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]
Peter,

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.

Regards,
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
> 
> Harold,
> 
> 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
> it
> 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
> >Peter,
> 
> That is not a drift limit.  It just says the installation must accommodate
> that amount of displacement.
> 
> Regards,
> Harold O. Sprague
> <
>