Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: 2000 IBC and Cantilever Column issue

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Here we go again:>(

-----Original Message-----
From: Yousefi, Ben [mailto:Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 2:03 PM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)'
Subject: RE: 2000 IBC and Cantilever Column issue


The answer to your question is yes, however with some reservation. The exact
wording in section 1617.6.2 is:

"For light frame, flexible diaphragm buildings, of seismic use group I and
two stories or less in height: resisting elements are permitted to be
designed using the least value of R for the different structural systems
found on each independent line of resistance........"

The catchword again is "flexible" diaphragm. Pooh! I don't even want to go

Ben Yousefi, SE
San Jose, CA

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Dennis S. Wish [SMTP:dennis.wish(--nospam--at)]
	Sent:	Friday, May 12, 2000 12:23 PM
	To:	SEAINT Listservice
	Subject:	2000 IBC and Cantilever Column issue

	Does anyone know if the 2000 IBC has provided rhetoric that supports
SEAOC's revised position on embedded cantilever columns in wood framed
structures with wood diaphragms? In other words, is it clearly stated that
the lower "R" is recommended in the plane of the braced frame or
cantilevered column only and that the rest of the structure need not be
penalized by reducing the overall R value in the direction of force?
	I know that this is best left to the engineers judgment, but I
received a call from a company that was concerned as to how this opinion of
the professional community was incorporated into the next code provisions.
	Can anyone comment?
	Dennis S. Wish, PE
	Structural Engineering Consultant
	structures(--nospam--at) <mailto:structures(--nospam--at)>
	(208) 361-5447 E-Fax << File: TechTool.gif >>