RE: More on Void Box No-No[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: More on Void Box No-No
- From: "Caldwell, Stan" <scaldwell(--nospam--at)halff.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:19:33 -0600
Bill Polhemus wrote:
"The discussion on whether or not void boxes should be used under grade beams on residential foundations was conducted by the Foundation Performance Association."
Okay, now I finally understand our differing perspectives. The vast majority of structural engineers in Texas don't waste their time screwing around with residential foundations. All of my comments on this thread have been oriented toward real projects, not toward houses and apartments. As you know, most houses and apartments in Texas are constructed with stiffened slab-on grade foundation systems. Many of these are "engineered" for free by the tendon vendors, while the rest are usually not "engineered" at all. In either case, void forms obviously have no place in this type of "floating raft" foundation system.
On the other hand, real projects in Texas typically have a steel/concrete building frame supported on drilled piers. In these projects, virtually all structural elements (except, perhaps, for floor slabs) are routinely isolated from the soil with void forms. Now then, rush out and buy some stock in SureVoid today!
Ever wonder about those people who spend $2.00
apiece on those little bottles of Evian water?
Try spelling Evian backwards!
- Prev by Subject: More on Void Box No-No
- Next by Subject: Movement joints?
- Previous by thread: Re: Wide Shallow Beams
- Next by thread: Re: UBC: How Do You Interpret 1997 UBC P