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

    • 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

       
      • 9 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
    • ENGINEERS;
      I WILL LOOSE MY BRAIN FROM ETABS. 
      I DECIDED TO MAKE MANUAL MESHING FROM AREA ELEMENTS BESIDE EACH OTHER AND EVERY HING WAS FINE .
      BUT AFTER DEVISION SAY 7*7 ELEMNTS FOR EVERY BIG ELEMENT AND MAKING ETABS CHECH..................THEN 500 ERROR MESSAGE THAT ALL ELEMNTS ARE CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.  WHAT ARE GOING...... SOMEONE TELL ME PLEASE...... I WILL LOST MY WORK
      • 6 replies
    • Assalam o alaikum.
      I have just designed a frame structure with SMRF. The out put of shear seams weird to me. Column reports design shear Av/s as 0.045. (Images are attached). but when i right click the member, it must show me the most critical case HIGHLIGHTED AUTOMATICALLY. But it highlights load combo 38 (auto-generated combos have been used) which reports Av/s as 0.038. And 0.045 value is at combo 32. Is their any logic behind it?? More over how to interpret this Av/s?? means 0.045 in kip-in units means what? How can i convert this into spacing?? 
      • 9 replies
    • Hello everyone, I hope all of you will be fine. In etabs when we apply Response Spectrum loading on a multistoried building with 2 basement floors. At what floor level this loading will be applied as in equivalent static seismic analysis, we can apply EQX & EQY on any floor we like as this option is available in etabs but the problem is with response spectrum and time history analysis. please if someone knows and have the experince, share it i shall be very thankful.  
      • 5 replies
    • Salaikom dear professionals,
      First of all I would like to express my sincere thanks to the initiators of this forum for establishing such an exceptional atmosphere for knowledge/experience sharing, I it is really useful, In fact since I have found the forum I am mostly online and busy reading the posts. I would also like to thank the members for their professional comments and advice.
      As my first post in this forum I would like to ask the following queries:
      1-After running the analysis and design when I check the DESIGN DATA through Display >> Show Tables >> DESIGN DATA >> Concrete Frame Output, there is no specific message in Column Summary Data and Beam Summary Data, but in Joint summary data it is showing that “Joint B/C check not done”. Does anyone has any idea? I am sharing the ETABS model for your information and easy reference.
      ETABS MODEL.zip
      2- ETABS provides greater area of steel in the upper column than the column at BASE, perhaps due to higher moment. Could someone explain why this is so? In practice should we maintain maximum steel in both stories? Or we shall follow what the software suggests?
      3- Beside considering the minimum thickness required for deflection control of Beam as per Table 9.a Chapter 9 ACI-318 , using concrete crack behavior in ETABS and checking story drift, Do we have to check the deflection of beams for the serviceability propose elsewhere in ETBAS? If yes, Could anyone explain it?
      Regards, and look forward to any explanation
      • 13 replies
    • Posting this thread to break the ice. Modelling domes is very easy in Etabs/SAP. All you need to do is to draw the curvature of the dome in elevation by a series of straight lines, but draw only the one half. Then using the apex at centre point, radially extrude the line say 24 times at 15 degree intervals (or 48 times at 7.5 deg intervals. This feature is under Edit> Extrude Lines to areas. You can further use this geometry for Finite Element Analaysis.
      • 22 replies
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By EngrJunaid
      Dear Seniors,
       
      I am designing a 3 story (Basement+Ground+First floor) masonry House.
      Till now i used to design only the wall footing and slabs in masonry structures but now i want detail guidelines for Masonry structures.
    • By kHURRAM ALI
      Can somebody help me to design load bearing strucutre, BS code is only code writen for massonary strucuture , i am also looking for a book in which load bearing design example are provided, so if somebody have any information than inform me.
    • By saleem khan
      i want to model beam whose ends are resting on masonry wall in etabs,if i assign hinge or roller support to end points of beams how the load,moments and shear will transfer to below elements if it is a mulistorey building
    • By saleem khan
      how i model infill masonry wall in frames for analysis in etabs?
  • Recent Discussions

  • Latest Forum and Club Posts

    • Beams are flexural members only  designed for the major moment and shear without axial load effects. However, column design is more accurate as you can account for biaxial bending plus axial load effect on shear. Infact all the beams can be designed by this approach. However, generally beams do not have huge axial loads or minor bending. Thats why it is simplified.
    • I developed this sheet long time ago. See the attached. Strap footings design.xlsx
    • Here are my two cents:- 1. General guidance regarding placement of construction joints in RC work has been provided in Section 6.4 of ACI 318-08 and its commentary. Some clarity is given in section 6.4.3, where it is stated that "Construction joints shall be so made and located as not to impair the strength of the structure. Provision shall be made for transfer of shear and other forces through construction joints." For transfer of shear etc through construction joints, reference is made to the ACI Section 11.6.9 that deals with the calculation of shear-friction, at the interface between two concretes cast at different times (beside other situations described in section 11.6.1 of the code). Moreover, Section 6.4.4 suggests that "Construction joints in floors shall be located within the middle third of spans of slabs, beams, and girders. 2. Regarding construction joints in columns, however, Section 6.4 does not provide guidance clearer  than that in Section 6.4.6 stating that the "Beams, girders, or slabs supported by columns or walls shall not be cast or erected until concrete in the vertical support members is no longer plastic."  And, the commentary section R6.4.6 explains that "Delay in placing concrete in members supported by columns and walls is necessary to prevent cracking at the interface of the slab and supporting member caused by bleeding and settlement of plastic concrete in the supporting member. 3. The support member (referred in previous paragraph) will generally be a column or a wall. And, in a simplified form, Section 6.4.4 & its commentary are advising us NOT to cast beams & slab monolithically with the wall or column, BUT only after the supporting column (or wall) concrete has hardened,  in order to avoid plastic cracking at the beam-column (or beam-wall) joint. 4. In our normal field practice (within Pakistan as well as abroad), beams & slabs are cast at least one day after casting of columns or supporting walls. This gap of one day (between casting of column & beam concretes) ensures that hardening of column (or wall) concrete poured one day earlier has hardened (is no longer plastic),  thereby avoiding any possibility of plastic cracking (discussed in paragraph 2 above). . 5. Now coming to your queries; In general terms, it is preferable to cast the column in one pour.. However, in compelling circumstances it may be done in more than one pour too, subject to certain conditions.   Already described in initial paragraphs.   This is the normal & IMHO desirable practice, according to ACI code Section 6.4.6.   IMO, leaving 9" or 12" column depth below the beam soffit is excessive & undesirable. It should not be more than 1" or 2" in any case.   IMO, this practice is based on the requirements of ACI 318-08 (also ACI 318-11) Section 6.4.6. The same requirement is available in ACI 318-14 Section 26.5.7.2 (a) as well. HTH Regards.
    • Thank you Waqar. I need code reference for this practice.   Thanks
    • Salam Dear Junaid! Cold joints are common and practice is upto soffit, properly roughen the face and apply some chemical at the joint. Leaving column at mid height is not good. Regards
    • References given in the following link might be useful in this connection: http://www.sepakistan.com/topic/1978-strap-footing-design/ Regards.  
    • Any sheet/pdf for design of concentric and edge footing tied with strap beam?
    • 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    
    • SIR KINDLY STUDY building code(ACI318-14) AS WELL AND THEN DISCUSS
×

Important Information

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