SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations

Cantilever Column Systems

ASCE 7-02/05 2007 CBC / 2006 IBC Other standard

reference section(s) reference section(s) reference section(s)
ASCE 7-05 ACI 318-05, AISI Lateral 2004,
11.2, 12.2.5.2, 12.2.5.5, 14.1. 14.2, AISI NAS 2004, AISC 341-02,
14.5 ASCE/SEI 8-02, NEHRP 2003

Cantilever column systems are seismic force-resisting systems in which the lateral forces are resisted entirely by
columns that act as vertical cantilevers. Cantilever columns provide a simple alternative to a moment frame, braced
frame, or shear wall for a variety of low-rise structures. In particular, they are useful in low-rise light-frame
construction of two stories or less in combination with other structural systems to provide resistance along an
independent line of resistance, as may be needed for an addition to an existing building. Cantilever column elements
currently compete with proprietary prefabricated shear panels and proprietary light-gauge braced elements in light-
frame shear wall systems.

System Factors and Height Limits

ASCE 7-05 (ASCE 2006) references detailing requirements that pertain to other systems in its tabulation of system
factors for cantilever column systems. That tabulation is reproduced here as Table 1. However, when it comes to
guidance on applying the other system requirements, little or no further guidance is provided, other than pointing to
the respective materials reference standards. It is the SEAOC Seismology Committee’s opinion that this means the
column is to be designed as a frame column with flexure to meet the requirements of the respective materials
standards.

Table 1: Tabulation of Cantilever Column Systems in ASCE 7-05 Table 12.2-1

Seismic Force-Resisting System ASCE 7 Section Modification System Deflection Structural System Limitations and
where Coefficient, Overstrength Amplification Building Height (ft) Limit
Detailing R Factor, ȍ0 Factor, Cd note c
Requirements note a note g note b
are Specified
Seismic Design Category

B C D E F

G. CANTILEVERED COLUMN 12.2.5.2

SYSTEMS DETAILED TO
CONFORM TO THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR:
1. Special steel moment frames 12.2.5.5 and 14.1 21/2 11/4 21/2 35 35 35 35 35
2. Intermediate steel moment frames 14.1 11/2 11/4 11/2 35 35 35h NPh,i NPh,i
3. Ordinary steel moment frames 14.1 11/4 11/4 11/4 35 35 NP NPh,i NPh,i
4. Special reinforced concrete 12.2.5.5 and 14.2 21/2 11/4 21/2 35 35 35 35 35
moment frames
5. Intermediate concrete moment 14.2 11/2 11/4 11/2 35 35 NP NP NP
frames
6. Ordinary concrete moment frames 14.2 1 11/4 1 35 NP NP NP NP
7. Timber frames 14.5 11/2 11/2 11/2 35 35 35 NP NP
notes
a Response modification coefficient, R, for use throughout the standard. Note R reduces forces to a strength level, not an allowable stress level.
b Reflection amplification factor, Cd , for use in Sections 12.8.6, 12.8.7, and 12.9.2
c NL Not Limited and NP Not Permitted. For metric units use 30.5 m for 100 ft and use 48.8 m for 160 ft. Heights are measured from the
base of the structure as defined in Section 11.2.
d See Section 12.2.5.4 for a description of building systems limited to buildings with a height of 240 ft (73.2 m) or less.
e See Section 12.2.5.4 for building systems limited to buildings with a height of 160 ft (48.8 m) or less.
f Ordinary moment frame is permitted to be used in lieu of intermediate moment frame for Seismic Design Categories B or C.
g The tabulated value of the overstrength factor, ȍ0, is permitted to be reduced by subtracting one-half for structures with flexible diaphragms, but
shall not be taken as less than 2.0 for any structure.
h See Sections 12.2.5.6 and 12.2.5.7 for limitations for steel OMFs and IMFs in structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D or E.
i See Sections 12.2.5.8 and 12.2.5.9 for limitations for steel OMFs and IMFs in structures assigned to Seismic Design Category F.

Article 4.02.030 Page 1 of 5 August 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Cantilever Column Systems

j Steel ordinary concentrically braced frames are permitted in single-story buildings up to a height of 60 ft (18.3 m) where the dead load of the
roof does not exceed 20 psf (0.96 kN/m2) and in penthouse structures.
k Increase in height to 45 ft (13.7 m) is permitted for single story storage warehouse facilities.

The nature of the cantilever is that it does not provide much redundancy. That is the reason for the low R values and
severe building height restrictions for these systems. The R value for a cantilever column system ranges from 1 for
Ordinary Concrete Moment Frames to 2.5 for Special moment frames of steel or concrete. Intermediate moment
frames of steel or concrete and timber frame columns have an R of 1.5. Ordinary Steel Moment Frames have an R of
1.25. The Deflection Amplification Factors (Cd ) have the same values as the R factors for these systems. Structural
Overstrength Factors (Ωo ) are 1.25 for all systems, except that timber frame columns are given a 1.5 overstrength
factor. Cantilever column systems are limited to a maximum building height of 35 ft measured from the base of the
structure. Only Special moment frame systems are permitted in all of the Seismic Design Categories included in the
NEHRP Provisions (BSSC 2004). Intermediate steel moment frame and timber frame systems are allowed up
through Seismic Design Category D. Ordinary steel moment frames and Intermediate concrete moment frames are
allowed up through Seismic Design Category C. Ordinary concrete moment frames are limited to Seismic Design
Category B.

By referring to the material standards, there could be a wide variety of interpretations concerning a cantilever
column, especially with regard to the various steel standards. The cantilever could be structural steel designed per
AISC 341 (AISC 2002) or could be light gauge cold formed steel material designed per AISI Lateral Design
Standard (AISI 2004), AISI NAS (AISI 2005), or ASCE 8-02. One might even consider that an element similar to
the proprietary light gauge framing elements that are substituted for woodframe shear walls could be designed and
detailed as a cantilever column element.

Design Requirements
In addition to meeting the material standards requirements for the column element, ASCE 7-05 Section 12.2.5.2
limits the axial load on individual cantilever column elements. For load combinations of Section 2.3 (LRFD), the
axial load shall not exceed 15 percent of the design strength of the column to resist axial loads alone. For load
combinations of Section 2.4 (ASD), the axial load stress on individual cantilever column elements shall not exceed
15 % of the permissible axial stress. This axial load limit assures sufficient column ductility or lateral stability when
the column hinges at the base, because the resulting column sway mechanism with one column hinge at the base is
the only means of lateral force resistance for this system.

As the base connection is key to the performance of cantilever systems, the foundation and other elements providing
overturning resistance need to have sufficient strength to resist the load combinations with overstrength factors as
per Section 12.4.3.2. As the overstrength factors are reasonably small, 1.25 for steel and concrete moment frames or
1.5 for timber frames, this requirement should be easy to meet.

These two requirements are fairly straightforward and imply that other requirements for diaphragm design,
deformation compatibility, and drift compliance shall also be met. However, ASCE 7-05 does not directly address
the stiffness requirements of the base connection.

It is the opinion of the SEAOC Seismology Committee that unconstrained flag pole footings and isolated spread
footings should generally not be used for the base connection, given the large contribution of foundation rotation
and soil deformation expected for those foundation types. The exception would be where the soil deformation and
foundation rotation can be adequately accounted for. The emphasis is on deformation compatibility, including
validation of the base fixity of the column-to-foundation connection. Where a grade beam connects to an adjacent
vertical element, adequate stiffness for the cantilever base is easy to ascertain. The adjacent vertical structural
element(s) may be an adjacent cantilever column, a gravity load post, or a building wall, which can provide some
restraint for the grade beam foundation.

Combinations with Other Lateral Force-resisting Systems

Article 4.02.030 Page 2 of 5 August 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Cantilever Column Systems

ASCE 7-05, Section 12.2.3.2 provides some guidance regarding combinations of lateral force-resisting systems. In
general, it is required that the lowest R value of any of the combined systems in a particular direction be used for the
design in that direction. It is also required to use the largest overstrength factor and deflection amplification factor
related to the combined R values that are used in the same direction of the systems. This is consistent with the
understanding under earlier codes. ASCE Section 12.2.4 requires that detailing provisions for structural components
common to different framing systems that are used to resist seismic motions in any direction shall be designed using the
detailing requirements of Chapter 12 that are required by the highest response modification coefficient, R, of the connected
framing systems.

The use of the least value of R along an independent line of resistance is also addressed in ASCE 7-05 Section
12.2.3.2 as follows: “Resisting elements are permitted to be designed using the least value of R for the different
structural systems found in each independent line of resistance if the following three conditions are met: (1)
Occupancy Category I or II building, (2) two stories or less in height, and (3) use of light-frame construction or
flexible diaphragms. The value of R used for design of diaphragms in such structures shall not be greater than the
least value for any of the systems utilized in that same direction.”

This essentially provides for nearly the same provisions as are recommended by a SEAOC Seismology Committee
position paper, “Cantilever Column Elements in Light Frame Shear Wall Systems LRFD,” which is applicable to
ASD and LRFD (SEAOC Seismology Committee 2004). The position paper provided necessary guidance for the
existing practice of using cantilever column elements within a predominantly light-frame wood shear wall lateral
force-resisting system. The position paper has four requirements, and presumes use of the applicable building code
load factors:

1. The maximum inelastic response displacement of the cantilever column (at the higher R value of the mixed
system), with consideration of the base plate and anchor bolt deflection, shall be limited to the lesser of
0.01H or the approximate deflection of the adjacent shear walls in the same direction.
2. The design of the column, its connection to the diaphragm, its connection to the foundation, and the
foundation shall be based on loads factored up by the ratio of the larger R/lower R (e.g. 6.5/2.5=2.6).
3. The column axial design force ratio shall be based on a K = 2.1 and shall not exceed the force ratio of
Pu/ijPn <=0.15
4. A reinforced concrete grade beam shall join the cantilever column to the adjacent vertical structural
element(s) with sufficient stiffness to satisfy the deflection limit along each line of resistance. Other
reinforced concrete foundation systems may be used, providing the foundation rotation and stiffness is
included in the deflection calculation.

The emphasis is on deformation compatibility, including validation of the base fixity of the column-to-foundation
connection. The limitation on the shear wall deflection versus that of the cantilever column in a deformation
compatibility check is a part of the SEAOC Seismology Committee position. When mixing different systems, it is
important to ensure that the relative deformations of systems along adjacent lines of resistance are within a
reasonable tolerance to avoid tearing apart the system. These combinations can also include other flexible
diaphragm structures.

Cantilever Column vs. Inverted Pendulum Structures

By definition, an inverted pendulum structure designation can apply to buildings in any of the structural systems
listed in ASCE 7-05 Table 12.2-1 and is not a lateral force-resisting system designation. Instead, it is a class of
structures where more than 50% of the structure’s mass is concentrated at the top of a slender, vertically cantilevered
structure and in which the stability of the mass at the top of the structure relies on the rotational restraint to the top of
the cantilevered portion of the structure.

ASCE 7-05 Section 12.2.5.3 states that “regardless of the structural system selected, inverted pendulums as defined
in Section 11.2, shall comply with this section. Supporting columns or piers of inverted pendulum-type structures

Article 4.02.030 Page 3 of 5 August 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Cantilever Column Systems

shall be designed for the bending moment calculated at the base determined using the procedures given in Section
12.8 and varying uniformly to a moment at the top equal to one-half the calculated bending moment at the base.”
This is simply an additional requirement to be used for design of these structures.

While some cantilever column systems can be classified as inverted pendulum-type structures, that designation
should not be assumed to apply. Most cantilever column systems do not fall into this category, as there are usually
several cantilever columns connected together at their tops and the stability of the mass at the top generally does not
depend on the rotational restraint at the top of the cantilever.

Reduction of the Redundancy Factor

ASCE 7-05, Section 12.2.4.2 Item a and Table 12.3-3 allow for the redundancy factor ρ for cantilever columns to be
reduced to 1.0 in Seismic Design Categories D, E, or F where each story resisting more than 35% of the base shear
can meet the following requirement: "Loss of moment resistance at the base connections of any single cantilever
column would not result in more than a 33% reduction in story strength, nor does the resulting system have an
extreme torsional irregularity (horizontal structural irregularity Type 1b)."

Further Considerations
Cantilevered column systems have potential uses beyond the limited scope allowed by ASCE 7-05. The SEAOC
Seismology Committee would like to see some clarification of the use of limited-height cantilever column elements
for a part of a building such as a rooftop penthouse or decorative element. These could be designed and detailed
similarly, with some height restriction applicable to that cantilever system, as distinct from the height restrictions
that pertain to the overall building.

Proprietary cold-formed light-gauge that are being used to substitute for woodframe shear panels may look like and
have similar aspect ratios to cantilever columns. This raises the question of whether the testing of systems or
elements of systems is adequate to justify the application of a system beyond the system factors and height limits
prescribed by the applicable building code. Should these code requirements be revisited and adjusted based on the
available test data?

The SEAOC Seismology Committee still eagerly awaits the results of in-progress studies (ATC 2008, NEHRP
Consultants 2008) on system factors and implications for systems such as the cantilever column systems, and it
recommends that further study and testing be done to compare cantilever column designs to some of the proprietary
narrow-panel walls that have been approved by the International Code Council (ICC). Such a study could provide
further insight into adjusting system factors for these systems in the future.

References
ACI (2005). ACI 318-05: Building code requirements for structural concrete, with commentary, 2005 edition,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MN.
AISI (2004). AISI lateral design standard, 2004 edition, American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC.
AISI (2005). North American specification for the design of cold-formed steel structural members, including 2004
supplement (AISI-NAS), American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC.
AISC (2002). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings (ANSI/AISC 341-02), May 21, 2002, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
ASCE (2003). Specification for the design of cold-formed stainless steel structural members, SEI/ASCE 8-02,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
ASCE (2006). ASCE 7-05, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, including supplement no. 1,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
ATC 2008. "Quantification of building system performance and response modification parameters," an in-progress
study funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and being conducted by Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.

Article 4.02.030 Page 4 of 5 August 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Cantilever Column Systems

BSSC (2004). The 2003 NEHRP recommended provisions for regulations for new buildings and other structures,
Part 1: Provisions (FEMA 450), Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC.
NEHRP Consultants (2008). "Quantification of building system performance and response parameters," an in-
progress study funded by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and being performed by
the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a joint venture of the Applied Technology Council (ATC), Redwood
City, CA, and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE), Richmond,
CA.
SEAOC Seismology Committee (1996). Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary, sixth edition,
Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA.
SEAOC Seismology Committee (1999). Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary, seventh edition,
Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA.
SEAOC Seismology Committee (2004). “Cantilever column elements in light frame shear wall systems (LRFD).”
Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA; available via the World Wide Web at:
http://www.seaoc.org/committees.html#positions

Keywords
cantilever
column
combinations
inverted pendulum
mixed system

How To Cite This Publication

In the writer’s text, this article should be cited as:

(SEAOC Seismology Committee 2008)

In the writer’s reference list, the reference should be listed as:

SEAOC Seismology Committee (2008). “Cantilever column systems.” The SEAOC Blue Book: Seismic
design recommendations, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA, May 2008. Accessible
via the World Wide Web at: http://www.seaoc.org/bluebook/index.html

Article 4.02.030 Page 5 of 5 August 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook