Indian Hndard
Indian Hndard
: 9456 - 1980
(Reaffirmed 1993’)
0 Copyright 1980
Gr 7 lMuy 1980
IS : 9456 - 1980
( Reaffirmed 1993’)
Indian Stanzhrd
CODE OF PRACrICE FOR
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
CONICAL AND HYPERBOLIC PARABOLOIDAL
TYPES OF SHELL FOUNDATIONS
Members
Ds R. K. BEANDARI Central Building- Research Institute ( GSIR ),
Roorkee
CEIE~ ENQINIZIR Calcutta Port Trust, Calcutta
SHRI S. GUHA ( Altcrmlc)
SIXRI K. N. DADIXA Inpenonal capacity (P-820, Block P. NCW
Aliprc, Calcutta )
SEBI M. G. DANDAVATE Concrete Association of India, Bombay
SHRI N. C. Dnooa~ ( Afternate)
SH~I R. K. Das GUPTA Simplex Concrete Piles ( I ) Pvt Ltd, Calcutta
SHRI H. GUHA BISWAS ( Affnmate )
SHRI A. G. DA~TI~AR In personal capacity ( 5, Hungrrfbr~ CoW,
I.21 Hungerford Street, Calcutta )
SHBI V. C. DESEIPANDE Pressure Piling Co ( India ) Ltd, Bombay
DIRECTOR ( CSMRS ) Central Water Commission, New Delhi
DEPUTY DIRECTOR ( CSMRS ) ( Afternatc )
~HRI A. H. DIVANJI Asia Foundation and Construction Pvt Ltd,
Bombay
SHRI A. N. JANQLE ( Altcrnafr )
SERI A. Gomia~ Brai~~~;;aBurn & Jessop Construction Go Ltd,
C
S,HBI N. E. A. RA~RVAN ( Altcrnah )
DR SEASHI K. GULRATI Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi
DR A. VARADARJAN (-Altanutr )
SHRI hf. IYXNQAR Engineerr India Limited, New Delhi
DR R. K. M. BH~NDARI ( Alter&c )
S-1 G. S. JAIXU G. S. Jain & Associates, Roorkee
SSIBI ASHOX KUMAB JOIN I Ahmuta )
Q Copy+: 1980
BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS
This publication ia protected under the Zndion Cofiri&; Acf (XIV of 1957 ) and
reproduction in whole or in part by any means escept with written permirrion of the
Members Representing
JOINT DIRECTOR RXSEARCH ( SM ) Ministry of Railways
( RDSO )
JOINT DIRECTOR RESEARCH
( 13 & S ) ( RDSO ) ( Alternate)
Da R. K. KATTI- Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
SHRI K. K. KHANXA National Buildings Organization, New Delhi
SHRI SUNIL BERRY ( Alternate )
SHXI S. R. KULKARNI M. N. Dastur and Company Pvt Ltd, Calcutta
SHRI S. ROY (Afternate )
SHRI 0. P. MALHOTRA B & R Branch, Public Works Department,
Government of Punjab, Chandigarh
SHRI A. P. MATHUR Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi
SHRI V. B. MA’rIiUR Mchenzies Limited, Bombay
SHRI Y. V. NARASIMHA RAO Bokaro Steel Plant ( Steel Authority of India )
BRIG OMBIR SINGH Engineer-in-Chief’s Branch, Army Headquarters
MAJ H. K. BHUTANI (Alternate)
SHRI B. K. PANTHAXY Hindustan Construction Co Limited, Bombay
SHRI V. M. MADQE (Alternate)
SHRI M. R. PUNJ~ Cemindia Company Ltd, Bombay
SHRI S. MUKHERJEE ( Ahrnate )
PRESIDENT Indian Geotechnical Society, New Delhi
SECRETARY ( Alternate )
SHHI A. A. R~JIJ Steel Authority of India, New Delhi
DR GOPAL RANJAN University of Roorkee, Roorkee
Dn V. V. 5. Rao Nagadi Consultants Pvt Ltd, New Delhi
SHRI ARJUN RIJHSINQHANI Cement Corporation of India, New Delhi
SHRT 0. S. SRIVASTAVA ( Alternate )
DR A. SARQUNAN College of Engineering, Guincky, Madras
SIIRI S. B~OMINATHAN ( Alternate )
SRRI K. R. SAXENA Engineering Research Laboratories, Government
of Andhra Pradesh, Ryderabad
DR S. PZ~HRIVASTAVA. United Technical Consultants Pvt Ltd. New
Delhi
DR R. KAPUR ( Alternate )
SHRI N. SIVA~UR% Roads Wing, Ministry of Shipping and Transport
SHRI D. V. SIE~A (Alternate)
SERI T. N. SUBBA RAO Gammon India Limited, Bombay
SHRI S. A. REDDI ( Alternate )
SUPERINTENDINQ E N Q I N E E R Central Public Works Department, New Delhi
( DESIGN ) ’
EXECUTIVE ENQINEER ( DESIGN V ) ( Alternate)
SRRI M. D. TAMBEKAR Bombay Port Trust, Bombay
SHRI D. AJITHA SIMHA, Director General, IS1 (E*-ofiicio Member)
Director ( Civ Engg )
Secretary
SHRI K. M. Maraud
Deputy Director (Civ Engg), IS1
( Continued on page 29 )
2
IS:9456 - 1980
Indian Standard
CODE OF PRACTICE FOR
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
CONICAL AND HYPERBOLIC PARABOLOIDA&
TYPES OF SHELL FOUNDATIONS
0. FOREWORD
0.1 This Indian Standard was adopted by the Indian Standards Institu-
tion on 18 March 1980,b after the draft finalized by the Foundation
Engineering Sectional Committee had been approved by the Civil
Engineering Division Council.
0.2 Shells are structures which derive their strength from ’ form ’ rather
than ‘ mass ‘. The basic attribute of the shell which recommends its use in
roofs is economy under conditions of large spans, apart from aesthetics,
which, of course, is of no concern in the case of a buried structure like the
foundation. It has been found in respect of foundations that in situations
involving heavy column loads to be transmitted to weaker soils, adoption
of shells can lead to substantial saving in concrete and steel.
0.2.i Analysis has indicated that the economy with shell foundations
normally increases with increase in column load and decreases in allowable
bearing pressure of the soil, with greater sensitivity to the latter.
0.2.3 Since foundation shells bear directly on. soil at their bottom and
carry backfill on top, besides being deep and thick, the problem of elastic
stability ( buckling ) is of lesser concern in foundation shells when
compared to roof shells. However, cracking of concrete is a subject of
greater concern, as with all foundations, particularly under deleterious
ground environments, for fear of corrosion of the reinforcing steel. Hence
sufficient cover requirements and other preventive measures are indicated.
It may be noted here that design based on membrane theory usually
results in nearly untracked sections at working loads.
3
IS : 9456 - 1980
1. SCOPE
1.1 This standard covers the design and construction aspects pertaining
to conical and hyperbolic paraboloidal types of-shell foundations subjected
to the action of isolated column loads.
4
IS : 9456 - 1980
2. TERMINOLOGY
2.1 For the purpose of~this standard the definitions given in IS : 1904-]978*,
IS : 6403-1971t, IS : 2210-1962$, IS : 2204-19628, and the following shall
apply.
2.1.1 Shell Foundation - Foundations which incorporate structural shell
elements in place ui the plain element of ordinary shallow foundations.
3. NECESSARY INFORMATION
4.1 The aim of soil design is to proportion the foundation ( that is, to
determine its plan dimensions ) so that the ‘ net loading intensity ’ (set
IS : 6#3-1971t ) under actual field conditions does not exceed the
6 allowable bearing pressure ’ ( seeIS : 6403-1971t), which is the lesser of
(a) the ‘ safe net unit bearing capacity ‘, and_(b) soil pressure for a given
permissible settlement. It may be noted in this connection that in case of
sand the safe net unit bearing capacity increases and soil pressure for a
given settlement decreases with increase in the foundation width, unlike
the case of clay where the safe net unit bearinu capacity is independent
of the foundation dimensions.
NOTE- Width is the smaller of the plan dimensions, which alone infiuences
these quantities.
5
IS:9456 - 1980
BEAM
i_
REINFORCEMEN:
MERiD!C)NAL
REINFORCEMEN
SUBSTRUCTURE
ANNULAR RAFT
(RING FOUNOAIION I
RIINFORCEMENl
HYPERBOLIC
PARABOLOtOAL SHELL
SHELL
\ RIDGE BEAM
\ TRIANGULAR
RIB
4.2 The net loading intensity and the allowable bearing pressure should
be determined according to IS : 6403-1971*. The influence of the position
of water-table on these quantities should be carefully ascertained and duly
taken into acount.
4.3 If the soil filling the hollow space underneath the shells (core )
( see Fig. 1 ) is assumed to be incompressible and act integrally with the
foundation, the soil response below the shell foundation in terms of both
7
IS : 9456 - 1980
5. STRUCTURAL DESIGN
~5.0 The structral design of the foundation shoul~d fbllow after proportion-
ing the foundations in accordance with the requirements set out in 4.
5.1 The conical footing shown in Fig. 1 is the simplest form in which a
she:: is made use of in foundation. The provision of radial afid circum-
ferentii.1 steel is gs simple as for a circular plain raft ( footing ) while the
construction is only a little more d&cult.
NATE- While this type of conical foundation is potentially suited for individual
columns, chimney stacks and similar tower shaped structures, the majority of
instances in which these shells have bran adopted are for tall telecommunication
towers ( television, radio, telephone, etc ) in reinforced concrete, where they serve not
as regular foundations, but as substructures linking the tower shaft to the annular
raft, or ring which is regular foundation bearing on soil ( scc Fig. 2 ). The space
within this conical substructure is utilized for services. Very often these cones are
stiffened internally, the stiffening taking various forms, to resist moments and shears
due to yAnd effects, etc. Prestrtssing is indicated for the hoop reinforcement in the
cone as well as the foundation ring, to prevent or limit the width of cracks in concrete.
These conical shells being substructures, are beyond the scope of this standard.
5.2 While the cone is a singly curved shell, the hyperbolic paraboloid is
a doubly curved anticlastic shell with its surface made up of two sets of
parabolae having curvatures in opposite directions. The chief advantage
of the hypar, however, is that just as the cone, it is also a ruled surface,
(see Appendix A of IS : 2210-l 962* for shell classification ) consisting of
two sets of straight line generators inclined at 45” to the parabolae, as
shown in Fig. 3.
5.2.1 This straight line property of the cone and hyperbolic paraboloid
are effectively exploited in profiling the core soil and the shell, besides
preparing the reinforcement grills, and ~formwork for making precast shell
footings.
5.2.2 The combination of hypar shell elements ( square or rectangular )
with set of edge and ridge beams shown in Fig. 3, is popularly known as
the ‘ umbrella ’ footing, it being the natural offshoot of the well known
( inverted umbrella ’ shell used in the construction of roofs.
*Criteria for the design Gf reinforced concrete shell structures and folded plates.
8
IS : 9456 - 1980
5.3 In the dimensioning of the shell foundations, the ratio of rise to base
radius (f/r2 ), in the case of cone ( see Fig. 1 ), and the rise to base ratio of
the shell (f/a ) in the case of hyperbolic paraboloid ( see Fig. 3 ), shall vary
from 0.5 to 1. From the point of view of ease of construction, valu’es near
the lower limit are more suitable. It may, however, be noted that
membrane theory will not be adequate for design at very low values of
rise.
5.4 The bottom rig beam in the case of con& edge and the ridge beams
in the case of hyperbolic paraboloid are to be provided within the shell
dimension as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 respectively, so as to keep the
plan dimensions arrived at by soil design intact.
5.4.1 In the case of the cone, the ring beams at the bottom are found to
contribute to the stiffness of the footing at lower rises ( f/r2 < 0.5 ),
without any marked contribution at higher rises.
5.4.4 When feasible, the width of the ridge beam may be made equal
to the width of the column base ( see Fig. 3 ). Where possible, in place of
the projecting ridge beams, it may be more expedient, from the point of
view of construction both by in-situ and precast methods, and also
economy to provide triangular ribs at the ridge, with its rise decreasing
from a rriaximum at the column and vanishing at the joint with edge
beams.
5.4.5 The ring beam in the case of the cone and edge beams ifi the case
of hyperbolic paraboloid, in addition to improving the stiffness, to delay
cracking of the shell and also contribute substaxitially to the ultimate load
carrying capacity of these foundations by providing substantial reserve of
strength, leading thereby to higher, load factors. From the point of view
of cracking, strong scope also exists for prestressing these beams.
5.5 Where cover requirements, and not stresses, govern the foundation,
shell shall have a minimum thickness of 15 cm. ( In precast construction
this can be reduced to 12 cm. )
IS : 9456 - 1980
5.6 On the basis of the assumption that the weight of the core, mud mat,
backfill and the self weight of the shell foundation, are directly transmitted
to the soil below in such a manner as will not induce any substantial
stresses in the shell foundation, the structural design of the shell foundation
may be carried out for the maximum load transmitted at the foot of the
column to the foundation, as done in respect of ordinary plain
foundations.
5.7 When the above load is divided by the plan area of the foundation
( AP ) which has been already finalized at the end of the ‘ soil design ’
5.8 At every point of contact between the shell ( and also beams ) and
soil, the soil reaction or ‘ contact pressure ’ can have normal and tangential
components. The distribution of the actual resultant contact pressure is
highly indeterminate, because of the elastic nature of the soil support,
and the complex shell-beam-soil interaction. In the case of soft clay where
no tangential frictional contact pressure components can be sustained
because. of the negligible wall friction, the resultant soil pressure may
be taken to be normal to the shell. However, in the case of sand, since
tangential pressures of considerable magnitude can be mobilized due to
the availability of higher contact friction, the resultant contact pressure
can show a substantial shift from the normal to the vertical. As a general
rule, it may be safer to design for the condition giving rise to higher
stresses in each case. It may be noted in this connection that the intensity
of the normal contact pressure ( when tangential components are absent )
is also obtained as P/Ap if the latter is also assumed to be uniform, which
is the same as pV, the intensity of vertical pressure, where A, is the
projected area of the foundation in plan ( see also Appendix A ).
10
IS:9456 - 1980
5.9.2 The ring beam at the bottom of the cone is optional. However,
when the frustrating of a cone is used as foundation for a tower shaft, a
ring beam at the top is essential to balance the horizontal component of
the meridional compression at the top edge of the cone, which produces
hoop compression in the latter.
GUYED MAST
5.10 The hypar footing shown in Fig. 3 is designed on the basis of the
membrane theory used in the design of the corresponding inverted
umbrella roof. According to this theory, under a uniform vertical soil
pressure, the shell rnembrane is subjected to a state of pure shear
unaccompanied by normal stresses. This membrane shear, produces
tension and compression of equivalent magnitude as the shear along the
diagonally orthogonal convex and concave parabolic arches respectively
( see Appendix A ). Since the design of the shell is governed by this tension,
11
IS : 9456 - 1988
5.10.1 According to the membrane theory, the edge beams are subjected
to uniformly varying tension with zero value at corners and maximum
value at the centres of edges ( see Appendix A). Therefore, these central
sections may be designed on the same lines as the shell. The section of
the edge beam may be determined on the basis of limiting tension
according to IS : 456 - 1978* and the edge steel detailed ensuring proper
cover requirements. Notwithstanding the reduction in tension, however,
the same section is normally provided throughout the edge. As far as the
ridge beams are concerned, they are subjected to axial compression with
zero value at the base and maximum value at the apex ( see Appendix A ).
The section of the ridge beam may be designed as a short, column with
steel not exceeding 5 percent and detailed ensuring proper cover require-
ments. Irrespective of the variation in compression, the same section may
be provided throughout the ridge as done in the case of edge beams. The
design is complete with stirrups ( nominal according to membrane theory )
provided both in the ridge and edge beams.
5.10.3 Footings designed on the above lines crack at loads higher than
those given by the m.embrane theory. The full ultimate strength of the
’ footing may be determined by a suitable theory (see Appendix A) for
ascertaining the load factor.
12
IS :9456 - 1980
beams common to two shells on either side, should be designed for the
combined tension. Depending upon the area requirement of the founda-
tion (soil design), the spacing of the columns, and the difference in
column loads, different sets of square or rectangular shells will result in
the design. The same applies to individual rectangular footings (see
Fig. 7). However, where the column loads are unequal, it will be
profitable to ensure that the resultant column load passes through the
centre of gravity of the area of contact between the foundation and the
soil in plan, to that the soil pressure on the foundation will be uniform
throughout.
EDGE
VALLEY’ RIDGE’
13
IS:9456 - 1980
EOGE BEAM
IINCLINED)
VALLEY BEAM
IHORIZONTAL)
5.12 As with other foundations, shell foundations also may be called upon
to resist horizontal loads and moments at the level of its base, as a result
of horizontal loads or couples or both transmitted from above or due to
eccentricities of column loads. As for horizontal loads, shell foundations
have the advantage of higher capacities to the extent of the increased
friction ( soil to soil contact ) at the base even though its self-weight may
be less than that of its plain counterpart. As regards moments, the same
may be treated as in the case of plain foundations, as resulting in a
linearly varying soil pressure distribution. Under such circumstances, the
individual shell elements may be designed for the maximum soil pressure
occurring under it due to the combined effect -of vertical load and moment,
to be on the safer side. However, where membrane solutions are available
for the asymmetrical soil pressure produced by moment the stress
resultants the latter may be superimposed on the stress resultants
produced by the symmetrical soil pressure due to the vertical load for the
purpose of the designs.
14
IS:9456-1980
6. CONSTRUCTION
6.1 The concrete for shell .foundations shouid be of grade not less than
M20.
6.2 Shell foundations may be cast in-situ or precast. Even though these
foundations are generally laid in-situ, the advantages of the shell in terms
of lightness and transportability is best exploited m precasting. Because
of this basic attribute of lightness, it should be noted that even large-sized
footings of this kind are amenable to precasting. To this must be
added the possibility of higher strength for the same mix (see 6.1) on
account of the better control that can be exercised during prefabrication.
15
IS :9456 -1980
\ STRAIGHT EDGE
HYPAR FOOTING
(ALONG DIAGONAL)
SOIL CORE
LMUD MAT
HYPAR FOOTING
[ALONG DIAG
SOlL CORE
16
IS : 9456 - 1980
PLY WOOD
ST RIPS
LWOODEN
FRAME WORK
17
IS : 9456 - 1980
conical footings, and hypar footings whose corners are substantially flat and
therefore inaccessible even when the shells are deep, this sand is to be
compacted by some remote technique, so as’ to form a sound core under
the shell to receive the load. Such ~a simple but highly efficient technique
of remote compaction is described in Appendix C. For connections with
steel columns, bolts may be embedded in the column base at the time
of casting which will engage the holes in the base plate of the column
(seeFig. 1.5). I ncorporation of a neoprene pad between steel column and
base plate will serve as a hinge preventing the transmission of any moment
to the footing. Conneetion with concrete columns may be effected
through dowels protruding from the column base for continuous casting,
or a socket arrangement in the column base into which a precast column
is grouted as shown in Fig, 16.
/-CENTRAL POS?
LIFTING
HOOK-j FOOTING
/
SIDE PLANK
LEAN CONCRETE
LBOTTOM
PLANK
STEEL COLUMN
COLUMN BASE PLATE
COLUMN BASE
!8
IS:9456-1980
PRECAST RCC
FIN. 16 SOCKETCONNECTION
FORR C COLUMN W~H PRECUT
HYPAR FOOTING
APPENDIX A
( Cfuuses 5.8, 5.9, 5.9.3, 5.10, 510.1 and 5.10.3)
FQRMULAE FOR THE DESIGN OF CONICAL AND Hh’ERROLIC
PARABOLOIDAL SHELL FOUNDATIONS
A-l. CONE
A-l.1 Membrane stress resultants per unit width of the shell due to
vertical load and moment, are given below.
N ro = 0
where pV is the intensity of vertical soil pressure
19
.‘N
ONV 7V’W~ON d
3WlSS3Ild -IVrUXON CINV -W31L~3L\ 83CINCl S.LNV.L-InS3x SS3XLs LI ‘W
3N03 -I
/ d
/
/
0861- 9SF6 :SI
IS : 9456 - 1980
?P’n
1cos
8
Jv’, E sz4- s4 $8 - ss
sa sin 2 a [ 4s" -* 3 s, c0s2 a
4M
in which PI0 = --;_-- , where M is the moment producing the
n st3 sm3 a
maximum asymmetrical soil pressure pin.
FIG.19 STRESSRESULTANTUNDER
ANTI-SYMMETRICAL
SOILPRESSURE
IS:9456 - 1980
A-l.2 The ultimate strength (value of soil pressure at which the footing
fails structurally) P, for uniform normal soil pressure, under assumptions of
fixity at the upper edge, and a lower edge which iseither free or provided
with a ring beam, and assuming constant spacing of hoop steel, are given
in A-1.2.1 to A-1.2.2 ( see also Fig. 20 ).
A-1.2.I Ultimate Jvormal Soil Pressure for Fixed Upper Edge and Free Lower
-
Edge
1
?+l-Ro)2+ M$;ra R. Jv
Pnn = 6 Ro= -
C 3Ro+2 r2
where
.N = ultimate capacity of the shell per unit width in direct
tension in the hoop direction ( constant ),
A-1.2.2 Ultimate JVormaL Soil Pressure for Lower Edge With Ring Beam
.jVcosa(l--0)’ M sir-3 a Ro
Pno = ’ 2 r2 ( Ro3 -3Ro+2) ’ r22 Ro3 - 3Ro + 2
1
+ &b cos a sin a ( 1 - RO )
r2 ( Ro3 - 3 Ro + 2)
where Nb = ultimate capacity of the ring beam in direct tension
P, = pnu x A,
22
IS : 9456 - 1980
A-2.1 The membrane stress resultants per unit width of the shell against
vertical and norinal soil reactions, together with the forces in beams, are
given below (see Fig. 21 )
COLUMN ‘4
CONCAVE PARABOLA
SHELL
REINFORCEMENT
EDGE
BEAM _/
Fro. 21 STRESSES
( Nx, NY and Nx, -are the membrane stress resultants. ‘t’ is the
equivalent tension per unit width developing in the convex parabolae ).
where, k = f lab in which a and b are the plan dimensions of the
rectangular hyperbolic paraboloidal shell quadrant
(‘k ’ is called ‘ warp ’ of the shell).
For a square shell (a = b )
k =f/a2
For the square hypar footing, T = t . a
where I is the maximum direct tension in the edge beam, at the
centre, and
C= 2tl/a2 -f”
where C is the maximum direct compression in the ridge beam, at
the apex.
23
IS :9456 - 1980
NY = q x sin h-1 $
and v = l/l/k2 + x2
.&,=t=$/l+k*~~+k’y’
rRlDGE BEAM
r- -
r _----
I
I
,
I
I
1
I
I
I
Lzi
_---
----
1I
I
I ’
L2
--
3 I
I
I
--- -I
I
I
24
IS:9456-1980
RIDGE BEAM
/-
EDGE BEAM
COLUMN
A-2.2.1
Diagonal Failure
where
N 5 the ultimate ~tensile capacity of the shell section per unit
width,
& = ultimate tensile capacity of the edge beam, and
M, = ultimate moment capacity of the ridge section.
25
IS:9456-1980
P, = g&+8&
APPENDIX B
( Clause ‘5.10.2 )
DETAILING OF REINFORCEMENT AT CRITICAL SECTIONS
OF THE HYPERBOLIC PARABOLOIDAL FOOTING TO
ENSURE ITS FULL ULTIMATE STRENGTH
B-l. DETAILING.
B-1.0 The critical sections of the hypar footing shown in Fig. ‘L3 shall be
detailed as given in B-l.1 to B-l.3 which will substantially ensure the
developmentof its full ultimate strength.
26
IS :’ 9456 - 1980
B-l.2 Corners of Edge Beams -To realise the full reserve strength
from the edge beam in diagonal failure, the corners may be strengthened
by extra diagonal steel properly anchored into fillets as “shown
in Fig. 24B.
EDGE BEAM
rRlDGE BEAM
A 6 c
FIG. 24 EXTRA PROVISIONSAT CRITICAL SECTIONS
(ORIGINAL REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN)
APPENDIX C
(Clause 6.4.1 )
REMOTE TECHNIQUE FOR INFILLING PRECAST
SHELL FOOTINGS
27
IS :9456 -1980
base (see Fig. 25 ). When the motor is, switched on, the vanes open out
automatically due to centrifugal action and start rotating at high speeds.
This high speed rotation of the vanes creates a heavy blast in the hollow
space, under the influence of which, the sand particles become quickly
airbone and start moving radially outwards with high velocities. These
particles collide against the inner surfaces of the footing, collapse and
settle down to positions of maximum density due to the blast. As this
process continues, the entire space gets progressively filled up from the
periphery inwards. The work can be stopped on reaching the central
portion which is directly accessible for manual compaction through the
hole. Density indices ( relative density ) of the order of 80 to 90 percent
can be obtained by this technique of compaction.
+ANE
28
IS:9456 -1980
(Continuedfrom pngc 2 )
Gmener Repmentinp
SHRI SHIT&LA SHARAX Public Works Department, Government of
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
29
BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS
Headquarters
Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, NEW DELHI 110002
Telephones: 323 0131,323 3375,323 9402
Fax: 91 11 3234062, 91 11 3239399, 91 11 3239382
Telegrams : Manaksanstha
(Common to all Offices)
Central Laboratory : Telephone
Plot No. 20/9, Site IV, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Sahibabad 201010 a-77 00 32
Regional Offices:
Central : Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, NEW DELHI 110002 323 76 17
*Eastern : l/14 CIT Scheme VII M, V.I.P. Road, Maniktola, CALCUlTA 700054 337 86 62
Northern : SC0 335-336, Sector 34-A, CHANDIGARH 160022 60 38 43
Southern : C.I.T. Campus, IV Cross Road, CHENNAI 600113 235 23 15
tWestern : Manakalaya, E9, Behind Marol Telephone Exchange, Andheri (East), 832 92 95
MUMBAI 400093
Branch Offices::
‘Pushpak’, Nurmohamed Shaikh Marg, Khanpur, AHMEDABAD 380001 550 13 48
SPeenya Industrial Area, 1 st Stage, Bangalore-Tumkur Road, 839 49 55
BANGALORE 560058
Gangotri Complex, 5th Floor, Bhadbhada Road, T.T. Nagar, BHOPAL 462003 55 40 21
Plot No. 62-63, Unit VI, Ganga Nagar, BHUBANESHWAR 751001 40 36 27
Kalaikathir Buildings, 670 Avinashi Road, COIMBATORE 641037 21 01 41
Plot No. 43, Sector 16 A, Mathura Road, FARIDABAD 121001 8-28 88 01
Savitri Complex, 116 G.T. Road, GHAZIABAD 201001 8-71 19 96
53/5 Ward No.29, R.G. Barua Road, 5th By-lane, GUWAHATI 781003 5411 37
5-8-56C, L.N. Gupta Marg, Nampally Station Road, HYDERABAD 500001 20 10 83
E-52, Chitaranjan Marg, C-Scheme, JAIPUR 302001 37 29 25
117/418 B, Sarvodaya Nagar, KANPUR 208005 21 68 76
Seth Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Behind Leela Cinema, Naval Kishore Road, 23 89 23
LUCKNOW 226001
NIT Building, Second Floor, Gokulpat Market, NAGPUR 440010 52 51 71
Patliputra Industrial Estate, PATNA 800013 26 23 05
Institution of Engineers (India) Building 1332 Shivaji Nagar, PUNE 411005 32 36 35
T.C. No. 14/l 421, University P. 0. Palayam, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695034 621 17
/-COLUMN
i
HYPERBOLIC
PARABOLOIDAL SHELL
SHELL-, \
SHELL
EDGE
SEAM
RIDGE BEAM
I. Convex Parabola (Tension )
TRIANGULAR- 2. Concave Parabola ( Compression :
RIB
3. Straightline Generators
Fra. 3 HYPERBOLICPARABOLOIDAL SHELL FOOTING
Grl
1
( I’qe 9, clause 5.4, line 1 ) - Substitute ‘ cone and the edge and ’
for ‘ cone edge and the’.
(Page 9, clause 5.4.5, line 2 ) -Delete the word c to ’ appearing
before the word ‘ delay ‘.
( Page 11, clause 5.9.2, line 2 ) -Substitute ‘ frustrum ’ for
‘ frustrating ‘.
( Page 11, clause 5.10, line 4 ) - Substitute J shear of constant mag-
nitude ‘for ‘ shear ‘.
( Page 13, clause 5.11, line 9 ) - Substitute ‘ SO ‘for c to ‘.
( Page 14, dause 5.12, fine 13 ) - Substitute ‘ anti-symmetrical ‘for
‘ asymmetrical ‘.
( Page 19, clause A-1.1.1, value for ‘ IV, ’ ) - Substitute the following
or the existing value:
( Page 20, Fig. 17 ) - Substitute the fo!lowing for the existing figure:
/‘I
’ I
P ,’ I
N, = + P tan a cos 0
2
c) Lnst line - Substitute ‘ anti-symmetrical ’ for ‘ asymmetrical ‘.
( Pq~21, Fig. 19 )\-- Substitute the f&lowing for the existing figure:
( Page 22, Fig. 20) - Substitute the following for the existing figure:
LfENsI~E (HOOP1
FAILURE
3
( Pagt 22, clause
A-i.2.1, uatue of ( ii’, ’ ) - Substitute the fdlodng
for the existing value:
( Page 23, Fig. 21, caption ) - Substitute the following for the exis-
ting caption:
‘ FIG. 21 MEMBRANESTRESSESIN HYPAR FOOTING’
( Page 24, clause A-21.2, vahc$ for ‘ .N, ’ and LNY ’ J - Substitute the
following for the existing values:
1 + k*y
‘NX = 2pnt
1/ 1 + k’x”
1 + k%=
NY = 2 /Q, .z
1 + 1;y
where
2 = /LX 31, is the co-ordinate of the point ( see Fig. 21 ).
[ N, and NY are tensile ]
iv,. = -$- * ( 1 + kW + ky )
4
( Page 28, Appendix C, line 5 ) - Substitute c air-borne ’ for
( airbone ‘.
Addendum
( Page 4, clause 0.4 ) - Add the following new note after 0.4:
‘NOTE -The provisions given in this standard have been explained in detail
in the book ‘ Modern Foundation- An Introduction to Advanced Techni-
ques: Part I Shell Foundation ’ by Dr Nainan P. Kurian.’
(BDC43)