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 09:17:50 -0600
Again this is not a drift limit. This is the amount of drift that you have
to allow for. If it were a building it is the omega sub zero times the
calculated drift, and is more to address pounding effects. It was
promulgated by the RMI representative Victor Azzi.
Harold O. Sprague
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Higgins [SMTP:76573.2107(--nospam--at)compuserve.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 8:54 AM
> To: INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: storage racks with partially restrained moment
> connections - wind frame analysis in high seismic zones
> That's still about 3 times the drift measured experimentally at full UBC
> design levels. I do not know of any installation (and certainly none of
> mine except perhaps by accident) which satisfy this criterion. Where did
> come from?
> And if Scott Haan is reading this, what do you think of this drift (which
> would correspond to a period of around 6-8 seconds in a typical rack)?
> Great fun, but it would be nice if someone consulted mother nature before
> writing the code. Drifts are well known. It baffles me as to how such a
> criterion came into being.
> Peter Higgins, SE
> Message text written by INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> That is not a drift limit. It just says the installation must accommodate
> that amount of displacement.
> Harold O. Sprague