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: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:38:00 -0600
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.
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
> Again this is not a drift limit. This is the amount of drift that you
> 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