www.sefindia.

org :: View topic - connection modeling in STAAD

1 of 10

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56414

www.sefindia.org
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING FORUM OF INDIA [SEFI]
Search
Share
Subscriptions

Follow @sefindia

65k

Digest Preferences

FAQ

Profile

Search

Memberlist

2,467 followers

Usergroups

Log in to check your private messages

Register

Security Tips

Donate

Log in

Warning: Make sure you scan the downloaded attachment with updated antivirus tools before opening them. They may contain viruses.
Use online scanners here and here to upload downloaded attachment to check for safety.

connection modeling in STAAD

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> SEFI General Discussion

View previous topic :: View next topic
Author
AvinashJagtap

Message
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:55 am

Post subject: Re: connection modeling in STAAD

SEFI Member

Dear all
Joined: 26 Mar 2013
Posts: 1

I have been seen in saudi arabia that footing support is pinned. It is general practice in the Saudi
arabia and Egypt. They believe that structure should be stiff and consume more reinforcement
and give the reference of soil consultant. although problem may arise in mind if we consider
pinned support at footing. footing retrain the moment and footing size will calculated on the basis
of P/A. which is very optimistic.
In india, I alway consider fixed footing and give importance to the footing (in point of view of
structural enginner not as per soil consultant) because footing is very critical to retroiffiting as
compare to ease of column and slab.
Indian code of concrete and detailing (Siesmic) are give more space for design of structure. We
use more reinforcement as compare to design.
Regards,
AVINASH JAGTAP
SANGEETA WIJ wrote:
Dear Mr Ranga Rao
Its important to follow the right detail at column footing junction if a pinned support is being
assumed in place of a fixed connection; many SEs are following the same detail as used in a
fixed connection which is not quite correct.
Regards
Sangeeta Wij
From: slstructural [mailto:forum@sefindia.org]
Sent: 01 April 2013 14:17
To: general@sefindia.org
Subject: [SEFI] Re: connection modeling in STAAD

sir,My understanding about this as follows (also in line with SP 40 page 5 , section 4)
If the soil is capable of resisting rotations without appreciable settlement , we are free to take
it fixed. Normally, B/C soils etc. readily settle leading to differential will demand for pinned
connection.
Rangarao
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Dr. N. Subramanian forum@sefindia.org
(forum@sefindia.org))> wrote:
--auto removed-Posted via Email
Back to top
kishorabg

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:06 am

Post subject:

General Sponsor

30-12-2014 14:17

www.sefindia.org :: View topic - connection modeling in STAAD

2 of 10

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56414

Dear Sefians,
As per NS Sir,
"Ifyou provide deep grade beams on top of spread footing, you can assume that
thefooting transfers only axial loads to the soil.
&

Joined: 22 Aug 2010

Posts: 87
Location: GUJARAT

Yes.Simlar idea has been mentioned in Paulay and Priestley Seismic design of RC
andMasonry structures also. You may also verify it using computer analysis,
theprovision of deep grade beams will reduce the bending moments in the
columnsconsiderably.
With respect to his comments I am giving you my previous experience.
Earlier I have checked this type structuresin the software packageSTAAD adopting deep grade
beam at plinth level/ belowproposed formation level (slightly above the footings) with seismic
forces, which is not accepted in the package. Most ofbeams need redesign with revised sizes with
warning SINGLE OVER-REINFORCEDSECTION BEING BRITTLE SHOULD AWAYAS BE AVOIDED IN
EARTHQUAKE DESIGN. MODIFYSECTION DIMENSSION.
During working as a Structuralconsultant for CPWD & MES, finally I adopted a principle for design
of structureby treating the column & foundation joint as pinned (Where only Axial loadstransfer to
foundation and moments transfer to Frame) and for design offoundation by treating the column &
foundation joint as fixed (Where Axialloads & moments transfer to foundations) after the
acceptance of the seniorengineers of the CPWD & MES.
I need the comments and suggestions ofthe Sefians in this respect.

Regards
KISHORE
Back to top
samantony

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:38 am

Post subject: I need some one to help me out pls!!!

SEFI Member

Dear All,
Q. Is it logical to go to pin support to RCC structure?

Joined: 26 Dec 2009

Posts: 2

Ans.
- In general, the gravity loads dominated buildings (low rise buildings) with connection b/w
column and isolated footings may be used PINNED support, which will be economic footing,
otherwise, if FIXED support,the moment/eccentricity will be involved your footing design, the soil
cannot resist tensile stresses, the redistribution of stresses is necessary to maintain equilibrium,
then you have to increase area of footing, which will be uneconomy, if there is mat foundation the
column connection may be FIXED or PINNED, also, over all minimum base pressur under the raft
should be maintain more than zreo, (no ngetive value), this recomends still avoid big moments to
the foundation unless inescabable.
- Lateral load dominated building (high rise building) ,it may be raft only (occur high
settlement-no recommend- depends soil condition) or group-piled ( occure high diffrencial
settlement b/w column-no recommend- depends soil condition) or cassion or piled raft foundation
(recomended by most experts) with column connection must be FIXED then only the over all drift
will be economicaly controled (also depends plan dimension).
Regards
Antony

On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Dr. N. Subramanian <forum@sefindia.org

(forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:
Quote:

30-12-2014 14:17

www.sefindia.org :: View topic - connection modeling in STAAD

3 of 10

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56414

Dear All,
This connection modeling is again and again raised in the forum. We used to assume the
connection as fixed but one IIT professor, while reviewing our design suggested that we should
take the column-foundation connection as hinges, unless it is supported on piles or rocks.
Some soil mechanics books also suggest the same, due to the fact that compressible soils will
releieve the moment due to rotation of foundation. Prof. ARC sir says the connection has to be
taken as fixed. It was debated in the forum extensively.
If you provide deep grade beams on top of spread footing, you can assume that the footing
transfers only axial loads to the soil. Of course, the effect of fixity may be included in the
analysis by considering rotational springs (soil-structure interaction).
Best wishes
NS

ganesh_gaud wrote: Dear arun sir

"Depending on the soil, you may want to go for PINNED condition instead of FIXED condition.
This will reduce footing size, but column reinforcement in the lower level will increase. "

please can u elobrate this statement

sir it is logical to go to pin support to RCC structure?
if pin support is logical than what should be connection detail of column with footing.

Posted via Email

Back to top
VPandya
General Sponsor

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:13 am

enough?

Dear

Post subject: Check out STAAD/PRO Example 3 See if this is

SEFI Ers,

Check out STAAD/PRO Application Example (US Codes) EXAMP03 and see if this is enough for
a day to day Structural Engineering Design office work. Only thing I want to add is that the
Connection of Steel Columns to Top of Footings, should be having Anchor Bolts placed out side
the Flanges of columns and not in the Web. That is required to develope even a Partially
Restrained Moment Connection as in this case. For Large Size Footings I would model Footings
with PLATE AND SHELL ELEMENTS and not as CONCRETE PRISMATIC BEAMS as done in this
example.
Joined: 09 Nov 2009
Posts: 461
Location: Ahmedabad

Example Problem No. 3

A portal frame type steel structure is sitting on concrete footing. The soil is to be
considered as an elastic foundation. Value of soil subgrade reaction is known from
which spring constants are calculated by multiplying the subgrade reaction by the
tributary area of each modeled spring.

Regards.
Vasudeo Pandya P.E. ; S.E.
Structural Engineer.

Warning: Make sure you scan the downloaded attachment with updated antivirus tools before opening
them. They may contain viruses.
Use online scanners here and here to upload downloaded attachment to check for safety.

American_App_Examples_2007_Complete.pdf
Description:

STAAD/Pro V8i (SELECT Series 4 -EXAMP03 .

A two story Steel Frame with footings on Soil Springs.

Filename:

American_App_Examples_2007_Complete.pdf

Filesize:

1.94 MB

Downloaded:

39767 Time(s)

Download

30-12-2014 14:17

www.sefindia.org :: View topic - connection modeling in STAAD

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56414

Back to top
VPandya
General Sponsor

Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:47 am

enough?

[quote="VPandya"]Dear

Post subject: Re: Check out STAAD/PRO Example 3 See if this is

SEFI Ers,

Only thing I want to add is that the Connection of Steel Columns to Top of Footings, should be
having Anchor Bolts placed out side the Flanges of columns (See the Steel Column base
plate connection on page 1121 Examp 13.8 of Design Of Steel Structures by Dr. N.
Subramanian) and not in the Web.
We will get reduced moment at Column base due to rotation of footing on Soil Springs, even
though we have a fixed Column Base connection.
Joined: 09 Nov 2009
Posts: 461
Location: Ahmedabad

Back to top
P.S.Babaria

Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:56 am

Post subject: connection modeling in STAAD

SEFI Member

Joined: 15 Jul 2008

Posts: 4

any one explains the rotation which for 3x3 m foundation for one end footing edge 25 mm
settelment is small and may in favour of fixed connection for that matter. my view is angle of
slope of footing settelment is small for all practical purpose as for most of the cases eccentricity of
load is small.
do any body knows of the case where due to this fixed assumption any failure?

thanks with regards

p.s.babaria

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:31 AM, jiwaji <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:

[quote]
Regarding the connection I have the following to share:
a)The connection consists of two parts:- internal connection between column and footing which
considering the relative stiffness of footing slab and column-section is practically a rigid or
moment connection,
b)the column-footing joint as a whole is partially fixed and may rotate to the extent permitted by
the sub-grade soil which supports it (or not rotate at all as in case of a rocky sub-grade.
As such to bring out the effect one can either model the footing joint with a partial fixity or as
"foundation (on springs)" command in a software like STAAD.
Taking a 100% pinned joint, as per my thinking does not appear correct in any normal scenario
for RCC.
Jiwaji Y Desai
TCE Jamshedpur

"Dr. N. Subramanian"
04/01/2013 09:55 AM Please respond to
general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org)
To
general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org) cc

4 of 10

30-12-2014 14:17

www.sefindia.org :: View topic - connection modeling in STAAD

5 of 10

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56414

Subject
[SEFI] Re: I need some one to help me out pls!!!

Dear All,
This connection modeling is again and again raised in the forum. We used to assume the
connection as fixed but one IIT professor, while reviewing our design suggested that we should
take the column-foundation connection as hinges, unless it is supported on piles or rocks. Some
soil mechanics books also suggest the same, due to the fact that compressible soils will releieve
the moment due to rotation of foundation. Prof. ARC sir says the connection has to be taken as
fixed. It was debated in the forum extensively.
If you provide deep grade beams on top of spread footing, you can assume that the footing
transfers only axial loads to the soil. Of course, the effect of fixity may be included in the analysis
by considering rotational springs (soil-structure interaction).
Best wishes
NS

ganesh_gaud wrote:
--auto removed-Posted via Email
Back to top
knsheth123

Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:16 pm

Post subject: connection modeling in STAAD

Bronze Sponsor

Dear Sefians

The behaviour of the base as fixed or Pinned is primarily decided by the joint between the Footing
and Column.

Joined: 26 Jan 2003

Posts: 98

When the base is analyzed as pinned, the connection to footing has to be designed as a pin in RCC
using cross bars.
In this case, redundancy of the structure is reduce which is not preferred for seismic load
combinations.
For a moment resisting connection between column and footing, there will be redistribution of
base pressure and the fixed base assumption will stand. (We assume a linear distribution from
p,max to p,min is a simplified assumption)

The best way to assure both structural and Geo technical view point is to spend little more for Tie
Beams at Footing level to take care for Moment by balancing it as Push - Pull Mechanism.

K. N. Sheth

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:53 AM, sarfaraj.husain <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)>

wrote:
Quote:

30-12-2014 14:17

www.sefindia.org :: View topic - connection modeling in STAAD

6 of 10

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56414

whether foundation is resting on rock/hard strata or medium soil ....it is purely based
on the report submitted by geotech consultant....for prelimnary design point of view some tips
can be taken from experience design engineer....
but for final design geotechnical report is a must.......( no book can help for any site specific
data....books are for reference only)

sarfraj

From: "slstructural"
To: general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org),
Date: 04/01/13 02:15 PM
Subject: [SEFI] Re: connection modeling in STAAD

sir,My understanding about this as follows (also in line with SP 40 page 5 , section 4)
If the soil is capable of resisting rotations without appreciable settlement , we are free to take
it fixed. Normally, B/C soils etc. readily settle leading to differential will demand for pinned
connection.
Rangarao
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Dr. N. Subramanian forum@sefindia.org
(forum@sefindia.org))> wrote: --auto removed--

Posted via Email

Back to top
Dr. N. Subramanian

Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:34 pm

Post subject: Re: connection modeling in STAAD

General Sponsor

Dear Prof. ARC,

Thank you for your kind words.
Glad to note that you are compiling a brief history on structural Analysis. We will be happy to read
it.

Joined: 21 Feb 2008

Posts: 4843
Location: Gaithersburg, MD,
U.S.A.

Yes. You mentioned earlier also that your recommendation was based on some studies. But most
of the books in soil mechanics and a few Structural Engg books mention the following
recommendation " Use fixed base if the footing is on rock or on pile foundations, otherwise
assume hinged ends. They cite the rotation of footing on soil, in case of compressible soil, for this
recommendation"
Also as you have mentioned rightly, by adopting hinged condition, the column will be designed for
extra moment and the footing will get only axial load. I think it is better than designing column for
less moment due to distribution, and designing the footing for AF and Moment. We all agree that
column is an important element and the most abused in practice!

Warm regards,
NS
prof.arc wrote:
Dear Dr. NS,
I always enjoy reading your postings - you are both an academic and
practical engineer
I am compiling a brief essay on history of structural analysis as
known to me for the past 60 years of my life. i would post it on SEFI
if i find it useful enough
referring to your quote about my opinion of end conditions of columns
at the lowermost level,
i would like to reiterate that it is based on parametric study of
2D/3D framed buildings
[grids of beams and.columns] in which the foundation is represented by
3/6 degrees of freedom spring elements
The spring elements were those proposed by Novak, et. al and accepted
in codes of Nuclear Structures

30-12-2014 14:17

www.sefindia.org :: View topic - connection modeling in STAAD

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56414

For the assumed variation of soil under conditions prevalent, we found

there is no justification in assuming pinned condition
Since even those who advocate pinned ends for analysis, NEVER provide
such PINNED
connection in practice, the discussion is academic except for the
fact, the bottommost columns are over designed [ the bending moments
at the top of bottommost columns are greater than when the columns are
assumed as fixed / or pliable due to spring modelling of foundation]
with best wishes
sincerely
ARC

Quote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Dr. N. Subramanian <forum> wrote:
Quote:
Dear All,
This connection modeling is again and again raised in the forum. We used
to assume the connection as fixed but one IIT professor, while reviewing
our design suggested that we should take the column-foundation
connection
as hinges, unless it is supported on piles or rocks. Some soil mechanics
books also suggest the same, due to the fact that compressible soils will
releieve the moment due to rotation of foundation. Prof. ARC sir says the
connection has to be taken as fixed. It was debated in the forum
extensively.
If you provide deep grade beams on top of spread footing, you can
assume
that the footing transfers only axial loads to the soil. Of course, the
effect of fixity may be included in the analysis by considering rotational
springs (soil-structure interaction).
Best wishes
NS

Posted via Email

Back to top
lkjain.ngp

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:16 am

Post subject: I need some one to help me out pls!!!

SEFI Regulars

Dear sirs,

Joined: 14 Aug 2010

Posts: 30

This refers to simplifying assumptions in analysis, by taking column

bases on foundation to be fixed or hinged. When we are dealing with
wind / seismic actions as lateral loads, the assumption of fixed base
appears to be more nearer to actual action as will probably occur.
Wind or seismic are the important & critical load actions for design
of most frames.
Wind and seismic actions are transient (short duration) and may not
allow the plastic deformations of foundation strata to occur. Under
the action of moment, the rotation of footing will be smaller as the
soil stiffness increases. Rotation of foundation resulting from the
flexibility of foundation soil will relieve part of the fixed end
moment at the base of column. This partial release of moment will
usually be of small order say 5 to 15% only in most cases. Hence in
most practical design this partial moment release can be neglected.
However due to such release of moment at column base, the design
moment in some other members of the frame may become more critical.
Examples are the plinth beams in most frames. Designer should take
care of such members which may get under-designed by making
simplifying assumptions.
In design of elevated water tanks on staging of columns & braces, a
recommendation is to increase the moments due to wind/seismic by about

7 of 10

30-12-2014 14:17

www.sefindia.org :: View topic - connection modeling in STAAD

8 of 10

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56414

20% in the ground (/plinth / immediately above foundation) brace/

beam, in view of above situation.
There are no frames designed for gravity load only, hence the
simplification of hinged base of column is a costlier proposal. Older
text books used to recommend such assumptions. However with hinge base
assumption, the base of column and foundation should also be designed
for force actions due to fixed base assumption.. This way the whole
design becomes a little costlier.
L. K. JAIN
On 31/03/2013, Dr. N. Subramanian <forum@sefindia.org> wrote:
Quote:
Dear All,
This connection modeling is again and again raised in the forum. We used to
assume the connection as fixed but one IIT professor, while reviewing our
design suggested that we should take the column-foundation connection as
hinges, unless it is supported on piles or rocks. Some soil mechanics books
also suggest the same, due to the fact that compressible soils will releieve
the moment due to rotation of foundation. Prof. ARC sir says the connection
has to be taken as fixed. It was debated in the forum extensively.
If you provide deep grade beams on top of spread footing, you can assume
that the footing transfers only axial loads to the soil. Of course, the
effect of fixity may be included in the analysis by considering rotational
springs (soil-structure interaction).
Best wishes
NS

ganesh_gaud wrote:
Quote:
Dear arun sir

"Depending on the soil, you may want to go for PINNED

condition instead of FIXED condition. This will reduce footing size, but
column reinforcement in the lower level will increase. "

please can u elobrate this statement

sir it is logical to go to pin support to RCC structure?
if pin support is logical than what
should be connection detail of column with footing.

Posted via Email

Back to top
Dr. N. Subramanian

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:48 pm

Post subject: Re: I need some one to help me out pls!!!

General Sponsor

Dear Er L.K. Jain sir,

Thanks for the email. Your point that "Wind and seismic actions are transient (short duration) and
may not allow the plastic deformations of foundation strata to occur." is a good point and rational
to accept!
Hope Engineers will keep your caution in mind, while treating the footing -column joint as fixed,
i.e. "However due to such release of moment at column base, the design moment in some other
members of the frame may become more critical.

30-12-2014 14:17

www.sefindia.org :: View topic - connection modeling in STAAD

9 of 10

Joined: 21 Feb 2008

Posts: 4843
Location: Gaithersburg, MD,
U.S.A.

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56414

Examples are the plinth beams in most frames. Designer should take
care of such members which may get under-designed by making
simplifying assumptions."
Regards
Subramanian
lkjain.ngp wrote:
Dear sirs,

This refers to simplifying assumptions in analysis, by taking column

bases on foundation to be fixed or hinged. When we are dealing with
wind / seismic actions as lateral loads, the assumption of fixed base
appears to be more nearer to actual action as will probably occur.
Wind or seismic are the important & critical load actions for design
of most frames.
Wind and seismic actions are transient (short duration) and may not
allow the plastic deformations of foundation strata to occur. Under
the action of moment, the rotation of footing will be smaller as the
soil stiffness increases. Rotation of foundation resulting from the
flexibility of foundation soil will relieve part of the fixed end
moment at the base of column. This partial release of moment will
usually be of small order say 5 to 15% only in most cases. Hence in
most practical design this partial moment release can be neglected.
However due to such release of moment at column base, the design
moment in some other members of the frame may become more critical.
Examples are the plinth beams in most frames. Designer should take
care of such members which may get under-designed by making
simplifying assumptions.
In design of elevated water tanks on staging of columns & braces, a
recommendation is to increase the moments due to wind/seismic by about
20% in the ground (/plinth / immediately above foundation) brace/
beam, in view of above situation.
There are no frames designed for gravity load only, hence the
simplification of hinged base of column is a costlier proposal. Older
text books used to recommend such assumptions. However with hinge base
assumption, the base of column and foundation should also be designed
for force actions due to fixed base assumption.. This way the whole
design becomes a little costlier.
L. K. JAIN
On 31/03/2013, Dr. N. Subramanian <forum> wrote:
Quote:
Dear All,
This connection modeling is again and again raised in the forum. We used to
assume the connection as fixed but one IIT professor, while reviewing our
design suggested that we should take the column-foundation connection as
hinges, unless it is supported on piles or rocks. Some soil mechanics books
also suggest the same, due to the fact that compressible soils will releieve
the moment due to rotation of foundation. Prof. ARC sir says the connection
has to be taken as fixed. It was debated in the forum extensively.
If you provide deep grade beams on top of spread footing, you can assume
that the footing transfers only axial loads to the soil. Of course, the
effect of fixity may be included in the analysis by considering rotational
springs (soil-structure interaction).
Best wishes
NS

ganesh_gaud wrote:
Quote:
Dear arun sir

"Depending on the soil, you may want to go for PINNED

condition instead of FIXED condition. This will reduce footing size, but
column reinforcement in the lower level will increase. "

please can u elobrate this statement

sir it is logical to go to pin support to RCC structure?
if pin support is logical than what
should be connection detail of column with footing.

30-12-2014 14:17

www.sefindia.org :: View topic - connection modeling in STAAD

10 of 10

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56414

Posted via Email

Back to top
Display posts from previous: All Posts

Oldest First

www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> SEFI

General Discussion

Go
All times are GMT

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Page 3 of 4
Jump to: SEFI General Discussion
Translation: Translate topic

Go

Go
You cannot post new topics
You cannot reply to topics
You cannot edit your posts
You cannot delete your posts
You cannot vote in polls
You cannot attach files
You can download files

in
in
in
in
in
in
in

this
this
this
this
this
this
this

forum
forum
forum
forum
forum
forum
forum

2003, 2008 SEFINDIA, Indian Domain Registration

Structural Engineering Forum of India

You like this.

Structural Engineering Forum of India

13 hrs

Parts_of_a_truss_bridge

You and 65,661 others like Structural Engineering Forum of India.

Facebook social plugin

tsunami
earthquake

The Guardian - 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami: how Aceh recovered, and Sri Lanka declined
ABC News - Strong Earthquake Shakes Southern Philippines

powered by
powered by

30-12-2014 14:17