Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: canopy footing

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
If allowed to work as a real footing, it overturns, and the soil pressures are through the roof.  If it is a "caisson" - it may work, but the "cube" does not meet the code definition of that type foundation.
Steve Gordin SE
Irvine CA     
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: canopy footing

        It looks reasonable to me.
        The structure you describe would have quite a large of overturning moment,  It would, therefore, require quite a large weight to resist overturning.  Most of the concrete in the cube would seem to be dedicated to that end.
H. Daryl Richardson
----- Original Message -----
From: S. Gordin
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 11:46 AM
Subject: canopy footing

Good morning,
I am reviewing a "standard" design of a canopy - a steel-framed structure with two cantilevering columns 14' tall supporting a light "low-pitched V" roof measuring 16'x24' with 12' cantilever. 
The engineer used UBC formula 6-2 (Section 1806.8) to justify the adequacy of the footings for the columns - 5'x5'x5' "cubes."  According to the UBC Commentary p. 297, the formulas of UBC 1806.8 are historically applicable to "pole-" or "column-" type footings. 
To me, these "cube" footings do not even look right for the subject application.  Any comments on the situation will be highly appreciated.
Steve Gordin SE
Irvine CA