Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: canopy footing

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Daryl,
 
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

Steve,
 
        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.
 
Regards,
 
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.
 
TIA,
 
Steve Gordin SE
Irvine CA