To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: RE: storage racks with partially restrained moment connections - wind frame analysis in high seismic zones
From: "Sprague, Harold O." <SpragueHO(--nospam--at)bv.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:31:12 -0600
No fishing for me.
The NEHRP went forward with the 1997 RMI, but consensus codes are a bit more
of an issue. The UBC and ASCE 7 also include non-consensus standards, but
the lack of ANSI accreditation makes them nervous. ANSI accreditation or
not, good engineering is good engineering and the 1997 RMI was a marked
improvement over 1990 for seismic. Especially since the 1990 RMI had
It is odd that we argue on one hand to be unencumbered by codes, but we tend
to do the minimum that is in the code as opposed to what is good practice.
Harold O. Sprague
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Higgins [SMTP:76573.2107(--nospam--at)compuserve.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 8:12 PM
> To: INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: storage racks with partially restrained moment
> connections - wind frame analysis in high seismic zones
> As someone who served on the Non building structures seismology
> subcommittee, helped draft the IBC 2000 rack regulations, and sits on the
> ANSI MH16.1 balloting committee, I can offer the following history:
> 1) the 1990 RMI was ANSI MH16.1 and is now withdrawn
> 2) the RMI has now written a new document which is a vast improvement over
> the old.
> 3) They are trying to get it approved as a new ANSI MH16.1, but progress
> 4) this new ANSI was expected to be approved in advance of IBC 2000
> adoption, but hasn't happened, and I see no signs of it happening soon.
> Therefore, IBC 2000 strictly has no rack regulations unless you revert
> to the 1990 ANSI. This is better than nothing, but not by much since it
> no seismic regulations.
> 5) The current RMI is not likely to get ANSI approval in its present form.
> They have made some changes that are unacceptable to a broad class of
> and will not reach consensus as it is.
> 6) Minor changes in the RMI will allow consensus
> 7) if RMI is not adopted as an ANSI standard, the same group of people who
> got it written into the IBC 2000 will submit a code change to get it out
> and revert back to the 97 UBC regulations, which at least have seismic
> Having fun yet Harold? No fishing for you yet.
> Peter Higgins, SE