From: "Dennis S. Wish" <dennis.wish(--nospam--at)gte.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:43:00 -0700
It depends on the job. In residential project, size is always limited.
creating fixity at the base generally results in lighter sections than
trying to create fixity at the joints. Of course, loads are much lower in
residential than in commercial buildings and this makes a difference. I
suppose that rigid frames are cheaper in the long run as the foundation is
simplified - and there is less penalty to the structure (R value) for rigid
frames than cantilevered columns. Still, we need to chose the best solution
for the problem and often it means using a frame fixed at the base.
Dennis S. Wish, PE
From: John Riley [mailto:jpriley485(--nospam--at)peoplepc.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 5:18 AM
Subject: Re: cantilevered columns
You can "model" the columns any way you want. Getting them to behave as
fixed at the base is another matter. My preference is a rigid frame.
Is there any standard practice for the lateral support of drive thru's at
banks for wind or earthquake? I am doing a new bank that is being slightly
copied from an existing. The original engineer used moment connections on
the beam to column connections for lateral stability. I am thinking of
using a cantilevered column with a spread footing to take the moment. Is
there any pitfalls with this? Any other ideas (bank is wood framed with
wood trusses for the most part, steel where needed.)