Details of the Private Electeical Pole

[Jace01]

Hello!

I have a question, I am a Trainee and I have encounter this Design of Footing.
Private Pole
Footing:
H = 900mm
W = 400mm

Pole:
H = 5.6m
W = 300mm

This the dimension of the Private Pole that is provided by the designer, but the designer did not provide the details of the rebar.
I will do the 4 vertical 12mm bar for Pole and 9mm for stirrups, while for Footing I am not sure but will use 12mm with 150mm spacing eachway. The bent of the vertical bar is supposedly at least 12 times the diameter of the vertical bar but the space is only 50mm (based on the dimension/drawing). Is the Rebar details okay or not (explain.) And also what is the sufficient bent for the vertical bar?

 

[BAretired]

Retain a structural engineer to design the footing and the necessary attachment to the pole.

 

[fel3]

To elaborate on BAretired's comment: the calculations for a light pole foundation and anchorage are not terribly difficult, but neither are they trivial. I'm in California, so my light pole foundation designs are subject to the California Building Code, ASCE 7-16 or ASCE 7-22, and local requirements. There are also some other relevant documents from ACI, ASCE, ASTM, etc. However, I won't list them here because they wouldn't necessarily be relevant for your location, which apparently uses the superior SI unit system.

I don't do a lot of light pole foundation designs, so I end up relearning the codes each time. I completed my last such design almost exactly one year ago. About two years ago, I had designed a small storm drainage lift station for a city park in Southern California. Then, just over a year ago, one of the engineers in the city's Public Works Department asked if I could review a delegated design for the foundations for the park's light poles that had been prepared by the contractor's engineer. Upon receiving a copy of the submittal, I immediately noticed two code violations: inadequate concrete strength and inadequate vertical reinforcement. I also spotted quite a few mathematical errors in the other engineer's calculations, as well as several misapplications of the code requirements. So, the city authorized me to rework the other engineer's calculations (to fix the math errors) and to prepare my own calculations for a compare and contrast evaluation. This would also make it easier for the city to handle the submittal with the contractor, who would be required to have his engineer redo his calculations (he was the Engineer of Record for this, not me). The city's engineer also asked me to annotate the heck out of the thing for his benefit, since he is a young engineer with limited experience. My final calculation package, performed using Mathcad Prime 9.0 and Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Designer Software, includes 22 pages of Mathcad calculations for the other engineer's foundation and my foundation (by hand or in Excel, it would have been less), 2 pages of document references (with annotations), 12 (!) pages of footnotes, 26 pages of the contractor's submittal with my comments all over the place, a 2-page appendix developing the Mathcad versions of the equations for required soil embedment for constrained and nonconstrained footings, and 12 pages of printout from Simpson Strong-Tie for two anchorage conditions, for a total of 76 pages.

The calculations that your pole require will be far less elaborate, but they are not trivial.