Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
RE: canopy footing
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: canopy footing
- From: "Nels Roselund" <njineer(--nospam--at)att.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:24:28 -0800
Steve, It seems to me that the proportions of the
cube should not prevent its use for this application. Suppose that, by a
trial-and-error solution, you found that an 18” wide by 5-ft deep footing
did not have adequate capacity by the formulas of 1806.2. You would have a
couple of options for improving the capacity: try deepening the footing or try widening
it; either seems to be a reasonable option. At what width does the
increase in width become unreasonable? What if it took a width of 5 feet
to develop the capacity? That seems O.K. to me. What if it took
6-ft? Seem O.K. to me too, but I would probably try to figure out how to
take advantage of the gravity-moment-of-stability provided by the weight of the
massive footing. It would take more concrete than a deeper footing, but I
think it would comply with the Code. However, if for some reason, the footing needed
to be dug by hand, widening is may be a better option than deepening it; for
example, if the OSHA rule is in effect that requires that an excavation that a
worker enters must be shored if its depth exceeds 5-ft. From: S. Gordin
[mailto:mailbox(--nospam--at)sgeconsulting.com] 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 |
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: canopy footing
- From: S. Gordin
- Re: canopy footing
- References:
- canopy footing
- From: S. Gordin
- canopy footing
- Prev by Subject: RE: canopy footing
- Next by Subject: Re: canopy footing
- Previous by thread: RE: canopy footing
- Next by thread: Re: canopy footing
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]