Overturning of the entire shearwall/foundation. The additional items to check are probably:ġ. The next step is to take the stemwall calculator and create a version that deals specifically with lateral loads from shearwalls. I've sent an email to their support requesting more information on how they are arriving at their values and hopefully I will get to the bottom of it. With my square footing calculator I was not able to completely reconcile my values for the applied beam shear and the applied bending moment with StruCalc's values (their values are slightly higher), otherwise everything else seems to checks out. I can't say I'm totally comfortable with concrete yet but at least I've got me feet wet. Going through the exercise of creating these two spreadsheets and comparing them to StruCalc's Output finally got me motivated enough to finally open up the ACI 318. The output of the square footing calculator looks like the following: The updated stemwall calculator and the square footing calculator: EnerCalc KootK (Structural) 25 Dec 14 18:04 in brackets next to the transverse reinforcement: (unnecessary).Īnyhow, feedback or comments on these two tools would be helpful.Ī confused student is a good student. Okay, another observation, in the print preview screen of the StruCalc app. Most continuous footings for single story residences that I see are typically 12' wide and 6' deep with (2) #4 bars horizontal cont. Typically I've seen 1 to 3 longitudinal #4 bars. In residential construction I have never seen this done except for point loaded square footings.

#4 bars placed transverse to the stemwall. I am liking StruCalc's very simple interface however the one thing I am noticing with StruCalc for a continuous footing (when reinforcement is enabled) the callout for a min. Has anyone had experience with either of these software products in this capacity? I've recently been testing software for the design of residential and light commercial square and continuous footings.

Enercalc concrete beam cracked