Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Retaining wall footing resultant CBC

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I think the issue came up after his attempt at a wall design with a seismic increment of 18H^2 point load at .6H up the wall ;-)

From: Jnapd(--nospam--at) [mailto:Jnapd(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 12:02 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: Retaining wall footing resultant CBC

Sounds like your colleague sleeps quite restfully at night due to his conservative approach...not that there is anything wrong with that choice.
Joe Venuti
Johnson & Nielsen Associates
Palm Springs, CA
In a message dated 4/9/2009 10:31:14 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jeffsmith7(--nospam--at) writes:
The reason I was asking is because the other day an engineering collegue told me he designs to the middle third for retaining walls for non essential facilities.  I wonder if  that was required from an old code requirement or maybe some older soils reports required it?
Thanks for your feedback.

From: Hugh Brooks [mailto:hbap(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:49 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: RE: Retaining wall footing resultant CBC

This is an arguable issue, but I accept the design if outside middle third if soil pressure OK and stability >1,5.



From: Jeff Smith [mailto:jeffsmith7(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:44 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Retaining wall footing resultant CBC


California Building Code section 1806A.1 requires the resultant must be in the middle half using 1605A.3 load combinations. I don't see this requirement in chapter 1806. For non essential facilities are there any requirements for the retaining wall resultant, or do we just need a 1.5 safety factor?



Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less.