×
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

StaadEtc foundation design results

StaadEtc foundation design results

StaadEtc foundation design results

(OP)
It is my first time to use StaadEtc to design a column foundation. The results seemed to be too conservative to me, compared with some design tables. Does anyone have the same feeling with me?

Thanks in advance for your idea.

RE: StaadEtc foundation design results

Need to be more specific. What kind of loading do you have? What is conservative - the steel or the size of the footing?

RE: StaadEtc foundation design results

(OP)
The situation I have is just axial load, about 50 kips totally. The Staad results indicated rebar on both bottom and top of the footing.

For this load level, common practice just needs rebar at the bottom of the footing. I am wondering if the staad suggestion is conservative.

RE: StaadEtc foundation design results

Codes make for such things. In Spain the last concrete code has made for such "novelties". To such extent that one scandalized and scandalizind headmaster of structural design said in a speech to which I attended ...

"That we won't do such things"

because nearly generalizing 90 deg hooks at bottom rebar (a device to prove bond)

rebar appearing atop (before never seen)

and other jewels sohwing to which extent even those charged with teaching these things are fed with those things that may be needed at specific circumnstances but not in general and the ever growing demanding codemakers decide to include as requirements of general design.

Obviously because the general practice before is not known to have had any bad behaviour (or so is the appreciation of who makes such statements).

There are people of every make out there, but as anyone that has practiced just enough, I can see the real gratuity of many of these novelties, whereas other times are well placed.

And just to touch a related item ... safety factors (or whatever you may want to call them) were derived initially when structures were calculated just 2D and even by approximate (even only too much approximate!) methods ... and we (er, the codemakers) have kept them steady and well for our more precise 3D and computerized methods. Maybe (sure!) a bless ... but a required bless? I understand that soon serviceability would start to command even more than today does, yet I keep this question in mind.

RE: StaadEtc foundation design results

There is an option in the reinforcement page to "not" choose top reinforcement which I guess is more for shirnk, creep or temperature.

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