3.2.5 Corner brackets. The case of brackets will be studied in this course.

corners with two overhead beams, considering that beneath the foundation there is a
linearly variable pressure distribution, presenting for this purpose the
theoretical foundation presented by José Calavera in his reference (5).

José Calavera presents an analysis based on the fact that the complexity of
The model is very large if the column and the footing are not square. Given that
in the case of corner pads, there is no preferred restriction for
make them larger in one direction than in the other, in what follows, the method is
it will be presented for the case of square shoe.

FIGURE 21. Geometry of the structural model of the corner footing with two
air beams presented by José Calavera.

Figure 21 shows the structural diagram and the forces in equilibrium.

107
Figure 22 shows a cross-section drawn right through the diagonal.
from the support, based on which the equilibrium equations are determined
assuming that all the ground under the footing is compressed.

qmax+ qmin
P+ N= B 2 (52)
2

b 2 B 2 B3 2
T(C+ h)+ P +N = 5 qmax+ 7qmin (53)
2 2 24

FIGURE 22. Structural model of the corner footing with variable distribution
of pressures and two overhead beams.

The third equation needed to solve the problem is obtained from the
compatibility of deformations, equalizing the rotation of the footing to that of the column,

assuming a ballast module K:

qmax- qmin Tl2L2

= (54)
KB2 3EIà

From the solution of the system of equations (52), (53), and (54) result the expressions
necessary to solve the problem:

108
 2
- Mr.
P (B - b)
2 2 2 2
T= M r = M 1+ M 2 T0 = T (55)
é KB4l2C 2 ù 2
êC+ h+ ú
ë 36EIà û

P KB 2l2L2
qmax = + T< qa (56)
B2 6EIà

P KB 2l2L2
qmin= - T> 0 (57)
B2 6EIà

In the practical application of the system of equations (55), (56), and (57), it is presented
two cases for analysis: In the first, the dimensions of the B footing are established.
and with the value of the ballast coefficient K, determined by the equation
48, the tensions q are obtainedmaxand whatminand the force T. The obtaining of values
acceptable due to the structure and the coefficient of ballast footing - soil, it can
require the carrying out of some assessment. The resultant tensile force T can
to decompose orthogonally into two equal forceso.

2
To= T (58)
2

In the second case, the tensions are [Link] whatminand the value of K is estimated, it
which is equivalent to estimating the dimensions of the foundation, and this can also

require some assessment.

Figure 23 shows the behavior of the corner footing in response to

the moments that act upon her.

109
Calavera (5) assumes that the plate (brake shoe) is supported on two virtual beams.
in cantilever. Other authors have found that the plate is subjected to two
maximum moments, one (MTin the direction of the diagonal that passes through the column
and that produces traction on the upper face of the shoe (Figure 23 (b)), and another
(MLin a direction orthogonal to the previous one, which produces tensions on the lower face
(Figure 23 (c)). The magnitude of these moments is practically the same,
being per unit of width equal to:

qB2
ML= M T= (59)
4.8

(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 23. Moments acting on the corner footing.

For the reinforcement in the center of the plate (Figure 24 a), two grids are placed.
up and down so that each one withstands ML= MT.

The design of the virtual beams is carried out for the moment:

qB3
Mv = 60
3.0

110
In expressions (59) and (60) q represents the average pressure under the footing, it is
to say

q max+ q min
q= (61)
2

(a) (b)

FIGURE 24. Distribution of the reinforcement steel in the corner footing.

EXAMPLE OF CORNER FOOTING.

A corner footing is to be designed with the following basic information:

P = 933 kN mv0.1 N/mm2

111
M19.7 kN.m m 0.25
M28.3 kN.m F’c = 21 MPa
qa= 150 kN / m2 Fy = 420 MPa
b = 0.45 m

P B- b 2
- Mr
2 2
T= M r= M 1+ M2 2 2
T0= T
kB4 l2 c 2 2
c+ h+
36EI0

P k B 2 2 c2 P k B 2 2c2
qmax = + T qmin= - T
B2 6EIà B2 6EIà

The same procedure indicated for the footing is followed next.

median wall. It is worth noting that for the analysis proposed by Calavera both the
Zapata, like the column, is worked in squares for ease in expressions.
so if you have a rectangular column, you need to increase one of its
dimensions to be square when connecting to the base.

Taking the resultant moment in diagonal a:

M r= 8.32+ 9.72= 12.8kN.m

The equivalent eccentricity on the diagonal will be:

MR 12.8kN× m
e= = = 0.014m
PS 933kN

112
The verification of qaaccording to Meyerhof (4) it must be done starting from qsmaxand whatsmin
just like in the shared footings. However, with an eccentricity so
small B could be given by:

Ps
B=
qa

933kN
B=
150kN/m2

B³ 2.5m

In the previous expressions it must be:

l =1 for articulated beam-column connection (cable type) and 0.75 for connection
Beam embedded column. For the case under study corresponds to 0.75.

k = ballast coefficient given by:

f
k= k1
0.67
Con:
B
1 + 0.5
f= L
1.5

Es
k 1= 2
B1-

where:
1
Es=
mv

113
E:[Link].[Link]-NSR-98,Eis:

E= 3900fc ¢

I c moment of inertia of the column, given by:

1 3
I=c lb
12

Taking a B = 2.6 m, defining a C = 1.0 m. Work is done with a

Mv = 0.1 mm2/ N and is supposed am= 0.25 to find the ballast coefficient
k.

Substituting the corresponding values in the previous expressions we

obtains:

æ2.6 m ö
1+ 0.5çç ÷
è 2.6 m ÷
ø = 1.0
f=
1.5

1 N
Es= = 10
2
0.1mm /N mm2

10N/mm2 N
k=
1
= 4.1´10-3
(2600mm)1- 0.252 mm3

æ 1.0 ö N N
k= ç ÷4.1´10-3 = 6.12´10-3
è 0.67 ø mm 3
mm3

N
E= 3900 21MPa= 17872
mm2

114
 1
I c = 450(450mm)3= 3417´106mm4
12

The thickness of the footing over the ground above the bottom reinforcement cannot
be less than 150 mm (C.15.7.1, NSR-98). An initial thickness of is assumed
zapata of:

h= 500mm

The effective depth for a coating of 70 mm is:

d = h - 70mm
d= 500mm- 70mm
d= 430mm> 150mm OK

æ2600mm- 450mm ö
(933´10 3N) ç ÷ - 12.8´10 6N× mm
è 2 ø
Ts =
æ N ö 2
ç 6.12´10 -3 ÷ 0.75 1000mm2
mm ø
3
500mm+ 1000mm+ è (2600mm)4
æ N ö
36ç17872 ÷(3417´10 6mm4)
è mm2 ø

Ts = 894kN

115
 æ N ö 2
ç 6.12´10 -3 ÷ 0.75 1000mm22600mm
933´10 N 3 3
mm ø
qmaxs = +è × 886´103N
(2600mm) 2
æ N ö
6ç17872 ÷(3417´10 6mm4)
è mm 2
ø
qmaxs= 169 kN/m2< 150 kN/m2 Does not comply

æ N ö 2
ç 6.12´10 -3 ÷ 0.75 1000mm2(2600mm)
933´10 N 3
mm ø
3
qmins = - è 886´103N
2600mm 2
æ N ö
6ç17872 ÷(3417´106mm4)
è mm ø 2

qmins = 107 kN/m2< 150 kN/m2OK

Since the proposed dimensions for the footing do not meet one of the
load capacity conditions regarding modifying them. In the following
The table presents the results obtained for different values of B.

B (m) Ts (kN) qmin(kN/m^2) qmax(kN/m^2)

2.7 923 96 160
2.8 959 86 152
2.9 995 77 145
Values of qminand whatmaxfor different values of B
From the table, it can be observed that for a value of B = 2.9 m the conditions are met.

necessary load capacity conditions however B = 2.8 m approaches

very much to the limit, so it would be better to work to the limit and take this value of B and

see what happens if h had to be varied due to punching shear restrictions

unidirectional.
Directshearatthecriticalsectionat"d/2"ofthefaceofthecolumn(shear
bidirectional

116
 BidirectionalCutter

The ultimate allowable loads on the footing are:

q = 229 kN/m 2
max u

q = 128kN/m 2
mine

The average ultimate reaction load on the footing is evaluated. qum(in all the
diagonal) as well as the average ultimate reaction load on the square side
b + d / 2qux
.

q umax+ q umIn
qum=
2

117
 kN kN
229 2
+ 128 2
qaround= m m
2
kN
qum= 179
m2

qmax- qmin æ dö
qux= qmax- ×çb+ ÷
2× B è 2ø
kN
229-128
kN m2 ×æ 0.43 ö
qux= 229 - ç0.45+ ÷m
m2 2 × 2.8m è 2 ø

kN
qux= 217
m2

The total punching force that the column exerts on the plate is:
2
2 q× b+ æ dö
Vux = q × B-
um ux ç
è
÷
2ø

kN 2 kN æ 0.43 ö 2
Vup = 179 × 2.8m- 217 ×ç0.45+ ÷m
m2 m2 è 2 ø

Vup= 1304kN

The shear force due to punching is:

Vup
u up =
bo d

Where:
æ dö
b=
o 2b+ç ÷
è 2ø

æ 0.43m ö
b=
o
2 0.45m+
ç ÷
è 2 ø

118
b=
o 1.33m
1304000N
Then: u up =
(1330mm)(430mm)

u up = 2.28MPa

It must be fulfilled that:

ìf f ¢
ï vc
ï 3
ï
ïï ff ì 40Columnainterior
v
¢
c æ a sd ö ï
u up £ í çç1 + ÷
÷ ,a s = 30Border
í column
ï 6 è 2bo ø ï 20Cornecroulmn
ï î
ï f vf c ¢ æ 2 ö b
ï çç1 + ÷
÷ , bc =
ïî 6 è b c ø l

Withf v0.85a s = 20,b c=1 y f c¢= 21MPa is obtained:

ì 1.30MPaNotCompliant
ï
2.29MPa£ 2.7í5MPaComplies
ï 1.95MPaDoesNotCompyl
î
Since the footing does not meet the shear conditions, the value must be increased.
of h, taking h = 0.75m we have:

Ts= 836kN

qsmax= 148kN/m2< 150 kN/m2OK

qsmin = 90 kN/m2< 150 kN/m2OK

kN kN
qum= 179 qux= 209
m2 m2
Vup= 1269kN up = 1.18MPa

119
 ì 1.30MPaComplies
ï
1.18MPa£ 3.45íMPaComplies
ï 1.95MPaComplies
î

Directshearatcriticalsectionto"d"ofthecolumn

unidirectionalcutting

Como se parte de que la distribución de presiones en la zapata linealmente en la

it becomes complex to find the 'exact' resultant reaction in the potions
indicated by the base, so the following simpler expression is used
though more conservative:

Vud= qaround× B × B- b- d
kN
Vud= 179 2.8m2.8- 0.45 - 0.68m
m2

120
 Vud= 835kN

The shear effort is:

Voodoo
n you=
B× d
835000N
n UD= = 0.44MPa
2800mm * 680mm

This must be less than that resisted by the concrete:

f vf c ¢
n ud£
6
Withf v=0.85 y f c¢= 21MPa it is obtained:

0.85 21 MPa
0.44MPa£ = 0.65MPa Celebrate
6

Bending design of the footing

In reference (5), it is assumed that the plate

(zapata) is supported on two beams

121
 cantilevered virtuals. The case has been the subject of

studied by other authors and it has been found that the

the plate is subjected to two maximum moments one
in the direction of the diagonal that passes through the
column (produces tractions on the underside of
the pad) and another in a direction orthogonal to the previous one

(produce traction on the upper face). The

the magnitude of these moments is practically the
same, obtained per unit of width.

qB2
Mp=
4.8

The reinforcement in the plate is placed in both orthogonal directions so that

each grill resists Mp.

qB3
The design of the virtual beams is carried out for the moment: Mv=
3

Moment on the grill:

qprom× B3 qumax+ qumin

M L= M P= con: q prom =
4.8 2

æ kN kN ö
ç 228 2 + 129 2 ÷
è m m ø 2.93
Mu= × = 907 kN.m
2 4.8

Using the ultimate moment equation for the beam section that has been
used in all bending designs:

122
 æ b ×F×
y r ö b
M u= f× b× d×2 Fy× r ×1çç- ÷ Pro: » 0.59
è a ×Fc ÷ø a

Resolvingrfor the bending reinforcement area in the direction perpendicular to the

beam with:

B= 280cm
d= 68cm
r = 0.0012r min>= 0.0018 The minimum must be set

Is:
As = rBd

As= 0.0018(280cm)(68cm)

A= 2
s 28.8cm
This area would be achieved with the following arrangement of bars: 23 No. 5 @ 0.09 m, Lb =

2.66 m

These bars would be located in the region of the shoe between the virtual beams.
both up and down.

Moment in the virtual beams:

q prom× B3
Mv=
3

123
 æ kN kN ö
ç 222 + 135 ÷
è m2
m2
ø 2.83
M v= * = 1306 kN.m
2 3

The flexural reinforcement area in the section of the virtual beams with:

b= 45cm
d = 68cm
r = 0.0227r min>= 0.0018 (C.15.4.5, NSR-98) OK

It is:
As= rBro

As= 0.00227(45cm)(68cm)

As= 69.4cm2

This area would be achieved with: 10 bars No. 10, Lb = 2.66 m

124