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

RE: storage racks with partially restrained moment connections - wind frame analysis in high seismic zones

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Hi Harold

If they remove a rack and try to reinstall it. This will constitute a new
permit as if it will considered as a new installation. At that time they
have to bring the racks to meet today's code  and it shall be inspected

Code sections 103.1 of Palmdale code indicates:

It shall be unlawful for a person to erect construct enlarge , Alter, or
repair, move , improve , connect , convert, demolish . equip or perform any
other work on any building or structure or portion thereof or perform
grading in the city of Palmdale or cause the same to be done contrary to or
in violation of any provision of this code"

Again Palmdale municipal code under section 106.3 indicates:

No person shall own , use occupy or maintain any "un permitted structure".
For the purpose of this code the un permitted structure shall be defined as
an structure , or portion thereof , that was connected converted, demolished
or equipped at any point in time without requiring permit(s) having first
been obtained from the building official pursuant to section 106.1

Also section 3401 contains language in the same manner.

So in answer to your first question , if they remove the racks that were
existing non complying they will need to obtain a permit to reinstall and in
the process they should meet today's code by up grading the structure.

Second question was the phone number for Mr. Sal Fateen . It is 
1909 869 0989 he is in the City of Pomona CA. I called him and left him a
message that you will contact him.

Third question:
City of Palmdale is currently under the 1998 CA code as was adopted by the
state building standards commission. So as you know section 2222.5 of this
code requires signing at the racks.  This load is the Max permissible unit
On the final issue all cities in California must follow the state building
standards recommendation. I agree with you that it is excellent to have
uniformity of the IBC , but the reality is that we in California may stay on
the 1998 CA code for 3 more years. That decision comes from the state level
and cities follow the state by preemptive laws in the state.

I sincerely hope that your excellent effort will bear fruit and everything
will fit into place for the 2003 cycle of the BSSC.


-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M. [mailto:HaanSM(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 12:34 PM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)'
Subject: RE: storage racks with partially restrained moment connections
- wind frame analysis in high seismic zones

I still think it would hurt if a pallet full of TV's was launched off the
top shelf of a 16 foot tall storage rack onto my head. It has been a while
since I had physics but I have a pretty good gut feeling for this one.  I
see the potential for people being masscred by flying consumer goods whether
the racks are designed according to the code or not.

It seems that putting specifically worded requirements for the method of
fundamental period determination, maximum fundamental period, drift limits,
ect... would be a good idea for wholesale retail warehouses.  Maybe these
issues are already addressed in the 97 RMI, they weren't in the 97 UBC. 

On calculations submitted to building departments,  I do not have twenty
years of experience but I have reviewed dozens of rack permits.  I feel
safer with some of the designs than others, but 97 UBC 2224.3 requires
flexural torsional buckling to be checked for column design and I do not
think there was one permit where calculations checking flexural torsional
buckling were submitted without teeth being pulled out.   

Scott M Haan  P.E.
Plan Review Engineer
Building Safety Division, 
Development Services Department,
Municipality of Anchorage
phone: 907-343-8183   fax: 907-249-7399

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Sid Danandeh [SMTP:sdanandeh(--nospam--at)]
> Sent:	Monday, March 19, 2001 9:10 AM
> To:	'seaint(--nospam--at)'
> Subject:	RE: storage racks with partially restrained moment
> connections -  wind frame analysis in high seismic zones
> well 
> In Southern California where I have worked for the past 20 years! Racks
> are
> plan checked and also inspected by the building depts.
> Code allows the building official certain latitude if racks are less than
> 8
> feet tall. But if racks are taller than 8 feet most cities that I have
> worked for required structural engineering calculations.
> There are couple of companies in Southern Ca that mostly perform rack
> designs one is called SEISMIC and its director Mr. Sal. He is very active
> in
> various committees. There are other rack design firms in Glendale etc.
> The racks have their own base shear formula in the 1998 CA code. The rack
> foundation is also analyzed using beams on elastic foundation, or a
> simplified method by Eugene Birnbaum is very poplar to deign footing for
> racks. This method was accepted by LA County in 1986.
> You are right Fire dept.'s also inspect racks . But they are interested in
> the so called  IN Rack sprinklers and high piled storage provisions. For
> the
> definition if the rack is more than 12 feet high its classified as high
> plied storage. High piled storage requirements kick in certain fire safety
> requirements for the building.
> We have been basically using the SEAOC's blue book that was used a as the
> back bone for UBC's structural provisions for years and years. We were to
> use some more NEHERP provisions this year using the 2000 IBC , but IBC was
> not adopted in California. The UBC and the SEAOC blue book are very clear
> on
> their requirements for  design and inspection of racks and most major
> metropolitan cities in Southern California that I know of adhere to these
> requirements.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sprague, Harold O. [mailto:SpragueHO(--nospam--at)]
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 10:43 AM
> To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)'
> Subject: RE: storage racks with partially restrained moment connections
> - wind frame analysis in high seismic zones
> As a member of the BSSC TS 13, storage racks fall in my chapter of the
> NEHRP.  This area has been a cause of concern and study.  But even more
> fundamental to structural theory is how racks are used and approved.
> Anyone
> can take a rack originally designed and built for Dallas and assemble it
> in
> the San Francisco area.  The inspection is a crap shoot.  If anything, the
> fire marshal might inspect it to see if the racks are loaded within the
> posted rating.  But whether or not the rack is in the appropriate Seismic
> Design Category is neither generally posted nor generally checked.
> This is an area that requires further study and work by the RMI and TS 13.
> Regards,
> Harold O. Sprague