than the normal structural minimum of 1 per cent. Section 10.9.1 of the ACI Code states that the area of longitudinal reinforcement for concrete columns must be not less than 1 per cent of the gross concrete area A,. If, however, the cross-section is larger than required by considerations of structural resistance, then Section 10.8.4 allows a reduced effective area A,', not less than one half the total area, to be used to determine the minimum reinforcement and design strength. This ‘means that if the column has sufficient axial strength using only half the gross concrete area, A,2, then the longitudinal reinforcement ratio can be reduced to 0.5 per cent of the gross concrete area, A, That is, Pas (%)=A',/ A, 2 0.5, when A',/ A, <1, where p refers to percentage of steel. In fact, in many cases in which drilled shafts are designed with large diameters in order to develop enough side and base area to produce adequate geotechnical resistance in soils and in some soft rocks, this criterion can be used. Design of 'ransverse Reinforcement Spiral Column Design “The transverse reinforcement (spiral or ties) plays a critical role in the structural design of drilled shafis by confining the concrete within the core of shaft as the ultimate axial resistance is approached and by bracing the longitudinal steel against buckling. For round columns such as dtiled shafts, the usual practice has been to use spiral for this purpose. Section 7.10 of the ACI code oullines the requirements for spirals used as transverse reinforcement in compression members. The ACI specifications gives the volumetric ratio of spiral reinforcement required, p in the following equation. ties: estikes B= aas( -1) ; 326) where A,= cross-sectional area of the concrete inside the spiral steel, and the remaining terms are as defined previously. Example 13.2 is continued in Example 13.3 with the selection of the spiral steel. 363Pr P.= 0.85 [FlA,—A.) + fA — 08P, . Nominal ultimate resistance interaction diagram Factored ultimate resistance interaction diagram NOT TO SCALE PEO133 FA, ane be —o.9 m (nom) (=o) M Figure 13.24. Interaction diagram for factored resistances for combined axial load and flexure Example 133. Selection of Transverse Reinforcing Sieel Schedule for Example 13.2 ‘Note that the various parameters for the section and the materials are given in Example 13.2. Step 10a. Compute A.. Recall that the shaft diameter is 762 mm and that 75 mm of cover is specified over the longitudinal rebar. A, = (w/4) [762 - 2(75)? = 294,200 mm? = 0.2942 m?. A, = 0.456 m? (from Example 13.2) £,= 27,560 kPa (4,000 psi) £, = 413,400 kPa (60,000 psi) 364Step 10b. Compute p, from Equation (13.26). 2,= 045 [ (0.456 / 0.2942) - 1 ] (27,560 / 413,400) = 0.0165 Step 10c. Choose a pitch for the spiral. The pitch should normally be between 75 and 150 mm. A value near the upper end of this range is desirable from the point of view of concrete flow. However, wien shear loads (which are considered separately) are high, it may be necessary to use a pitch near the lower bound. When that is done, consideration should be given to reducing the maximum size of the coarse aggregate in the concrete mix so that the clear spacing between spiral tums is approximately 5 times the maximum size of the coarse aggregate, Choose a 150-mm pitch. Step 10d. Determine the area of the spiral Length of the spiral in one turn = { {m [762 - 2(75)]}? + 150°} = 1928 mm. ‘Volume of core per tum = 150 {(a/4) [762 - 2(75)P}= 44,125,000 mm?. p,= 0.0165 = Volume of spiral per tum / Volume of core per tum = Agi (1928 mm) / 44,125,000 mm’, from which Agpsa = [0.0165 (44,125,000)] / 1928 = 377.6 mm? Step 108 Select the size ofthe spiral. ‘The smallest size spiral that will give this area is 25M The final section design becomes 13, 35M Grade 60 longitudinal bars equally spaced around the circumference of a circle with 75 mm clear spacing between the cage and borehole wall with 25M Grade 60 spiral at a 150 mm pitch. Ifa liberal tolerance is given in the specifications for the horizontal position of the drilled shaft borehole (e. g., 75 m (3 in.) from planned position], consideration can be given at this point to increasing the diameter of the drilled shaft (but not the cage) by 150 mm (6 in). In this way, if the cage must be offset by 75 mm (3 in.) within the borehole to match the position of the rebar for the column, doing so will not cause structural problems in the shaft, and a 75 mm (3 in.) cover will be ensured all around the cage when the shaft is constructed. [/ The method described here, which is based on the ACI code, requires a sigaificant amount of 365transverse steel because it was developed for above-ground columns. The same requirements are undoubtedly conservative for drilled shafts, which are confined by soil, and especially conservative for drilled shafts embedded in rock. The large amount of transverse steel is required in consideration of the need to maintsin ductility in the column once a plastic hinge develops, since ductility is provided largely by properly confined concrete in the core of the column. This is especially important for earthquake resistant design. Although more research is needed, itis likely that the stringent requirements of Equation (13.24) could be relaxed somewhat in drilled shafts at locations away from any plastic hinges, which can be identified by a p-y analysis, and that the requirements of Equation (13.24) could be enforced only in the vicinity of locations where plastic hinges will develop. This would aid in the constructability of the shaft. In addition to the structural requirements enumerated here, the drilled-shaft designer should check to make sure that the size of the transverse reinforcement is not less than that recommended in Chapter 7 for good handling of the rebar cage during construction. The designer may wish to consider the option of circular ties, discussed below, instead of spiral ties, if there is no specific requirement to use spiral, Ties become attractive when the diameter of the transverse reinforcement becomes large, as it is in this example, and spiral becomes difficult to handle during cage fabrication. Tied Column Design The interaction diagrams in the ACI design handbook or in Barker et al. (1991) can also be used for designing tied-concrete columns. Page 205 of the ACI design handbook (ACI, 1985) gives a description of the theoretical background used in developing the interaction charts. It the design is to be done under the provisions of ACI, there are two modifications that must be made to use the design diagrams for tied columns. (Corresponding modifications do not have to be done if one is designing under the provisions of AASHTO.) Firstly, for tied columns the capacity eduction factor is 0.70 instead of 0.75 for spiral columns. A value of 0.75 is incorporated in the column tables in the design handbook. In view of this, to design a tied column, the values of P, and My, should be increased by a factor of (0.75/0.70) before entering the column tables. Secondly, for tied columns, the value of B in Equation (13.22) is equal to 0.80 (instead of 0.85 for spiral columns.) This limit on maximum axial strength should be calculated for tied columns and be used as an upper limit on strength in the interaction charts. Section 7.10.5 of the ACI Code (ACI, 1995) outlines the requirements for ties used as lateral reinforcement in compression members. Modifications are noted in Section 8.18.2.3 of AASHTO (1994). Other additional restrictions are applicable for seismic areas. For longitudinal bars smaller than #11 (35M) bars, #3 ties may be used. For columns using #11 bars or larger, ties must be at least #4 bars. These sizes do not correlate well with metric sizes, so that the number designation should be used in the foreseeable future for economy. 366