Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
RE: 2000 IBC and Cantilever Column issue
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: 2000 IBC and Cantilever Column issue
- From: "Cain, William" <bcain(--nospam--at)ebmud.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:50:27 -0700
Dennis- The 2000 IBC reads: " 1617.6.3.1 Combination Framing Factor. The response modification coefficient, R, in the direction under consideration at any story shall not exceed the lowest response modification coefficient, R, for the seismic-force-resisting system in the same direction considered above that story, excluding penthouses. The system overstrength factor, W0 , in the direction under consideration at any story shall not be less than the largest value of this factor for the seismic-force-resisting system in the same direction considered above that story. In structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D, E or F, if a system with a response modification coefficient, R, with a value less than 5 is used as part of the seismic-force-resisting system in any direction of the structure, the lowest such value shall be used for the entire structure." BTW, R for an Inverted Pendulum System, Cantilevered column system = 2-1/2 per Table 1617.6." A structure is designated a Seismic Category D where Sds is greater than or equal to 0.50g or Sd1 is greater than or equal to 0.20g. Higher spectral accelerations can raise the designation to Category E and essential structures can raise the designation to Seismic Design Category F. Sds is basically 2/3 of the mapped maximum considered earthquake short period spectral acceleration on a fault adjusted for soil/rock conditions and Sd1 is the similar value at 1-second period. I'm guessing you won't like the above. ;<) Regards, Bill Cain, S.E. Oakland CA -----Original Message----- From: Dennis S. Wish [SMTP:dennis.wish(--nospam--at)gte.net] 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? Regards, Dennis S. Wish, PE Structural Engineering Consultant structures(--nospam--at)engineer.com <mailto:structures(--nospam--at)engineer.com> (208) 361-5447 E-Fax << File: TechTool.gif >>
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: 2000 IBC and Cantilever Column issue
- From: Dennis S. Wish
- RE: 2000 IBC and Cantilever Column issue
- Prev by Subject: 2000 IBC and Cantilever Column issue
- Next by Subject: RE: 2000 IBC and Cantilever Column issue
- Previous by thread: RE: 2000 IBC and Cantilever Column issue
- Next by thread: RE: 2000 IBC and Cantilever Column issue
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]