Enercalc "General Footing" vs "Elastic Foundation" Modules
Enercalc "General Footing" vs "Elastic Foundation" Modules
(OP)
Can anybody out there give me their opinion on the relative merits of using the "Beam on Elastic Foundation" vs the basic "General Footing" or "Wall Footing" modules? I understand the underlying differences between the 2 modules, but am struggling to see a real-world application where the "Elastic Foundation" would be a more viable option. The basic footing checks seem much more comprehensive since, unlike the elastic analysis, they analyze for rebar as well as sliding and overturning. Do people use the two modules in conjunction with one another? Maybe use the elastic analysis to check the bearing pressures, and then the footing module to check the footing concrete itself? I'm still trying to figure this one out so let me know.






RE: Enercalc "General Footing" vs "Elastic Foundation" Modules
To me, this seems more applicable (for flexure) than oversimplifying the problem into a general foundation and one point load.
In this instance, the maximum shear & moment was not at the center of the foundation.
I am new to this though, so feel free to correct any flaws you see in my judgement.
RE: Enercalc "General Footing" vs "Elastic Foundation" Modules
EIT
www.HowToEngineer.com
RE: Enercalc "General Footing" vs "Elastic Foundation" Modules
I use Enercalc often and have done so for years. I recommend that your read Enercalc"s module description and limitations. I design using the footing when I have columns to be supported. You need to read ACI 318 since footing design will requires checks such as bending moment, shear and soil bearing pressure.
I use BOEF for grade beams, mats and other applications I deem appropriate. I model mats as one foot strip as was stated above.
Regards,
Lutfi