 0.63 in 5.0 minimum limit, does not control = =

Main vertical stem bars (bottom end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.63 in 2 / + 2.31 in = = cb 2.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 3.70 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

Main vertical stem bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

ψt 1.0 bars are not horizontal = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.63 in 2 / + 2.31 in = = cb 2.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 3.70 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

2nd curtain vertical bars (top end) - Development Length Calculation (ACI 318-11 12.2.3, 12.5)

Stem Development/Lap Length Calculations

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 11 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 247: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 8.09 ft·k ft < Mstem / 31.57 ft·k ft / = = Mu 8.09 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 10.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 14.65 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 14.65 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 8.09 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 10.69 in 18.14 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 18.14 k ft / 13.6 k ft / = = = φVn 13.6 k ft ≥ Vu / 4.38 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 10.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0673 = = =

εt 0.0673 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 14.65 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 8.09 ft·k ft / 10.79 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.88 in² in /

14 in 12 in 0.0052 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0052 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

8.09 ft·k ft / 14.65 ft·k ft / 0.5523 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 0.63 in 2 / + 3.31 in = = cb 3.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 3.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 5.30 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.5523 per 12.2.5: ld 7.03 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 139 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

14 in

#5 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

175 psf (Self-wt)375.4 psf (Soil)

5666 psf 5457 psf

Toe Factored Loads

14 in

#5 @ 12 in

1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H

210 psf (Self-wt)450.5 psf (Soil)

7953 psf 7659 psf7953 psf7659 psf

10.72 k/ft

Toe Checks [1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 12 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 248: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 0.74 ft·k ft < Mstem / 31.57 ft·k ft / = = Mu 0.74 ft·k ft stem moment does not control / =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 11.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 16.05 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 16.05 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0.74 ft·k ft / = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 11.69 in 19.83 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 19.83 k ft / 14.88 k ft / = = = φVn 14.88 k ft ≥ Vu / 0.99 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 11.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0739 = = =

εt 0.0739 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 16.05 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0.74 ft·k ft / 0.99 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.88 in² in /

14 in 12 in 0.0052 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0052 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

0.74 ft·k ft / 16.05 ft·k ft / 0.0463 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 11.38 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.63 in 2 / + 2.31 in = = cb 2.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 3.70 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.0463 per 12.2.5: ld 0.59 in = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 140 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads14 in

#5 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

175 psf (Concrete self-wt)375 psf (Soil weight)

(neglect bearing pressure)

Heel Factored Loads

14 in

#5 @ 12 in

1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H

210 psf (Concrete self-wt)450 psf (Soil weight)

(neglect bearing pressure)0.99 k/ft

Heel Checks [1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 13 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 249: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

Stem Internal Forces

-184.36 psf

-10432 psf

10.71 k/ft

-31.57 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

3.5

3.06

2.63

2.19

1.75

1.31

0.88

0.44

0-40 -30 -20 -10 0Moment (ft·k/ft)

Moment

Stem Internal Forces

3.5

3.06

2.63

2.19

1.75

1.31

0.88

0.44

00 3 6 9 12Shear (k/ft)

Shear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 10.71 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

-184.36 psf

-10432 psf

Stem Forces [1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 14 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 250: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

3.5

3.15

2.8

2.45

2.1

1.75

1.4

1.05

0.7

0.35

0-200 -133.33 -66.67 0 66.67 133.3 200Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Moment

φMn 169.5 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 31.57 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 0 ft from base

φMn 169.5 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 5.85 ft·k ft / = = Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 2.44 ft from base

φMn 169.5 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 5.85 ft·k ft / = =

Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 10) @ 2.44 ft from base

Stem Moment Checks [1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 15 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 251: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

3.5

3.15

2.8

2.45

2.1

1.75

1.4

1.05

0.7

0.35

0-200 -133.33 -66.67 0 66.67 133.3 200Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

Shear

φVn 154.9 k ft ≥ Vu / 10.71 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 Ch 11.1.1) @ 0 ft from base

Stem Shear Checks [1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 16 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 252: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

φMn 169.5 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 31.57 ft·k ft / 42.1 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 3.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 121.7 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.7978 = = =

εt 0.7978 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 121.7 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.7978 = = =

εt 0.7978 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 3.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 124 in 0.0004 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0004 < ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 124 in 372 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

MuφMn

31.57 ft·k ft / 169.5 ft·k ft / 0.1863 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.63 in 10.61 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 7.42 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.1863 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 1.38 in = 8 db 8 0.63 in 5.0 minimum limit, does not control = = 6 inch minimum controlsldh_prov 11 in ≥ ldh 6 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [1.2D + 1.6L + 1.6H]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 17 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 253: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

Design moment Mu for toe need not exceed moment at stem base:Mtoe 3.45 ft·k ft ≥ Mstem / 0 ft·k ft / - = = Mu 0 ft·k ft stem base moment controls / - =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 10.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 14.65 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 14.65 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0 ft·k ft / - = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 10.69 in 18.14 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 18.14 k ft / 13.6 k ft / = = = φVn 13.6 k ft ≥ Vu / 1.87 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 10.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0673 = = =

εt 0.0673 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 14.65 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / - 0 ft·k ft / - = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.88 in² in /

14 in 12 in 0.0052 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0052 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

0 ft·k ft / - 14.65 ft·k ft / 0.0 ratio to represent excess reinforcement - = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 3.00 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 3 in 0.63 in 2 / + 3.31 in = = cb 3.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 3.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 5.30 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.0000 - per 12.2.5: ld 0 in - = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 139 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Toe Unfactored Loads

14 in

#5 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

175 psf (Self-wt)375.4 psf (Soil)

5666 psf 5457 psf

Toe Factored Loads

14 in

#5 @ 12 in

1.4D

245 psf (Self-wt)525.6 psf (Soil)

3881 psf 3737 psf3881 psf3737 psf

4.56 k/ft

Toe Checks [1.4D]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 18 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 254: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

Design moment Mu for heel need not exceed moment at stem base:Mheel 0.87 ft·k ft ≥ Mstem / 0 ft·k ft / - = = Mu 0 ft·k ft stem base moment controls / - =

Controlling Moment

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

φMn φ As fy d a 2 / - 0.90 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi 11.69 in 0.36 in 2 / - 16.05 ft·k ft / = = = φMn 16.05 ft·k ft ≥ Mu / 0 ft·k ft / - = =

Flexure Check (ACI 318-11 10.2)

λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

Vc 2 λ F'c d 2 1.0 5000 psi 11.69 in 19.83 k ft / = = = φVn φ Vc 0.750 19.83 k ft / 14.88 k ft / = = = φVn 14.88 k ft ≥ Vu / 1.16 k ft / = =

Shear Check (ACI 318-11 11.1.1, 11.11.3.1)

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 11.69 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.0739 = = =

εt 0.0739 ≥ 0.004 =

Minimum Strain Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5)

φMn 16.05 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / - 0 ft·k ft / - = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1)

ρST_provASTt sST 0.88 in² in /

14 in 12 in 0.0052 = = =

ρST_min0.0018 60000

fy 0.0018 60000

60000 psi 0.0018 = = =

ρST_min 0.0018 = ρST_prov 0.0052 ≥ ρST_min 0.0018 = = 18 inch limit governssST_max 18 in = sST 12 in ≤ sST_max 18 in = =

Shrinkage and Temperature Steel (ACI 318-11 7.12.2)

MuφMn

0 ft·k ft / - 16.05 ft·k ft / 0.0 ratio to represent excess reinforcement - = =

ψt 1.0 12 inches or less cast below 11.38 inches - = ψe 1.0 bar not epoxy coated = ψs 0.80 bars are #6 or smaller = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete = s 2 / 12 in 2 / 6 in = = cover db 2 / + 2 in 0.63 in 2 / + 2.31 in = = cb 2.31 in lesser of half spacing, ctr to surface = Ktr 0.0 no transverse reinforcement = cb Ktr +

db 2.31 in 0.0 +

0.63 in 3.70 = =

ld3.40

fyλ F'c

ψt ψe ψs 2.5 db 3.

4060000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 1.0 1.0 0.80

2.5 0.63 in 12.73 in = = =

Factoring ld by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.0000 - per 12.2.5: ld 0 in - = 12 inch minimum controlsld_prov 140 in ≥ ld 12 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Heel Unfactored Loads14 in

#5 @ 12 in

Unfactored Loads

175 psf (Concrete self-wt)375 psf (Soil weight)

(neglect bearing pressure)

Heel Factored Loads

14 in

#5 @ 12 in

1.4D

245 psf (Concrete self-wt)525 psf (Soil weight)

(neglect bearing pressure)1.16 k/ft

Heel Checks [1.4D]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 19 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 255: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

Stem Internal Forces

0 k/ft

-0 ft·k/ft

Stem Internal ForcesMoment

Stem Internal ForcesShear

Stem Joint Force TransferLocation Force@ stem base 0 k/ft

Stem Internal Forces

Stem Forces [1.4D]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 20 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 256: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

3.5

3.15

2.8

2.45

2.1

1.75

1.4

1.05

0.7

0.35

0-200 -133.33 -66.67 0 66.67 133.3 200Moment (ft·k/ft)

Offset (ft)

MomentStem Moment Checks [1.4D]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 21 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 257: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

3.5

3.15

2.8

2.45

2.1

1.75

1.4

1.05

0.7

0.35

0-200 -133.33 -66.67 0 66.67 133.3 200Shear (k/ft)

Offset (ft)

ShearStem Shear Checks [1.4D]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 22 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM

Page 258: MILLSITE DAM SPILLWAY REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL …...Millsite Dam Spillway Rehabilitation Design Report ... The hydraulic modeling found the flow over the weir was more efficient

Kevin FransonFRANSON CIVIL ENGINEERS

Bridge Footing-Side Tipping

φMn 169.5 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

φMn 0 ft·k ft ≥ 4 3 / Mu / 4 3 / 0 ft·k ft / 0 ft·k ft / = = = Check is waived per ACI 10.5.3

Minimum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.5.1) @ 3.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 121.7 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.7978 = = =

εt 0.7978 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 0 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

β1 0.85 0.05 F'c 4000 - 1000 - 0.85 0.05 5000 psi 4000 -

1000 - 0.80 = = =

a As fy 0.85 F'c 0.03 in² in / 60000 psi

0.85 5000 psi 0.36 in = = =

εt 0.003 da β1 / 1 - 0.003 121.7 in

0.36 in 0.80 / 1 - 0.7978 = = =

εt 0.7978 ≥ 0.004 =

Maximum Steel Check (ACI 318-11 10.3.5) @ 3.5 ft from base [Stem in negative flexure]

ρhAs_horz shorz /

t 0.62 in² 12 in / 124 in 0.0004 = = =

ρh_min 0.0020 bars No. 5 or less, not less than 60 ksi = ρh 0.0004 < ρh_min 0.0020 = = 3 twall 3 124 in 372 in = = 18 inch limit governssmax 18 in = shorz 12 in ≤ shorz_max 18 in = =

Wall Horizontal Steel (ACI 318-11 14.3.3, 14.3.5)

MuφMn

0 ft·k ft / 169.5 ft·k ft / 0.0 ratio to represent excess reinforcement = =

ψe 1.0 uncoated hooked bars = λ 1.0 normal weight concrete =

ldh 0.02 ψefy

λ F'c db 0.02 1.0 60000 psi

1.0 5000 psi 0.63 in 10.61 in = = =

Factoring ldh by the 0.7 multiplier of 12.5.3 a : ldh 7.42 in = Factoring ldh by the excess reinforcement ratio 0.0000 per 12.5.3 d : ldh 0 in = 8 db 8 0.63 in 5.0 minimum limit, does not control = = 6 inch minimum controlsldh_prov 11 in ≥ ldh 6 in = =

Development Check (ACI 318-11 12.12, 12.2.3)

Stem Miscellaneous Checks [1.4D]

QuickRWall 4.0 (iesweb.com) \\Franson\Projects\UT\Eastern\Millsite Re...\Bridge Footing.rwd Page 23 of 23 Thursday 11/05/15 2:24 PM