×
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

CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

(OP)
Hi there,

I'm having some trouble understanding the meaning behind clause 22.6.5 in CSA A23.3-04. It states that for plain footing strength in bending "The factored resistance in bending shall be based on a maximum stress in tension of 0.37*lambda*phi_c*sqrt(f'c) and a maximum stress in compression of 0.75*phi_c*f'c". If I was to do a bending calculation and limit the tensile stress to the value given in the code clause, would the compression side of the footing not just be stressed to the equal and opposite amount, with the neutral axis occurring in the center of the footing? When would the compression stress limit ever apply? I feel like this is a basic question that should be easy to figure out with basic concrete principles, but for some reason it's not making sense to me.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

In plain flexure, the tensile stress would always govern. If the footing as in significant compression (granted such a condition is a long shot) then the compression stress might become governing. I imagine CSA simply included this for completeness. This compression limit is, after all, lower than the compression limit given for reinforced flexural members.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

(OP)
@atrizzy That makes sense, for whatever reason I thought the code was trying to imply that you could develop the full compression stress and tensile stress simultaneously. I'll continue on with limiting my compression stress to an equal and opposite value from the maximum tension stress.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

Shotzie, think of it this way. They wouldn't instruct you to limit the tension AND compression stress to the lower value, since the compression stress obviously need not be limited to that value. The fact that the tension component tends to govern is incidental.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

(OP)
@atrizzy That's a good way to look at it. Thanks!

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

There's one thing that I've never been able to reconcile myself with in plain concrete footings: design to a uniform moment across the footing. I'd expect moment to peak under columns as with a two way slab. That moment would be intense and hard to determine accurately. And with concrete being brittle in flexural tension, there would be little capacity for redistribution.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

You can calculate it roughly by considering the compression load as a force on the footing. This will give rise to a slightly curved moment diagram rather than the discontinuous 'cusp'. We used to use the reduced moment for design of flat slabs and plates for multistorey concrete buildings.

Dik

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

Can you elaborate upon that method dik? I don't get it... but I'd like to.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

Look at the moment diagram at the cantilevered edge of a strap/combined footing. The moment in the footing is lowered by accounting for the compression force along the column interface in the FBD instead of considering the columns as point loads.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

Ah, I see. Thanks haynewp. Two things though:

1) It's actually the moment distribution in the other direction that worries me.

2) I've seen that method presented for two way slabs as the reason that we're able to design for flexure at the column face. So I imagine that it's also the reason that we design footings for flexure at the column face (or near it). So would it not be double dipping to design for flexure at the column face AND take the reduction accrued by looking at the compression load?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

I don't see how the compression from the column counteracts the flexural tension at the bottom of the footing. They act in opposite directions.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

Just the difference between treating the column load as a point load or a distributed load over a finite width.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

1) I'm not clear on this.
2) For isolated column footings, I would use either the moment at the face for the footing design or the maximum moment that occurs in the footing when accounting for the reduction in the moment diagram under the distributed bearing area of the column. Designing at the face of the column always assumes the max moment occurs.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

Quote (haynewp)

1) I'm not clear on this.

Consider the moment diagram that you're imagining in you head and that you would draw on the sketch of the strap beam etc. Now imagine the moment diagram that runs perpendicular to that. That's what concerns me.

Quote (hanewp)

2) For isolated column footings, I would use either the moment at the face for the footing design or the maximum moment that occurs in the footing when accounting for the reduction in the moment diagram under the distributed bearing area of the column. Designing at the face of the column always assumes the max moment occurs.

Is it not standard practice to design for the moment of the face of the column? If so, then it seem to me that we should just leave it at that and let the compression business be interesting background trivia.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

Quote (KootK)

interesting background trivia
Your bread and butter right there lol

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

That was the old me. Now it's Koot-"Dolla Bill"-K. Eatin' profitability sandwiches 24/7.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

It’s standard practice for isolated footings but I don’t know for sure there isn’t another case where that isn’t true. I think for combined footings with a mix of uplift and downwrd loads and/or column moments that might not always be a safe assumption. Would you take it to the face of the column on all sides if it was a small axial load and high moment on an isolated ftg? Maybe to the rebar location countering the negative bending.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

Quote (haynewp)

Would you take it to the face of the column on all sides if it was a small axial load and high moment on an isolated ftg?

I would, yes, based on the same theory. I think that I saw the derivation in William Gamble's concrete slab text in reference to two way slabs. I suppose it's a bit different because, in most cases, you're sandwiched between a column above and below. In truth, right now is the first time that I've really thought about this is such detail. A little late to the party perhaps.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

KootK... if you draw a BMD, but rather than treat the reactions as point loads at the centerlines, treat them as UDL's equal to the reaction (moment and/or axial) across the width of the support. This will reduce the peak -ve moment at the centerline by a tad...

Dik

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

I had a lot typed up and lost it. Anyway, I don’t think it matters for isolated footings, I’m not convinced on combined footings given all the load possibilities.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

Quote (dik)

KootK... if you draw a BMD, but rather than treat the reactions as point loads at the centerlines, treat them as UDL's equal to the reaction (moment and/or axial) across the width of the support. This will reduce the peak -ve moment at the centerline by a tad.

I get it now post-haynewp. That said, it's the other direction that worries me and this would seem to be double dipping against the usual practice of taking moments at the column face.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

Combined footings are usually reinforced. A combined footing using plain concrete would be a rare occurrence.

BA

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

I don’t think usual practice or ACI differentiates and allows momnts to be taken to the face whether reinforced or not. But I don’t have ACI with me right now.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

Perhaps that code contemplates a plain concrete member, footing or whatever, which is not rectangular or symmetric in section.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

The moment at the col face would be less... unless there is a 'bunch'... I usually use the centerline moment... It's the structural system chosen that determines the economy... not a tight design...

Dik

Dik

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

An extreme case for example, if there is a combined footing where one column is heaviy loaded (vertical and or moments) and there is another column at the other end of the footing that has no load in comparison, how can the moments be justified to be reduced to the faces of the unloaded column at that end of the footing? I think this is getting away from what the OP was looking for so I will stop with that.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

kootk; Regarding the double dipping, I don’t see a problem if I think about it in terms of pressures instead of line moments. For an isolated square footing with column axial only for example, assuming the pressure under the footing is only the result of the pressure under the column, the moment reduction under the column should occur the same in each ftg direction. The moment in each footing direction is a result of the soil pressure (that happens because of the column pressure being applied). Total pressures are equal, moments reductions ahould occur equally in each direction, everything is linear.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

If that’s confusing, think about a basic square footing. If you take the pressure under one half of the footing and design for that moment and then look at the footing in the orthogonal direction, we take into account that same soil presure overlap again to get the moment in that direction. Why wouldn’t the same concept apply to the column pressure that reduces these incoming orthogonal moments?

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

Quote (haynewp)

An extreme case for example, if there is a combined footing where one column is heaviy loaded (vertical and or moments) and there is another column at the other end of the footing that has no load in comparison, how can the moments be justified to be reduced to the faces of the unloaded column at that end of the footing?

Why would such a procedure be unjustified? As I understand it, taking moment at the face is based on the derivation below. It's MacGregor rather than Gamble -- my bad. It seems to me that the same logic could be applied to both columns in a combined footing regardless of the relative loads.

Quote (haynewp)

kootk; Regarding the double dipping, I don’t see a problem...Total pressures are equal, moments reductions ahould occur equally in each direction, everything is linear.

I agree that moment peak smoothing can be applied in both directions simultaneously without double dipping. What I do believe is double dipping, however, is to both take moments at the column faces AND reduce moments by explicit consideration of compression / distributed load. That, because they would seem to be mathematically the same phenomenon.

Thus far, I've been misunderstood in my concern. My concern is not about moment peak smoothing but that, in any direction, when we evaluate flexural capacity against what is, implicitly, and average moment demand that does not capture peak stress. That strikes me as a problem when the mode of failure is brittle, tensile concrete failure based on the flexural modulus of rupture. I feel as though we're assuming a redistribution capacity that doesn't exist. I've obviously done a terrible job of expressing my concern so far so I've included a sketch below to try to help with that. If others are doing this kind of thing more rigorously, I'd love to hear about it and how it's being undertaken. As I see it, we're designing to uniform, lateral moment distribution that is fictional.




I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

I don't see why the theory wouldn't still apply but it's hard to imagine an engineer bothering with it in a situation like that where the ROI would be vanishingly small. I suspect that many engineers would include a design case that omitted the breezeway column altogether making the reduction moot.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

If there’s virtually no load or resistance to the footing bending moments at the center column I don’t see how it can be counted on to reduce moments as the ftg hardly knows it is there in comparison to the other columns.


On the double dipping, starting on page 37 has a good presentation. We may be assuming a lateral distribution that doesn’t exist but it is permitted by my Code and has always worked as far as I know. The column and middle strip method would be better to account for that lack of lateral distribution ability when doing hand calcs.

https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/...

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

Good publication... thanks,

Dik

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

Quote (haynewp)

If there’s virtually no load or resistance to the footing bending moments at the center column I don’t see how it can be counted on to reduce moments as the ftg hardly knows it is there in comparison to the other columns.

Right, but that's just a matter of scale and whether or not it's worth the effort to account for the moment peak smoothing. It doesn't invalidate the use of the method on any technical basis. The impact of the central column would be minimal and the analysis would reflect that.

Quote (haynewp)

On the double dipping, starting on page 37 has a good presentation.

It's a fine presentation of FEM results (below) but the document is entirely geared towards reinforced footings which will tolerate inaccuracies in the assumed lateral distribution of moment. My concern is for plain footings where, one would assume, first rupture = failure. To my knowledge, we in north america don't even have the SD methods represented by the step functions in the graphs below except to the extent that designers might wisely be doing that of their own volition. Folks just use the straight average moment.

To me, the situation is akin to attempting to design a plain concrete two-way slab using only the averaged panel moment for design. And, of course, that sounds kinda nuts.



I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

Quote (KootK)

Right, but that's just a matter of scale and whether or not it's worth the effort to account for the moment peak smoothing. It doesn't invalidate the use of the method on any technical basis. The impact of the central column would be minimal and the analysis would reflect that.
My analysis would include whether to take the moments to the face of the column/(midpoint of base plate) or not based on assuming the moment is spread equally across the width of the footing in the orthogonal direction. Basic old hand calculation method and whether to use the ACI permitted provision or not.

Quote (KootK)

It's a fine presentation of FEM results (below) but the document is entirely geared towards reinforced footings which will tolerate inaccuracies in the assumed lateral distribution of moment. My concern is for plain footings where, one would assume, first rupture = failure. To my knowledge, we in north america don't even have the SD methods represented by the step functions in the graphs below except to the extent that designers might wisely be doing that of their own volition. Folks just use the straight average moment.

To me, the situation is akin to attempting to design a plain concrete two-way slab using only the averaged panel moment for design. And, of course, that sounds kinda nuts.

There is a significant reduction in the phi value for ACI when designing plain concrete. I would assume part of that is the recognized lack of ductility.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

@shotzie: this commentary section from ACI may give a clue as to what scenario the code writers had in mind when they decided to present different tension and compression values. Of course, you don't see many footings that would have geometries producing different S_top and S_bot values.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

Like I said 28 October, 0447. But that's all right, you fellows have enjoyed your discourse on a different subject.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

It was a blast.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

You get full marks Hokie but I still think that there's value in quoting an "official" source for confirmation. I wouldn't have stumbled across it had haynewp not had me looking into the safety factors for plain concrete.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: CSA A23.3 Plain Footing Bending Resistance

Quote (haynewp)

It was a blast.

Uhh.. I feel as though I might be picking up some sarcasm there. Were you not enjoying yourself haynewp? I honestly can't tell a lot of the time around here. In the world of anonymous cyberspace I can't, for the life of me, understand why anybody would bother participating in anything they don't enjoy. Yet some folks seem to.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

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