Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: cantilivered columns

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Yes, 2.2 for the column line and not for all lines of resistance in the
applicable direction is reinforced by the paper to which you refer. No
mention of the column cap connection and omega forces though.

Mark


----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Allen <Bill(--nospam--at)AllenDesigns.com>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 10:08 PM
Subject: RE: cantilivered columns


> Right, Stan. I think this (2.2 at the column line) is reinforced by a
SEAOSC
> position paper.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)
> ALLEN DESIGNS
> Consulting Structural Engineers
> Laguna Niguel, CA
> http://www.AllenDesigns.com
> V (949) 365-5696
> F (949) 249-2297
>
> ||-----Original Message-----
> ||From: sscholl2(--nospam--at)juno.com [mailto:sscholl2(--nospam--at)juno.com]
> ||Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 9:51 PM
> ||To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> ||Subject: Re: cantilivered columns
> ||
> ||
> ||I agree with this and have used it on several jobs in the City of LA
> ||without a problem with plan checkers. And I only used 2.2 on
> ||the column
> ||line and nowhere else in the structure.
> ||
> ||Stan Scholl, P. E.
> ||
> ||
> ||On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 20:32:38 -0700 "Bill Allen"
> ||<Bill(--nospam--at)AllenDesigns.com>
> ||writes:
> ||> Mark-
> ||>
> ||> I know you get upset if no one responds to your posts ....:o)
> ||>
> ||> Aren't you already designing for a R=2.2?
> ||>
> ||> It just seems like a tough penalty to design for R=2.2 and for Wo =
> ||> 2.0.
> ||>
> ||> From the way I've interpreted the code (which could easily be
> ||> wrong), just
> ||> the vertical elements (like hold downs) of discontinuous vertical
> ||> elements
> ||> need to be designed for Wo in Type V structures. Since the
> ||> cantilevered
> ||> column has E(axial)=0, I wouldn't use Wo at all. R=2.2 is enough
> ||> penalty
> ||> IMO.
> ||>
> ||> Just my take,
> ||> Bill Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)
> ||> ALLEN DESIGNS
> ||> Consulting Structural Engineers
> ||> Laguna Niguel, CA
> ||> http://www.AllenDesigns.com
> ||> V (949) 365-5696
> ||> F (949) 249-2297
> ||>
> ||>   -----Original Message-----
> ||>   From: Mark Baker [mailto:shake4bake(--nospam--at)earthlink.net]
> ||>   Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 8:27 AM
> ||>   To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> ||>   Subject: cantilivered columns
> ||>
> ||>
> ||>   Greetings,
> ||>
> ||>   Cantilevered column for lateral resisting elements in type v
> ||> construction:
> ||>
> ||>   Am I interpreting 97 UBC correctly,
> ||>
> ||>   Design column/beam connection for omega forces.
> ||>   Design column strength and drift for section 1612.3 load
> ||> combinations
> ||>   Design base connection for omega forces.
> ||>
> ||>   Does the footing need to be designed for omega forces?
> ||>
> ||>   Regards,
> ||>
> ||>   Mark
> ||
> ||________________________________________________________________
> ||YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
> ||Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
> ||Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
> ||http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
> ||
> ||
>
>
>