StrSof Software Reduces Construction Cost

(A Case Study)

INTRODUCTION:
Here’s a case study done using results of pilot footing design that was done by our client “M/s Epicenter Consulting Engineers Pvt Ltd (ECEPL)” while designing foundations for their ‘Convention Center’ project in Hyderabad, India.
STRUCTURE:

The structure is 36m x 90m x 12m eave ht. with 1:15 roof pitch and comprises of 13 gable frames w/o intermediate columns. Super-structure has been analyzed & designed on STAAD.Pro for a BWS of 44m/s & Seismic Zone II. The foundation consists of cantilever pedestals resting on 2.0m deep spread footings on medium dense silty clay (SBC = 250 kPa).

PROJECT DETAILS:

Project: Bolarum Convention Center
Location: Hyderabad, India
Client: Rohit Reddy & Partners
Architect: F6 Architects
Struct. Consultant: Epicenter Consulting Engineers
Fabricator: Paramount Steel

RCC Footing software
DESIGN SOFTWARE:

All 26 footings for 13 frames were designed to be of a single size. Spread footings were designed using 3 different design tools as below. Pilot study on footing design was conducted with the intention of comparing relative footing costs obtained with each design tool:

  • ‘Trial-And-Error’ Template
  • Popular software
  • “StrSof” Software
CAD DWGS & 3D MODEL:
FOOTING COST:
Costs for single footing as well as for all 26 footings were calculated using material rates as below:
  • TMT500 rebar (supply, transport, cut, bend, tie & fix): INR 90,000 per MT.
  • M25 Concrete: INR 4,800 per cu. m.
  • M10 (P.C.C.): INR 3,400 per cu. m.
  • Formwork: INR 600 per sq. m.
RCC Footing software
RCC Footing software
CONCLUSIONS:
  • For footings subjected to predominantly uniaxial bending, a square shape may not be the best choice economically.
  • Clubbing maximum forces into a single load combination (LC) and using it for footing design leads to unduly large footings.
  • Where lateral loads are significant (eg. blast loads), soil backfill should not be ignored but calculated accurately based on footing location viz. center, corner, or edge, if footing design is to be realistic.
  • Governing LCs should be selected by software for reliable & economical design. The selection should be based on some ‘rational’ basis.
  • Footing cost using “popular” software is greater (by 54% here) when compared with that obtained using “StrSof” software.
  • Footing cost using the “trial-and-error” template is much greater (> 100% here) when compared with that obtained using “StrSof” software.
And, last but not the least…

“Courtesy.” Epicenter Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. for sharing CAD drawings, 3D  Models, design results and other technical content.

Purchase Your License

For support, technical & frequently asked questions, check our FAQ Page
Buy Software