Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: ASCE 7-05 Cantilevered Columns‏

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Good point, but still not sure what would be used- An R of "3" for "distributed mass cantilevered structures", or an R of "2" for "invreted pendulum" structures. Averaging these out comes up with an R of "2.5", which, again, seems reasonable to me, (back to an R of "2.2" for the '97 UBC/'01 CBC).
Larry Hauer S.E.

Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05 Cantilevered Columns‏
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:25:30 -0700
From: William.Sherman(--nospam--at)
To: seaint(--nospam--at)

I suggest looking at Table 15.4-2 for "nonbuilding structures not similar to buildings" - but it still requires some interpretation.
Bill Sherman

From: Larry Hauer [mailto:lrhauer(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 12:16 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: ASCE 7-05 Cantilevered Columns‏

I don't think Sec. or .7 is applicable since those would be OMF's with steel beams and moment connections. What I am talking about are "flag pole" structural elements such as cantilevered WF columns out of a grade beam or cantilevered pile foundations. Unless someone can convince me other wise I will be designing them with an "R" of 2.5 per Table 12.2-1 Item "G.1", (Special Steel Moment Frames". My rational is that the columns don't know whether they are "Special" or "Ordinary", (Item "G.3"), since there is no moment connection at the top, and an R of 2.5 equates to approximately an R of 2.2 which was required in the '97 UBC. I feel an R of 1.25 is way to conservative.
Any opinions would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Larry Hauer S.E.

Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Get it now!

Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give. Learn more.