In your analysis, you have assumed the beam to be resting on a rigid medium, which is not really correct.

If you apply the UDL reaction as the load and calculate the resultant column reactions, you will find that these are not the same as the column loads from which you have derived the UDL! This is because the strip foundation is a beam resting on an elastic foundation (soil). There are two ways to analyze such beams: a) by Hetyeni's closed solution, and (b) by the FEM method. Method (b) is discussed in detail by Bowles -- he has even given a Fortran program listing. The problem is not amenable to a solution using an Excel spreadsheet as the resulting matrix is cumbrous to handle. In strip footing, the vertical loads as applied by you are right.

In case - - cg of loading and cg of footing area coincide , the uniform base pressure distribution can be taken.But if there is eccentricity of cg of loading in reference to cg of footing area, the moment on strip footing need to be taken (Mo = Sigma W * e)and base pressure distribution would be trapezoidal (p= P/A+/- M/Z)

Having downward loading and upward trapezoidal base pressure diagram please draw the SF diagram of the system The locations of zero shear points would provide places of maximum span moment. Please work out moment diagram considering the ownward loads and upward base pressures at support points as well at points of zero shear. By providing overhangs of strip footing beyond edge columns the BM's can be greatly reduced.However in case of boundary edge columns, the projection cannot be provided and accordingly moments in the strip footing would be higher. It may be noted that strip footing is also a solution to the edge column problem and eccentricity is already taken care in the analysis of strip footing. Designing as continuous beam may give erroneous results.

L - shaped footing

This type of footing ,as all know, is very common in small residential plots/buildings where there is need to provide columns at property line and footings cannot be provided symmetrically about the column in one direction / in corner column(on property line) in both directions. The footing is highly eccentric. Structural design of footing is not a problem but problem lies in achieving the base pressures underneath footing to the allowable limits. L footings ,on its own may not able to fulfill the base pressures and Mo at CL footing due to eccentricity of column load is high enough to cause upliftment of footing and no ammount of redistribution will able to solve the problem.Base pressures could be brought to allowable limits by follwing measures : i) Providing a STRAP Beam which can tie the outer column to the inner column and this beam shall be designed for approx uniform moment =( outer column load* ecc of olumn wrt to CL of footing) Reinf is provided at top. Practically there is no SF in beam but nominal stirrups are needed.(Contrary to this Reinf is needed at bottom if L footings are needed in reverse direction ie L in outer direction) Major problem: Most clients /petty contractors are not convinced on strap beams and donot agree to spend/ put efforts on Strap beams especially when Outer to inner column distance is more. Strap beams,even if shown in Drg, are generally not implemented in small projects unless supervised by an engineer. This is major concern ii) Provision of Trapezoidal footing to reduce eccenticity of load NOT a very practical option Other Helping factors for reducing BM in strap Beam are: a)Passive(less active) resistance of soil through edge wall/footing side face b)Presence of Cross brick wall at column location etc best wishes vikramjeet

L - Footings

L- Footings is generally required to be provided at the edge of property line. This footing, if not connected to internal column, is subjected to very high moment due to eccentricity of load w r t footing centreline. It is always preferable to connect this footing with some internal column through a strap beam so that moment due to eccentricity is taken care by this beam.For economy in strap beam, it is necessary to take footing dimension in direction of eccentricity,as less as possible,say, half the other.

For edge footing without strap beam,it is difficult to satisfy the no upliftment condition as redistribution is not permitted for footings resting on soils.Even if some redistribution is taken it may give very high value of upliftment of footing and max pressure after redistribution is quite high(it has to be less than SBC) Some designers take advantage of passive soil resistance(with some FOS) offered by the edge wall to relieve eccentric moment but in that case edge wall shall be strong enough to withstand this passive relief moment. Long back I had seen a paper written by structural expert and author Sh UH Varyani on the analysis of edge footing w/o strap beams. This might be available in some of his books. L- Footings is generally required to be provided at the edge of property line. This ooting, if not connected to internal column, is subjected to very high moment due to eccentricity of load w r t footing centreline. It is always preferable to connect this footing with some internal column through a strap beam so that moment due to eccentricity is taken care by this beam.For economy in strap beam, it is necessary to take footing dimension in direction of eccentricity,as less as possible,say, half the other. For edge footing without strap beam,it is difficult to satisfy the no upliftment condition as redistribution is not permitted for footings resting on soils.Even if some redistribution is taken it may give very high value of upliftment of footing and max pressure after redistribution is quite high(it has to be less than SBC) Some designers take advantage of passive soil resistance(with some FOS) offered by the edge wall to relieve eccentric

moment but in that case edge wall shall be strong enough to withstand this passive relief moment.

Long back I had seen a paper written by structural expert and author Sh UH Varyani on the analysis of edge footing w/o strap beams. This might be available in some of his books. Vikramjeet in my opinion ,try to provide strap beam as per situation given below in view of LFooting already cast without strap beam. i) assuming that columns are not cast above top of footing In this situation you can provide the strap beam connecting this column to internal column at top of footing level .

ii)assuming that columns are cast above top of footing upto GL/PL In this situation you can provide the strap beam(tie beam) connecting this column to internal column at GL/PL but edge column reinf provided shall be adequate enough to transfer the eccentric moment upto strap / tie beam level. You can take advantage of passive relief from soil(with some FOS) on edge wall on either side of column .Also the orthogonal cross wall (if it exists) will help. ( by way of its triangular load component beyond footing line through dispersion which will provide counter eccentricity) Corner Footing

As suggested by eminent members, the corner footing must have balancing strap beams in both directions to counter the eccentric moments .These beams must be provided at footing level itself.

Avoidance of strap beam:(costly option)

A] If plinth beams are provided tie-ing the columns in

both directions

(i) The column section of corner column below plinth level shall be increased appreciably to take care of additional bi-axial moment s due to eccentricities in both directions. Column Reinf shall be worked out accordingly.

(ii) Plinth beam in each direction shall be designed for addtional tensile force =M/Df M = P*e e = eccenricity= distance between CL footing and CL column Df = fondation depth upto plinth level

This tensile force in plinth beam must have a counter force form other side corner column, otherwise inner columns must share it.

(iii) Column above plinth beam level can have normal reinforcement

B] If plinth beams are NOT provided and roof beams are available at roof level (i.e next floor level)

(i) The column section of corner column below roof level shall be increased suitably to take care of additional bi-axial moment s due to eccentricities in both directions.Column Reinf shall be worked out accordingly.

(ii) Roof beam in each direction shall be designed for addtional tensile force =M/(Df +H) M = P*e e = eccenricity= distance between CL footing and CL column Df = fondation depth upto plinth level

H= roof height above Plinth level This tensile force in roof beam must have a counter force form other side corner column, otherwise inner columns must share it.

(iii) Column reinf above plinth beam level can can be slightly reduced since addtional moment (due to eccentric) varies upto roof level.

Other reductions in eccentric moments

(i) Passive less active relief from soil on side faces Best wishes and regds As informed by you , lot of discussion in this regard has been taken place on sefi. These footings are not very un -common . IS codes do not provide any guidelines in this regard . Books on design/analysis do talk about provision of strap beams and their analysis. However provision of these footings without strap beams is dealt seldom.The analysis of L- footings is ,I think,dealt by our respected UH Varyani sahab in his book on MS buildings which is part of his Paper in ICJ.

I have posted my recent views on L -footings without strap beams purely based on basics.The basic idea is that eccentricity moment on footing need to be resisted through either a strap beam (if present) /or through column itself being tied at certain level above.

As suggested , I would be glad to write on sefi at some future date after noting the comments of members. im designing 15 storey building 80m long by 45 meters wide do I have to create an expansion joint right through to the foundation or can two columns and shear walls share foundations?
They are silent, because it depends on differential foundation settlement, it could be from difference in building size left and right from joint, or difference in soil parameters. If you don't make expansion joint in foundation then it would be good if your building have same size on both sides of joint, and the soil have same parameters on both sides of joint. Otherwise you have to design building with expansion

joint in foundation or to give proof that differential settlement won't affect safety and function of the building if you design building without expansion joint in foundation. According to this it is on designer to decide. Hope this help's, regards!

You have to first determine if your structure actually needed an expansion joint. At first look at the dimension, it would seem that you would not need one. Really we cannot be sure, unless we are certain of certain factors. The expansion joints could not be recommended on the flight. This depends on lots of factor, including the location, operational conditions, construction method adopted, your building materials etc. If you have not yet done that, may be this could help you to determine if you actually needed one. So use the following equation to access your structure and establish if you are to incorporate expansion joint or not:L=_max/(KE_t) Where _max= Maximum Allowable Expansion in cm. L = Length of building in cm. E = Coefficient of linear expansion (0.0000117/ oC) _t = Temp. Difference in oC K = 1.0 for building without air-conditioning = 0.7 for building with air-conditioning = 0.55 for building with heating and air-conditioning. If you would need an expansion joint, it would be better if you could have the adjacent parts of the structure on different foundations. Like was pointed out by zego2000 problems could be encountered if the structure is situated in an earthquake prone zone (due to the inelastic drift of both parts or wings of the building which could result in one bumping onto the other-the battering effect-which will require proper separation between the adjacent wings). In that case, you could use couplers to connect both wings of the building. This will allow for both wings of the buildings to act as separate units as such expand and contract independent of the other but will at same time allow both wings to act as a unit as to counter the battering effect; in the event of an earthquake. Regards Teddy Dear All, Thank you very much. I will consider all these, and true as chigozie says, my storey drift due to wind combined with earthquake is about 150mm according to modelling in STAAD PRO V8i. I am fearful that "suttering" due to indepenedent vibrations from wind and earthquake may cause collapse. My structure is in pure reinforced concrete on raft foundation. The structure is in pure colling only air conditioning system no heating. the temp difference between winter and summer is winter=20 degrees c and summer 40 degrees, more than delat 20, soil is compressible clay, and hard shale rock of bearing capacity 600kN.m2. Earthquake is 6 on the ritchter scale according to world hazard map.

JAKUO wrote:....my storey drift due to wind combined with earthquake is about 150mm according to modelling in STAAD PRO V8i. I am fearful that "suttering" due to indepenedent vibrations .... Comment:If you are doing drift assessment, you do not have to combine the wind and earthquake loadings. You have to consider only one of the most critical of the two. If you do that, I think that you may not get a drift as large as you said. JAKUO wrote: The structure is in pure colling only air conditioning system no heating. the temp difference between winter and summer is winter=20 degrees c and summer 40 degrees, more than delat 20, Comment:- I do not understand why you should have two temperature differences (20c and 40C), it should be only one, or may be, I did not understand you. Could you please elaborate on what you meant by the statement the temp difference between winter and summer is winter=20 degrees c and summer 40 degrees, more than delat 20 Regards Teddy

1. 80m X 45m size is possible without expansion joint. 2. You may need to consider temperature stresses for the analysis and design. Teddy, Could you give any reference for the maximum allowable expansion (_max). Regards, 2. In my current project with 40th storeys in tower below Pile Raft Foundation and the first 5th storeys is Podium below single pile cap foundation. We don't use any expansion joint between the tower and the Podium. The method is using the Post- Pour Strips Concrete after the settlement of the tower is stability. In my old project with the same dimension with JAKUO's building, we don't have any the expansion joint, but the construction joint is necessary for construction to avoid the thermal shrinkage. Could you give any reference for the maximum allowable expansion (_max).... Comment:Like I said before, this depends on lots of things (refer to post #8), but you could calculate it with the equation also given in post #8. Instead of calculating _max, calculate L in the said equation and compare with the length of your structure. If L>the length of your structure, that means that you do not need the expansion joint, but if your L< the length of your structure, that means that you needed the expansion joint. Regards

in post #8, L=_max/(KE_t) 'L' is the function of "_max" or vice versa. It is required to fix "_max" to claculate "L" Or, I understand wrongly. Please clarify. Regards, ..in post #8, L=_max/(KE_t) 'L' is the function of "_max" or vice versa. It is required to fix "_max" to claculate "L" Or, I understand wrongly. Please clarify..... comment:You are very correct (good of you to point that out). We needed it as to calculate L. It is known that structure could tolerate about 25 to 28mm restraint (due to untended joints that result in construction). So you could use this as your _max= Maximum Allowable Expansion (2.5cm to 2.8cm) in a structure before a joint is required. Expansion joints are necessary as to control the crack width that will be induced in the structure due to temperature differentials, shrinkage of immature concrete etc. The cracks are as a result of tensile stresses and could be controlled if the structure is allowed a relief by not restricting its movement and or the provision of the appropriate steel reinforcement. You could assess your structure for stresses due to thermal variations. In alternative to the approach indicated above, you could use the follwing load combinations as to determine the stresses imposed on your structure in the absence of the expansion joints:DL + TL DL + LL + TL DL + WL or EL + TL DL + SL + TL where, DL = Dead Load LL = Live load plus applicable Collateral Load WL = Wind load EL = Seismic Load SL = Snow load plus applicable Collateral Load TL = Thermal load FL = Floor Live Load The result of that analysis should also include _max i.e the maximum expansion generated due to that temperature loading. Check if that stress (in concrete) is within what is allowed in the code (under serviceability limit condition which is about fc/3). If not, then you needed a relief by provision of more reinforcements or provision of construction joint or expansion joints (I think the actual name is movement joint). Regards Teddy