From: "Sprague, Harold O." <SpragueHO(--nospam--at)bv.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:15:29 -0600
You can not disconnect the discussion of R values from the discussion of
rho. I would recommend that you read the 1997 NEHRP Commentary Sec. 5.2.4.
There was never an inferred redundancy in the R values for cantilevered
columns, as there was with other structural systems like special moment
Be careful on the design of the elements. If wind is governing by a factor
of 1.5. Seismic may still govern for certain elements. Consider that the
omega sub 0 is 2.0 for cantilevered column structures.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Burkhardt [SMTP:aaron(--nospam--at)kpff.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 3:52 PM
> To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> Subject: re: amusement structures
> Thanks for the responses. I think I should have been a little clearer in
> what I was looking for. My main concern is the UBC's stipulation that
> type of structures can be designed with a rho=1.0. I don't understand
> the redundancy in the cantilevered column system is. If it were to have to
> be designed with a rho=1.5, then seismic would govern the design in my
> Aaron J. Burkhardt, P.E.
> KPFF Consulting Engineers
> Portland, OR