×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Opinion on octogonal ring footing for a tank.

Opinion on octogonal ring footing for a tank.

Opinion on octogonal ring footing for a tank.

(OP)
Hi all,

I'm currently on the problem of footings for tanks, and I would appreciate some opinion on the following. I have a 3.5 m diameter 13 m height steel tank for plastic chips (80ton capacity) which is subjected preliminary to a lateral force of 35 ton.

A ring footing appears to be the most appropriate foundation since some of the static load's path is through the walls and also mainly it helps for stability. So I came up with Option 1 of the .pdf attached. Nevertheless I have been trying to minimize materials and so came up later with Option 2 of the .pdf, which is allows to save about 15%-20% on concrete. The top needs to be flat so a third option like a sloped footing type (would be the ideal I think) is for now discarded.

The code I'm using alllows a 25% of uplift and the allowable soil stresses are around 2 kg/cm2. The k of the soil is around 150 pci.

What are your thoughts on Option 2? I was counting it would work as shown in Option B but then I thought maybe the stiffness of the sloped face is not as high as the flat face and possibly the stresses would go primarily as shown in Option A.

Any opinion please express it.
Regards.

RE: Opinion on octogonal ring footing for a tank.

Forget Options 2A and 2B. The cost to construct the unusual shape will far exceed any concrete material cost savings.

Is the thickness of the Option 1 footing 100 centimeters? Just want to confirm it is NOT 100 millimeters.

www.SlideRuleEra.net idea
www.VacuumTubeEra.net r2d2

RE: Opinion on octogonal ring footing for a tank.

I'd probably run with Option 1... why the lean concrete bed? only use that if rain is an issue. Do you have slab reinforcing... if so, can you run with open stirrups using the slab reinforcing to provide a 'closed' stirrup? As SRE notes, is the edge thickness correct? What sort of anchor rods are you using?

Dik

RE: Opinion on octogonal ring footing for a tank.

(OP)
@ SRE
I'm aware this wouldn't save much, but would be really that costly to build?
The thickness is 100 cm preliminary, yes.
(Tank design is still preliminary so everything is not definitive).

@ dik

I haven't really put much thought on the lean concrete base, it's something we always put before pouring the concrete.
As for the slab reinforcement, I was thinking on placing it independently of the ring(see idea in attachment). In this way the ring is independent.
I don't understand what you mean, how can you use the slab reinforcing as stirrups? I'm very open to improvements.
Anchorage consists of 16 x 2 Headed anchor rods around the perimeter, 1'' preliminary, with anchorage chairs (required by the code used).

Attached some more details.

Regardless of which is cheaper, would option 2 work ok from a geotech point of view? Just wondering.

RE: Opinion on octogonal ring footing for a tank.

I would go with option 1 and make the stirrups rectangular if you can. That saves fabrication cost in making the extra bends and a bit of length in the stirrups.

For Option 2: Whatever savings you get in concrete you'll likely waste on extra engineered fill, rebar fabrication, and forming the angled grades.

You can always get an opinion from a contractor.

RE: Opinion on octogonal ring footing for a tank.

MonsieuR - Speaking as a former bridge / heavy construction Contractor, yes, either of the Option 2 choices will be more expensive to build than Option 1.

With Option 2, the only cost reduction is the avoided material cost for the reduced concrete volume. There are no labor savings for the slightly lower concrete volume. In fact, the detailed field work to construct Option 2 will drive labor costs higher.

My statement is not hypothetical. I recall more than one occasion where we (Contractor) offered to provide additional concrete (free) in order to simplify forming and concrete placement. The offers for free concrete were always accepted and it was well worth the (material only) cost to us.

For what it is worth, can even tell you how I would bid Option 2:

1. Price the work (material and labor) to construct Option 2 as designed.
2. Add the cost of the "saved" concrete material to the bid.
3. If successful bidder, after contract award, offer the "free" concrete to allow construction of an Option 1 design.
4. Provide the "free" concrete (which the Owner paid for, but does not know it), and pocket the labor savings.

www.SlideRuleEra.net idea
www.VacuumTubeEra.net r2d2

RE: Opinion on octogonal ring footing for a tank.

(OP)
Thank you for all the feedback!. Indeed the builder seems to think the same.

Regards.



Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources