I'm curious what other engineers do when designing footings. In our office the senior engineers usually always specify reinforcement in the top and bottom of footings when considering to uplift. Regardless if the net effect is actually compression.I usually only specify bottom reinforcement if the net effect is compression. Is this reasonable or should I specify both top and bottom?
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Why provide negative reinforcement in footings? 2
- Thread starter calculor
- Start date
JedClampett
Structural
Two reasons. One is to guarantee that you have enough temperature and shrinkage steel. The other is to remove any confusion of the contractor whether he should center the one layer of steel or place it on the bottom. Even an inept contractor knows that with two layers, one goes near the bottom and the other near the top.
Anyone else have any?
Anyone else have any?
-
1
- #3
calculor,
Could you clarify just what you mean by "if the nett effect is actually compression"
If you are simply saying that you have a column base where the column is subject to uplift, but the total column_plus_ overburden load is downward, then the footing will be subject to negative bending, and your seniors are correct. [For that case, the nett upward pressure under the base (although positive) would be less than the downwards overburden pressure - hence top surface tension]
Could you clarify just what you mean by "if the nett effect is actually compression"
If you are simply saying that you have a column base where the column is subject to uplift, but the total column_plus_ overburden load is downward, then the footing will be subject to negative bending, and your seniors are correct. [For that case, the nett upward pressure under the base (although positive) would be less than the downwards overburden pressure - hence top surface tension]
-
1
- #4
Austim
You are right about the case of column uplift balanced by the foudation weight and overburden. Negative reinforcement is essential in such case.
However, I feel that calculor does not mean that. We check for the gross bearing pressure (to be less than SBC) due to the total load at the footing base including the overburden and the footing weight. However, for design of the footing cross section, we calculate the BM and SF due to the net pressure which is gross pressure minus the pressure due to uniformly applied loads such as overburden and footing weight. (Am I right calculor?)
If this net pressure is compressive, we get BM causing bottom tension only. We do not require top reinforcement for bending. However, if the section is thicker(>750mm.), we provide nominal mesh of reinforcemet at the top to take care of temperature and shrinkage stresses.
For less thickness of footing, there is no need of top reinforcement.
You are right about the case of column uplift balanced by the foudation weight and overburden. Negative reinforcement is essential in such case.
However, I feel that calculor does not mean that. We check for the gross bearing pressure (to be less than SBC) due to the total load at the footing base including the overburden and the footing weight. However, for design of the footing cross section, we calculate the BM and SF due to the net pressure which is gross pressure minus the pressure due to uniformly applied loads such as overburden and footing weight. (Am I right calculor?)
If this net pressure is compressive, we get BM causing bottom tension only. We do not require top reinforcement for bending. However, if the section is thicker(>750mm.), we provide nominal mesh of reinforcemet at the top to take care of temperature and shrinkage stresses.
For less thickness of footing, there is no need of top reinforcement.
Hi,
There is also an added adavantage of having a top reinforcement for a footing of reasonable depth in that the concrete is confined between top and bottom mats, and side face reinforcments(If provided) and its resistance to compression and (shear??!!) is increased not from structural view point but from performance point of view. In terms of it being more confined as well as ductile.
Thus when u detail a reinforcement for an isolated footing especially if column loads are relatively high u provide it in form a cage!!!...a specific typical case....may be something like a pile cap detailing....
But bottom line is enhanced compression resistance and ductility
Hope this argument should also make some sense!!
May be ...iam not sure...i would appreciate if some one has any comments in this regard
hope it helps
regds Raj
Calculor may correct me if I misinterpretted his original question. I believe he is asking whether engineers specify top and bottom rebars for SEISMIC column footings regardless of whether there is a net uplift or not.
More often than not, the downward force on a seismic footing due to proper load combination is larger than the maximum uplift on the same footing, thereby requiring, technically, less rebar at the top (sometiems none).
But it is common practice here in California to design the bottom bars and call out same number of bars at the top as well. This leaves less room for contractor to make a mistake. And it makes it obvious which footings are seismic and which are gravity only.
More often than not, the downward force on a seismic footing due to proper load combination is larger than the maximum uplift on the same footing, thereby requiring, technically, less rebar at the top (sometiems none).
But it is common practice here in California to design the bottom bars and call out same number of bars at the top as well. This leaves less room for contractor to make a mistake. And it makes it obvious which footings are seismic and which are gravity only.
JimParks,
do you mean the anchors from the columns be tied to the bottom bars with a standard hook?
In California (State projects and perhaps some local jurisdictions), the use of J bolts is prohibited. They recommend a headed bolt. Sometimes, I elect to use uplift plates.
Any comments on requirements from other parts of the US will be appreciated.
do you mean the anchors from the columns be tied to the bottom bars with a standard hook?
In California (State projects and perhaps some local jurisdictions), the use of J bolts is prohibited. They recommend a headed bolt. Sometimes, I elect to use uplift plates.
Any comments on requirements from other parts of the US will be appreciated.
I suppose they do not want a bolt heavily loaded in tension to "straighten-out". As it straightens, the concrete will crush near the inner radius of the bend.
I am not into testing or research so i am not sure whether this is a valid claim, but State of California thinks so.
With a headed bolt, supposedly, you can more reliably expect a cleaner shear cone.
For multiple bolts in a seismic column, often i tie the bolts together by using an uplift plate at the bottom using double nuts.
I am not into testing or research so i am not sure whether this is a valid claim, but State of California thinks so.
With a headed bolt, supposedly, you can more reliably expect a cleaner shear cone.
For multiple bolts in a seismic column, often i tie the bolts together by using an uplift plate at the bottom using double nuts.
It sounds like a joke but true in practice. On a big projects, how often do you see 100 diffetrent sizes of pad footings. Many cases, you may see 5 different footings on the footing schedule. Some will be close, some will be overdesigned by a bit.
I meant no disrespect to the contractors by any means. I go by the old KISS rule. Keep it Simple/Stupid.
I meant no disrespect to the contractors by any means. I go by the old KISS rule. Keep it Simple/Stupid.
Whyun,
What I meant was that by using top steel, you can secure the anchor bolts in place by tying them to both mats of steel. Whether the bolts are headed, J, or have an end plate retrained by a hex bolt, you still have to do something to keep them all in place and plumb during the concrete placement. It takes just about as much effort (and makes finishing the top, if applicable, harder)to build a wood frame spanning the footing or some using other means to keep the bolts plumb. Then you have to take the frame apart anyway.
Jim
What I meant was that by using top steel, you can secure the anchor bolts in place by tying them to both mats of steel. Whether the bolts are headed, J, or have an end plate retrained by a hex bolt, you still have to do something to keep them all in place and plumb during the concrete placement. It takes just about as much effort (and makes finishing the top, if applicable, harder)to build a wood frame spanning the footing or some using other means to keep the bolts plumb. Then you have to take the frame apart anyway.
Jim
JimParks,
Now I understand what you meant. Securing the "hanging" bolts to the top and bottom mat rebars so they stay put during concrete pour. Yes, I do think that is prudent. But engineers can not rely on those ties for resisting tension.
Thanks for the clarification.
Now I understand what you meant. Securing the "hanging" bolts to the top and bottom mat rebars so they stay put during concrete pour. Yes, I do think that is prudent. But engineers can not rely on those ties for resisting tension.
Thanks for the clarification.
DaveAtkins
Structural
It is correct to consider wind uplift; in a building with a light weight roof it will control the size of the footing. However, I never ask for top bars, because a plain (unreinforced) footing is generally adequate for the uplift case.
inspectorjeff
Structural
Anchor bolts??? Do the bolts have to be hooked to steel and what are the increased values for doing so?
For example...1/2" bolts:: 2195 based on bond strength,
2105 based on steel strength.(Simpson)
now if the bolt was hooked to bond beam steel then I assume that the design loads will be determined by the mechanical bond between the anchor and rebar, and its subsequent shear cone.
Any ideas on the subject?
Inspector Jeff in Florida
For example...1/2" bolts:: 2195 based on bond strength,
2105 based on steel strength.(Simpson)
now if the bolt was hooked to bond beam steel then I assume that the design loads will be determined by the mechanical bond between the anchor and rebar, and its subsequent shear cone.
Any ideas on the subject?
Inspector Jeff in Florida
Hello Dave,
The type of conditions I had in mind were pad footings at the frame columns for braced frames (OCBF, SCBF, EBF, etc) or moment frames (SMRF typically). 99% of the time, lateral forces on a structure is controlled by seismic and often we encounter heavy uplift.
Regardless of the magnitude of uplift, top steel will experience much smaller tensile stress compared to the bottom steel. We can control the thickness of the footing to avoid having any tension at all in which case top bar may be omitted altogether.
Common practice I see in engineers specifying same top and bottom steel perhaps is due to lazinedd on the engineer. More often than not, engineers still tend to call out top and bottom steel for seismic columns, regardless of need.
The type of conditions I had in mind were pad footings at the frame columns for braced frames (OCBF, SCBF, EBF, etc) or moment frames (SMRF typically). 99% of the time, lateral forces on a structure is controlled by seismic and often we encounter heavy uplift.
Regardless of the magnitude of uplift, top steel will experience much smaller tensile stress compared to the bottom steel. We can control the thickness of the footing to avoid having any tension at all in which case top bar may be omitted altogether.
Common practice I see in engineers specifying same top and bottom steel perhaps is due to lazinedd on the engineer. More often than not, engineers still tend to call out top and bottom steel for seismic columns, regardless of need.
Just another thought. (Which might have been avoided if we had heard from calculor again to clarify the original post ?)
If calculor initially meant net compression in the column which would theoretically cause no negative bending in the footing, there could still be an argument for providing top steel (in addition to the good reasons proposed above).
That is that when the 'nett compression' results from a combination of positive and negative column loads of similar values. If our calcs say 100 down and 90 up, then simple engineering prudence would consider the effect of inaccuracies in our assumptions or analyses. (How often can anyone tell precisely what the dead, seismic and wind loads in any single column will be ?). eg has foundation settlement settlement been included in the analyses, and how accurately can anyone really forecast that ?
Relatively minor variations in each of the loads could change the direction of the nett load, leaving you to rely on unreinforced concrete (possibly with shrinkage cracks) in tension.
If calculor initially meant net compression in the column which would theoretically cause no negative bending in the footing, there could still be an argument for providing top steel (in addition to the good reasons proposed above).
That is that when the 'nett compression' results from a combination of positive and negative column loads of similar values. If our calcs say 100 down and 90 up, then simple engineering prudence would consider the effect of inaccuracies in our assumptions or analyses. (How often can anyone tell precisely what the dead, seismic and wind loads in any single column will be ?). eg has foundation settlement settlement been included in the analyses, and how accurately can anyone really forecast that ?
Relatively minor variations in each of the loads could change the direction of the nett load, leaving you to rely on unreinforced concrete (possibly with shrinkage cracks) in tension.
How often can anyone tell precisely what the dead, seismic and wind loads in any single column will be?
this is really great! no one really knows for sure. as engineers, all we can do is to determine our best prediction of what combined forces each members will experience in its lifetime and design everything strong enough to resist such forces.
often, i find engineers fall into the trap of believing that the analysis results are really accurate and i find myself chuckling. 5% overstress doesnt mean failure. even 10% overstress (in my opinion) should be acceptable realistically (although i wouldnt design everything this way).
all types of building codes have load factors and strength reduction factors to justify this.
this is really great! no one really knows for sure. as engineers, all we can do is to determine our best prediction of what combined forces each members will experience in its lifetime and design everything strong enough to resist such forces.
often, i find engineers fall into the trap of believing that the analysis results are really accurate and i find myself chuckling. 5% overstress doesnt mean failure. even 10% overstress (in my opinion) should be acceptable realistically (although i wouldnt design everything this way).
all types of building codes have load factors and strength reduction factors to justify this.
Your attitude, Whyun, is clearly that of an experienced engineer. Have you noticed that as the years progress, esp those first 10 yrs as a structural engineer, that your tendency to over-design has progressively decreased?
You should see the absolute monsters I designed in the 1st 2 years of practice...
Needless to say, contractors/estimators didn't like me back then.![[hourglass]](/data/assets/smilies/hourglass.gif "[hourglass] [hourglass]")
You should see the absolute monsters I designed in the 1st 2 years of practice...
Needless to say, contractors/estimators didn't like me back then.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
- Question
