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,

I have repeated it several times,  THIS IS NOT A DRIFT LIMIT!!!

Please read the NEHRP and the RMI.
It is what the movement the installation is to accommodate.

Regards,
Harold O. Sprague


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Peter Higgins [SMTP:76573.2107(--nospam--at)compuserve.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, March 21, 2001 4:22 PM
> To:	INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject:	RE: storage racks with partially restrained moment
> connections - wind frame analysis in high seismic zones
> 
> With all due respect to Mr. Azzi, he's wrong, and should not be speaking
> for the RMI technical committee which is chaired by Dan Clapp.
> 
> Mr. Clapp definitely knows better. I recommend you consult with him
> directly and revise your drift limits. No installation in my experience
> satisfies this drift limit, including my own, where I am one of the more
> stringent "separatists".
> 
> I suspect he took shaker table measurements and then multiplied these by
> omega. They already were ultimate drifts. Hence the huge discrepancy.
> 
> Peter Higgins, SE
> 
> Message text written by INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> >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
> <
> 
>