Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Code Interpretation Time!

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Dave Adams:

We design footings for service station canopies on a regular basis and use
just exactly the sections that you referred to for the "pole type" footings.
Usually Section 1910.5.3 is the governing requirement for the reinforcing.
We feel that this is appropriate since the footings are generally about 4
foot square and have very little gravity loads.  Compression never governs
and soil bearing is almost never a problem.

Recently, one of our plans was reviewed by the Corps of Engineers and they
wanted to require that we provide minimum reinforcing per Section 1910.9.1.
This resulted in an extraordinary amount of reinforcing that could not be
justified by any analysis.

It is my opinion that these footings, when governed by flexural loads, and
having light gravity loads, may be designed using flexural formulas and
requirements.  There are some other sections which allude to this but do not
exactly specify it.

Jim Persing
Structural Engineer

-----Original Message-----
From:	Dave Adams [mailto:davea(--nospam--at)laneengineers.com]
Sent:	Thursday, September 02, 1999 8:50 AM
To:	'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
Subject:	Code Interpretation Time!

Have a look at 1997 U.B.C. Section 1910.5 (all of it). What would be the
minimum amount of reinforcing to be used for a cast-in-place "pole-type"
footing? It seems appropriate that the provisions of 1910.5.1 & 1910.5.3
would apply (still) to these types of footings and that the provisions
stated in 1910.5.4 apply to "mat-type" or "spread" footings of uniform
thickness.

Comments??