Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: canopy footing

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Steve:

 

Sounds like he’s got an “uplift” issue on his canopy…not surprising given

The geometry….

 

 

We’ve used similar “blobs” of concrete for comparable situations in the past.

 

 

 

 

David L. Fisher, SE PE

Senior Principal

Fisher + Partners Structural Engineers, Inc

372 West Ontario Suite 301

Chicago 60610        

 312.573.1701

312.573.1726 Fax

312.622.0409 Mobile

www.fpse.com        

 

David L. Fisher, SE PE

Director

Head of Design and Construction

Cape Cod Grand Cayman Holdings, Ltd

75 Fort Street

Georgetown Grand Cayman BWI

312.622.0409 Mobile

www.ccgch.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


From: S. Gordin [mailto:mailbox(--nospam--at)sgeconsulting.com]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 12:47 PM
To: Seaint@Seaint. Org
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