I understand those gremlins have a field day with the 2007 CBC.
T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
Consulting Structural Engineers
V (949) 248-8588 •
-----Original Message-----
From: WISH DENNIS [mailto:dennis.wish@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 5:53 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Wind Uplift on Footings
There is a little gremlin that removes all of the proofs of those things that you think are in the code but can't find them. In this case, you are in good shape as others have suggest. I don't recall the section but I believe that Steve and Neil are correct that it is in 1621.1. I think that is why it is considered a "Deadman" foundation as required to keep it down.
Dennis S. Wish, PE
California Professional Engineer
Structural Engineering Consultant
----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Allen <t.w.allen@cox.net>
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:57:19 PM
Subject: Wind Uplift on Footings
Am I hallucinating or is there a provision in the UBC for a F.S.>1.5 against
uplift?
For some reason, I can't find that requirement. I found it for sliding and
overturning relative to retaining walls, but not uplift on footings. I'm
reviewing shop drawings for a lightweight shade structure.
TIA,
T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
ALLEN DESIGNS
Consulting Structural Engineers
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********