johnny Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 Does anyone know a way to get the footing lines inside a pad to disappear? The way the plans read isn't correct with these lines, as the way it shows in 2d would make someone think the pad was below the footing almost like a pier - when 90% of the time its in line with the footing. Graphically what Chief indicates as a pad is showing as a pier - completely different things. The second example is what the common condition should look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan_Son Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 How are you making those Johnny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted July 24, 2017 Author Share Posted July 24, 2017 1 minute ago, Alaskan_Son said: How are you making those Johnny? Right now using the pad tool - under pier tool. Here is a screen. In the toolbar they have the correct designation, but both tools seem to graphically be similar (other than shape). Yet one is a pier and another is a pad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glennw Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 Johnny, Easiest way I know is to break the foundation wall and change the footing size. Is this what you are after? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted July 24, 2017 Author Share Posted July 24, 2017 6 minutes ago, glennw said: Johnny, Easiest way I know is to break the foundation wall and change the footing size. Yeah that does work fairly fast - thanks for tip Glenn. I do think Chief should fix the dedicated "pad" tool. It shouldnt read the same as a pier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan_Son Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 22 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said: How are you making those Johnny? 20 minutes ago, johnny said: Right now using the pad tool - under pier tool. Here is a screen. In the toolbar they have the correct designation, but both tools seem to graphically be similar (other than shape). Yet one is a pier and another is a pad. Gotcha. And this is where I was going with that... 20 minutes ago, glennw said: Easiest way I know is to break the foundation wall and change the footing size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted July 24, 2017 Author Share Posted July 24, 2017 1 minute ago, Alaskan_Son said: Gotcha. And this is where I was going with that... Is this what most everyone is doing? Im kinda surprised more people haven't brought this up - seems like a common issue for foundation plans to encounter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan_Son Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 12 hours ago, johnny said: Is this what you use? Im kinda surprised more people haven't brought this up - seems like a common issue. I've never used the pad or pier tools for a wider footing section like that. If you think about it...in reality those are pretty much always poured with the footers and so it makes sense to draw them using the footer. I think Pads and Piers are for more isolated situations where the concrete is to be poured independent of the footer such as under a specific post or point load or when the Pad/Pier is otherwise completely separated from other concrete or poured under (although with) a slab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRAWZILLA Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 I just change the drawing order of that pad to move it up or down in the view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted July 24, 2017 Author Share Posted July 24, 2017 15 minutes ago, DRAWZILLA said: I just change the drawing order of that pad to move it up or down in the view So i tried that - and I get this (on the right) - which isn't horrible, but you still get 2 lines intersecting (at least not 4). So is this what you see too Perry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRAWZILLA Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 Well, if the pad footing is deeper than the house footing then that line would show anyway. I use them all the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RL-inc Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 How about a dbx for the footing to check like "builds with wall footing" or something that tells the pad to generate as part of the continuous footing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan_Son Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 Not arguing for one method over the other. It totally depends on your individual needs and preference but for what it's worth, you can create a deeper footing by just resizing the footing in elevation too... ...and then add a couple extra CAD lines to display however you want... The benefits being that you don't have to have the extra lines in plan view if you don't want them and that your vector views won't have any extraneous lines either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted July 24, 2017 Author Share Posted July 24, 2017 Glenn and Michael, I ran into a problem using that increased footing method on the wall when its next to openings (like a buck-out for garage door). It automatically tries to fix/connect the walls. Any ideas on solving that? Thanks for the advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted July 24, 2017 Author Share Posted July 24, 2017 21 minutes ago, RL-inc said: How about a dbx for the footing to check like "builds with wall footing" or something that tells the pad to generate as part of the continuous footing. I agree - that would be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan_Son Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 8 minutes ago, johnny said: Glenn and Michael, I ran into a problem using that increased footing method on the wall when its next to openings (like a buck-out for garage door). Any ideas on solving that? Thanks for the advice. Ya, it may not work for all situations. You might need to just use the pad method and then mask the extra lines. Having said that, I'm pretty sure I've used the increased footing method adjacent to and even directly underneath garage door openings like you're talking about but I don't rightly recall the specifics. I'm away from my office now but if you post a quick example plan I might be able to take a look when I get back this afternoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dshall Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 I do not fight it, I leave the extra lines in, I have a feeling the guys forming up the foundation ignores the extra lines. But I get it, it is not necessarily correct graphically and should/could be fixed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_Carrick Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 I'm in agreement with Scott & Perry. There are cases where the wider footing works best and other cases where a Pier/Pad works best. If the pad is thicker than the footing, I use a pad and set the fill to solid and adjust the display layer down so the foundation wall shows thru. IMO, this is a situation where it's easier to manipulate the graphics than to have the CA software engineers try to make it automatic. There are just too many variables and I am afraid of too much "automatic". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted July 24, 2017 Author Share Posted July 24, 2017 6 hours ago, Joe_Carrick said: IMO, this is a situation where it's easier to manipulate the graphics than to have the CA software engineers try to make it automatic. There are just too many variables and I am afraid of too much "automatic". I agree there are many variables, and too many to program each one as a possibility. However, id suggest for a 2D foundation plan view 90% of the time the top of the pad along the footing matches in flush - so at least having the option like RL said would be simple and smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lbuttery Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 I agree there are many variables, and too many to program each one as a possibility. However, id suggest for a 2D foundation plan view 90% of the time the top of the pad along the footing matches in flush - so at least having the option like RL said would be simple and smart. Johnny: I agree, whenever there is a "common" "standard" method that covers 80%+ situations then Chief should handle it via the dbx's as settings or options etc Chief can't handle "every" situation but it should handle the "basics" Lew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey_martin Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 I have made the suggestion multiple times over the years to have the ability to select and shape footings as needed. There is no reason we should not be able to form footings into pads as required along a stretch of wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now