Organization Client

Designed By Project 3 level strut example

Date 11/27/2012 Job #

TBWall Report
Project Information
Designed By
Organization
Date 11/27/2012
Project 3 level strut example
Job #
Client
or Struts
Number of Tieback Levels Three

Units System ft

Geometry
a 3.0 ft
b 6.0 ft
c 6.0 ft
d 5.0 ft

h 20.0 ft
L 22.0 ft

Properties
E 29000 ksi
fy 50 ksi

Max. Deflection 0.5 in

Beam Shape W14X68

Tieback Data
Angle1 0
Angle2 0
Angle3 0

SoilStructure.com Page 1 of 8
 Organization Client
Designed By Project 3 level strut example
Date 11/27/2012 Job #

Design Philosophy

The analysis is based on "Equivalent Beam Method" first proposed by Blum and
explained in detail in "Foundation Design" Teng, 1962, 1st & only edition or in
"Foundation Engineering" Jumikis, 1987 2nd ed.
The design is based on classical structural analysis:

* This program uses classic-beam-theory beam elements to solve the multispan

tieback design.

* The equivalent nodal loads for each span are determined by numerical
integration of the beam equations to allow for the non uniform loads.

* The equivalent nodal loads, the stiffness matrix, and the support conditions are
used to solve for the support reactions and the support rotations.

* The support reactions are then used to numerically integrate the entire span
for values to display in the plots, and to find the max/min values.

* Steel Shapes only include compact sections, If noncompact sections are

desired, additional design checks are required.

* The deflection output is based on structural analysis but an independent check

should be made by Finite Element method or by site surveying.

SoilStructure.com Page 2 of 8
 Organization Client
Designed By Project 3 level strut example
Date 11/27/2012 Job #
Upper Strut
Middle Strut Lower Strut
@0.1H below ground- only for tiebacks.
Reaction 1 Reaction 2 Reaction 3 Reaction 4
-13.14 kips -23.42 kips -21.19 kips -2.70 kips

Maximum Shear 12.2 kip at 9.00 ft

Maximum Moment 12.3 kip-at 9.00 ft
Maximum Deflection -0.0019 in at 18.82 ft

Required Aw 0.61 in2 Adequate for Shear

Required Zx 4.94 in3 Adequate for Bending
Utilized Ix 0% Adequate for Deflection

R1 R2 R3
Tieback Force 13.1 kips 23.4 kips 21.2 kips
Unbonded Tieback Length 15.0 ft 15.0 ft 15.0 ft
Test Load 17.5 kips 31.1 kips 28.2 kips

Lateral Torsional Buckling Check Axially-Loaded Member Check

Lb 72 in P 6 kips
Cb 1 L 5 ft
ry 2.46 in K 0.8
Iy 121.00 in4 A 20.0 in2
h0 13.28 in KL/r 19.5
J 3.01 in4 Fe 752 ksi
rts 2.8 in Fcr 49 ksi
Lp 104.3 in Pn/Q 582 kips
Lr 350.5 in
Fcr 455 ksi
Mn/Q 287 kip-ft

Required Embedment 12.20 ft Braced Excavation will

Tschebotarioff Check 10.60 ft require less embedment

Combined Forces Utilization 5%

SoilStructure.com Page 3 of 8
Organization Client
Designed By Project 3 level strut example
Date 11/27/2012 Job #

Kips/Span

SoilStructure.com Page 4 of 8
Organization Client
Designed By Project 3 level strut example
Date 11/27/2012 Job #

SoilStructure.com Page 5 of 8
Organization Client
Designed By Project 3 level strut example
Date 11/27/2012 Job #

SoilStructure.com Page 6 of 8
Organization Client
Designed By Project 3 level strut example
Date 11/27/2012 Job #

SoilStructure.com Page 7 of 8
Organization Client
Designed By Project 3 level strut example
Date 11/27/2012 Job #

SoilStructure.com Page 8 of 8