Jump to content
  • Welcome to SEFP!

    Welcome!

    Welcome to our community forums, full of great discussions about Structural Engineering. Please register to become a part of our thriving group or login if you are already registered.

waqar saleem

masnory wall on RCC footing

Recommended Posts

Salam

Dear friends

i need guidance on the foundation of masonry structure (2 storey residential with partial basement) on week soils, (BC 0.75tsf), which foundation will perform better, i) an strip RCC footing with an upstand/down beam under the wall. ii) strip RCC footing without beam.Share your experiences and any other good suggestions.

 

Regards 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-12-26 at 2:50 AM, waqar saleem said:

i) an strip RCC footing with an upstand/down beam under the wall. ii) strip RCC footing without beam.

My first question is that why are you asking this question? What is your actual concern.. (shear, moment, settlement etc?). Also clarify if the beam would be of same width as that of wall.

In my opinion, considering beam is of same width as that of wall, there would be no significant difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks

my question is regarding foundation on weak soil, i came across the practice of providing beams under masonry walls, beams are of same width but depth greater than footing(like upstand beam in slabs). beam acts as inverted T-beam. i am asking the difference of soil structure interaction of foundation with beam and without beam.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is that, beam foundation is mostly suited when loads coming from super structure are excessive and causing punching shear in footing. So instead of increaisg depth of whole footing, we provide tapered footing or we go for beam footing. But since in case of wall, there is no case of punching shear. And only one way shear exists. Which is nearly same either you provide beam or not. Again if u r having excessive one way shear u can again go for beam footing or tapered footing. again if u think tapering will cost more go for localized thickneing by providing beam. More over, providing beam also causes increment in rigitiy of footing. I will personally provide strap footing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-12-29 at 3:20 AM, waqar saleem said:

Thanks

my question is regarding foundation on weak soil, i came across the practice of providing beams under masonry walls, beams are of same width but depth greater than footing(like upstand beam in slabs). beam acts as inverted T-beam. i am asking the difference of soil structure interaction of foundation with beam and without beam.

 

Regards

I can't see any difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wall footing with an RC beam (of height greater than the thickness of footing slab) will have a greater stiffness than the one without beam. As such, it will have more capacity to resist longitudinal bending of wall / footing caused by any concentrated loads, as well as in spanning over some loose pockets existing within the soil beneath.

Regards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, waqar saleem said:

i guess the one with beam will perform better than the simple foundation.

Depends on loading nd settlement. If loads are high, go for beam. Difference i have mentioned above. It is you who will have final judgement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, EngrUzair said:

A wall footing with an RC beam (of height greater than the thickness of footing slab) will have a greater stiffness than the one without beam. As such, it will have more capacity to resist longitudinal bending of wall / footing caused by any concentrated loads, as well as in spanning over some loose pockets existing within the soil beneath.

Regards. 

I hold the same opinion on this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, EngrUzair said:

A wall footing with an RC beam (of height greater than the thickness of footing slab) will have a greater stiffness than the one without beam. As such, it will have more capacity to resist longitudinal bending of wall / footing caused by any concentrated loads, as well as in spanning over some loose pockets existing within the soil beneath.

Regards. 

 

8 hours ago, BAZ said:

I hold the same opinion on this topic.

 

Valid points but any requirements for shear and moment demand should be met by "increasing the thickness of foundation" rather than relying on a beam to do so. The reason being that foundation (in this case strip foundation) reinforcement and formwork requirements are very simple and less labour intensive. Introducing a beam would make it complicated and more costly and in some cases an overkill. Also beam foundation will have no significant affect on settlement as I believe settlement is a function foundation width and bearing pressure, which in both cases would be similar. 

 

Edited by Ayesha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ayesha said:

Introducing a beam would make it complicated and more costly and in some cases an overkill.

Agreed, in general. However, there are situations where provision of an RC beam and even RC wall becomes necessary.

My previous reply was with reference to the general case of two wall footings of same slab size (both in plan and in thickness), but one of them with an RC beam of height more than the thickness of footing slab.

In practice however the type of footing used will vary with the site situation. For example, in case of an ordinary two storey masonry wall building without basement, simple strip footing (of a uniform thickness) should be ok in most of the strong soils with uniform strata. On the other hand, strip (or even a raft) footing with beam(s) may however be required to avoid differential settlement for sites with scattered loose subsoil pockets. 

However, for the specific cases of buildings with a basement, either in weak soils or at locations where the subsoil water level is high, provision of even an external RC wall (for the purpose of retaining earth, or prevention of moisture inside the building etc.) becomes desirable.  The problem highlighted in the Original Post also falls in this latter category.

Regards.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ayesha said:

any requirements for shear and moment demand should be met by "increasing the thickness of foundation" rather than relying on a beam to do so.

If beam is wide it reduces one way shear force by reducing cantilever part. but providing beam or not, is purely dependant on situation and loading. 

10 hours ago, Ayesha said:

Also beam foundation will have no significant affect on settlement as I believe settlement is a function foundation width and bearing pressure, which in both cases would be similar. 

I believe it is mostly differential settlement that happens and when one part of wall exerts more load and soil loses its strength and settles, then the beam provided will behave as bridge between this settled soil and hence will not allow wall to settle even if soil has settled( as in loose pockets). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Our picks

    • *SEFP Consistent Design*<br style="color:#272a34">*Pile Design*<br style="color:#272a34">*Doc No: 10-00-CD-0005*<br style="color:#272a34">*Date: Nov 21, 2017*<br style="color:#272a34">
       

      This article is intended to cover design of piles using Ultimate Limit State (ULS) method. The use of ULS method is fairly new for geotechnical design (last decade). The method is being used in multiple countries now (Canada, Australia etc). The following items shall be discussed:

      Overview


      Geotechnical Design of Piles (Compression Loads, Tension Loads and Lateral Loads)


      Structural Design of Piles (Covering both Concrete and Steel)


      Connection of Pile with the foundation (Covering both Concrete and Steel)


      Pile Group Settlement


      Things to consider



       

      1. Overview

      Piles provide a suitable load path to transfer super-structure loads to foundation where shallow foundation are not suitable - this can be due to a number of reasons like existing space constraints or suitable soil strata is not present immediately below structure. Other uses can be to meet design requirements like to have reduced settlement etc.

      This article shall cover the use of straight shaft cast-in-place concrete piles and straight shaft driven steel pipe piles. There are a number of additional piles types like belled concrete piles, precast concrete piles, screw / helical steel piles etc but the discussion to choose a suitable pile type is not in the intended scope of this article. The article is intended  to discuss design requirements for straight shaft piles only (both concrete and steel) . The aforementioned topic about pile selection is a very diverse subject and requires a separate discussion on its own.

      Click on the link to read the full article.
       
      • 9 replies
    • I am suppose to design a pile foundation for a machine weighing approximately 50 tons and with an operational loading of 100 tons. 
      I ll appreciate your help in terms of guidance & provision of notes...  
       
      Thank you..
      • 36 replies
    • Material behavior can be idealized as consisting of an 'elastic' domain and a 'plastic' domain. For almost 200 years, structural design has been
      based on an elastic theory which assumes that structures display a linear response throughout their loading history, ignoring the post-yielding
      stage of behavior. Current design practice for reinforced concrete structures is a curious blend of elastic analysis to compute forces and moments, plasticity theory to proportion cross-sections for the moment and axial, load, and empirical mumbo-jumbo to proportion members for shear.

       

      From the book "Design of Concrete Structures with Stress Fields" by A. Muttoni,  J. Schwartz and  B.Thurliman.

       
      • 0 replies
    • Dear Fellow Researchers, Academicians, and research students,

       

      NED University of Engineering & Technology in collaboration with Institution of Engineers Pakistan (IEP) is organizing 9th International Civil Engineering Conference (ICEC 2017) on December 22-23, 2017 at Karachi, Pakistan.

       The congress details are available at its website www.neduet.edu.pk/icec

       Also attached is congress flyer for information and dissemination among your peers.

       Abstracts submission deadline has been extended till October 31, 2017.

      Please click on the link to see the full description.
      • 0 replies
    • AoA all,

      Is it mandatory to do column concreting upto the soffit of the beam in a single pour ?

      What code says about the construction/cold joint location in column ?

      Majority of the contractors are pouring the column concrete upto the soffit of the beam (full height of the column), some contractors leave the column height about 9" to 12" below the beam level and then fill this 9" to 12" column height with the beams & slab concreting. On one site column concreting was stopped at the mid height and the remaining half was filled on the next day.

      Thanks

       

       
      • 5 replies
    • AOA 

      i am facing problems in shear wall design .what are the pier and spandral ?what will be the difference when we assign pier or spandral? without assigning these the shear wall design is incomplete .

      i am taking about etabsv16

      someone have document about shear wall design plz provide it 

      thank you

       
      • 10 replies
    • Salam Members,

      Congratulations to Engineers, PEC has become full signatory of Washington Accord, what are the benefits to Pakistani engineers for this agreement. 

       

      Regards   

       

       
      • 3 replies
    • Please clarify the following confusions one by one:-

       

      1. If we run P-delta analysis in ETABS, then should we ignore stiffness property modifiers for beams and columns? I have heard that if we perform P-delta analysis and apply stiffness modifiers at the same time then the moment magnification process is doubled...?

       

      2. ETABS considers selenderness of a column by applying moment magnification factors. If we run P-delta analysis also, does it mean that the selenderness of column is being over-estimated? I mean once the moments are magnified in P-delta analysis process and again through moment magnification process?

       

      Please help me understand the software myth and clarify above confusions.
      • 1 reply
    • Assalam o alaikum.
      According to ACI 12.5.2,
      development length for fc' = 3000, fy=60000, for normal weight concrete and epoxy less reinforcement, The required development length comes out to be
      for #3 = 8.2 inch
      for #4 = 10.95 inch
      for #6 = 16.42 inch
      for #8 = 21.9 inch
       
      And if in my case, ACI 12.5.3 is not fulfilled, it means now i have to provide ldh as mentioned above. ldh is STRAIGHT EMBEDMENT LENGTH + RADIUS OF BEND + ONE BAR DIAMETER as shown in figure attached. Now my question is, if in my case, main reinforcement of beam is of #6 and #4, minimum column size required will be 18 inch and 12 inch respectively. Lets say by any means, i can not select #4, #3 bars and size of column where bars are to be terminated is 12 inch, how to fullfil this development length???
      • 11 replies
    • Dear all,

      I am trying to design shearwalls through ETABS with temperature load applied over shell. At various location, spandral section fails in Shear due to temperature and piers (sometime in shear, mostly in flexure).  (See Attached Image)

      Certainly all the problem in Shearwalls are due to temperature. I don't want to increase cross section of spandral or pier at some location just due to temperature load case as it will appears non-uniform with rest of the wall. 

      I have seen stiffness modifier affect distribution of forces and also rigid/semi rigid daiphragm assumption. 

       

      Can anybody guide how to properly design the shear wall with temperature load applied in ETABS or share any similar experience. Thanks in Advance.    
      • 15 replies
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.