Ground security is negative

If the value difference is small, minimize the loads you use, make the walls of gas concrete, and if the weight of the building decreases, then you can save it. Increasing the height of the foundation too much affects the weight negatively.
 
If aerated concrete is to be made, aerated concrete loads should be used. It would be a wrong move to give aerated concrete load to the place where 20 cm brick is used. If the loads are given correctly, we can overcome the negative ground safety problem by enlarging the section.
 
I would like to expand a little on what all of the friends who wrote briefly wrote, in order to make it understandable. First of all, we don't know what kind of foundation you are making. (Singular, continuous raft when you say no ampatment share..?) Of course, reducing the building wall loads is one of the important solution methods. Of course, we should not only look at them as wall loads. It is necessary to review the loads that are in the extra and extra safety frame. If possible, it should be drawn to regulation values. For example, you can minimize the moving and fixed loads of the attic floor, and you can also reduce the wall loads of the roof beams to zero. You can also reduce the building loads by choosing the wall loads of normal floors from gas concrete, ytong or light materials. This is what our friend Ömer YETER wrote very accurately: If you calculate according to gas concrete in the project and do not supervise the application and make classical bricks, there will be an unforeseen load in the building. This would be a major mistake. Therefore, it would be more logical to enlarge the foundation sections. As our friend ahmetmahmut said, I do not think that enlarging the foundation sections is an extra weight and burden. Since foundations are structural elements directly related to the ground, their weight (if not excessively exaggerated) does not have a negative effect. For example, as the cross section increases, such as floor slabs, there is no downward movement in the bearing capacity curve. An important factor in the recovery of soil safety is the size and quantity of the columns. In other words, if you try to transfer the same load to the ground with a smaller cross-section column, stress concentration will occur in that area. If you put the same number of walls instead of the same number of columns, the soil stresses will be less. (just think of it as a vertical load and ignore the other effects of the curtains related to earthquakes) Again, there will of course be a difference between transferring the loads of the building to the ground with 10 columns, for example, or transferring them to the ground with 15 columns. The stresses will spread over a wider area. All these show that the carrier system design is a whole. When passing very wide openings with a small number of columns, you have to consider the negative effects of this on the foundations. I hope these explanations have enlightened you.
 
Thank you very much for your explanations, but unfortunately I have to go wide with few columns. by the way, it is a raft foundation and my ampatage area is limited. I will take your comments into consideration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top