Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
Join Eng-Tips Forums

Member Login

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

Join Eng-Tips
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Jobs from Indeed

Link To This Forum!

Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

akastud (Structural) (OP)
26 Mar 08 17:19
I would like to determine the R value for a steel cantilever column that supports wood beams and framing.  ASCE 7-05 references special, intermediate and ordinary moment frame systems under the cantilever column section in table 12.2-1.  It referances 14.1 for detailing requirements for each type which then sends me to AISC 341 which discusses moment frames with R = 3 and higher.  Most of the requirements are in regards to the beam to column connection.  What is special for different methods when it comes to cantilevered columns?


msquared48 (Structural)
26 Mar 08 19:03
According to Table 12.2-1, G.3 for ordinary steel moment frames, just detail the base connection as you would as if it were an ordinary steel moment frame.  As there is no moment at the top - it is just a wood beam bolted to a column, probably resting on a simple steel bracket connection.

Don't forget about the requirement listed in table 12.3-3 either.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

akastud (Structural) (OP)
27 Mar 08 10:45
How would you get a "special moment frame" out of a cantilever column situation?


msquared48 (Structural)
27 Mar 08 11:21
It's all about how you detail the connections - the base connection in the case of the cantilever column.  Look at the differences in requirements between the OMF and SMF on the IBC.  The SMF requirements are far more restrictive.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

OldPaperMaker (Structural)
27 Mar 08 16:42
It is my understanding that the R, Omega & Cd values are defined in ASCE 7. But, to determine what an OME,SMF, etc actually is, one must go to the ACI or AISC to figure out what kind of detailing is required to meet that specific Seismic Force-Resisting system.
Is that what you meant in your second sentence, above?
akastud (Structural) (OP)
27 Mar 08 17:51
I am having a hard time finding any special requirements for a base connection, unless the idea is that the moment frame is inverted and the moment connection that is normally beam to column must be provided at the column base.  In which case it would be somewhat impossible to create a SMF because the strong column weak beam becomes difficult when your beam is your foundation.  Does that make sense?


msquared48 (Structural)
27 Mar 08 19:43

Yes... exactly.


I suppose that you could look at it that way, but I think you making the problem harder than it is.  If you simply chose an OMF, the design forces may be higher, but there may not be the need for a special inspection, depending on the jurisdiction, due to the FS in the higher loading.  Additionally, for cantilever columns what usually controls the size of the member is the allowable or tolerable lateral deflection at the applied lateral load, not the shear or bending stresses.  The OMF is more conservative and simpler to detail.  For high and mid rise buildings, use the SMF as it is more economical with material, but keep it simple in Residential and low rise with the OMF.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

akastud (Structural) (OP)
28 Mar 08 10:29

Les lateral deflection does control, but if I use a SMF (R = 2.5)the load producing that deflection is half the load in an OMF (R=1.25) and Cd is the same so the half load produces half the required I which results in a significantly smaller column and footing even if I use the SMF requirements.


msquared48 (Structural)
28 Mar 08 10:36
Yes, that's true, and that is what I was saying.  Because the restructions are less for the OMF, the load is greater to increase the effective FS.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!

Back To Forum

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close