DISEO DE CIMENTACIONES EN SUELOS NO SUSCEPTIBLES A HUMEDECERSE.

Las cimentaciones continuas son ms seguras que las cimentaciones aisladas

sobre suelos colapsables, ya que minimizan efectivamente los asentamientos
diferenciales. La figura 11.5 muestra un procedimiento tpico para la
construccin cte cimentaciones continuas, mediante vigas zapatas y vigas
longitudinales de carga.

________________________________________________________________________________

pattontom (Structural)
(OP)

23 Nov 12 20:43
In our office, colleagues often use load reduction to design footings with the columns
directly on the exterior portion of the lot (zero clearance) to avoid oversize footings. This
often results in underdesigned exterior footings. Now I need to design one that needs to use
the full commercial live load and dead load for 4 storeys. The footings that come out of
SAFE are about 50% bigger. The lot has 12 meters distance end to end and 3 columns
spanning them (or 6 meters beam span). I'm thinking of using combined footings for the 3
columns in a row. But haven't seen much book references that treat such for most combined
footings often use 2 columns only. Do you recommend that I use 50% bigger spread footings
for the eccentric footing or one combined footing for the 3 columns? Which would have
better seismic resistance, for those with experience of familiar with them? I understand the
combined footing is more sensitive to variable changes in loading affecting the shears and
moments in the span. Thank you.

hokie66 (Structural)23 Nov 12 20:52

Not sure I understand. When you say the lot is 12 metres, and divided into 2 spans, does
that mean it is 12 metres wide or 12 metres deep? I assume 12 metres wide, so there is a
column at each boundary and one in the middle. In that case, a combined footing for all
three columns, or a strap beam between footings to resist the external eccentricity...either
would work.

BAretired (Structural)23 Nov 12 21:45

There are several approaches to this problem. The combined strap footing for three columns
is probably the safest and best.
The 50% bigger footing has no merit whatsoever as it has no basis.

One method which I have used is to provide a rectangular footing with the short dimension
parallel to the beam. This minimizes the eccentricity between the column and the footing,
but it requires that the column be designed for the eccentric moment for the height of the
first story. It also requires that the top of the first story column be tied continuously across
to the opposite side.
I have done this for one or two story buildings but never for four story buildings. It may be a
bit of a challenge but it is worth looking into.

http://www.engineeringcivil.com/effect-of-eccentricity-on-analysis-and-designof-isolated-footings.html