To: "INTERNET: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: Peter Higgins <76573.2107(--nospam--at)compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:06:07 -0500
I would like to repeat my previous statement for those who may not have
read it the first time: I have a profound respect for the NEHERP committee.
It's a tough, thankless job.
But with all due respect, the difference in a URM and the rack drift limit
is rather simple: URM's kill people, have no basis in rational design
theory, and predictably fall down when tested (in either the laboratory or
real earthquakes). Properly designed racks do none of these things.
Accordingly, when a regulation is made which neither reflects reality nor
actual (successfully proven) practice it is just plain wrong.
This is not a reflection upon NEHERP. I have already taken the issue up
with RMI and the Technical Committee which meets in two weeks. You should
receive a formal reply sometime after that. The fact is they gave you bad
advice, when none at all should have been given without consultation with
the full committee. Unfortunately this has happened before (it resulted in
an inadvertent tripling of the seismic base shear for racks in the IBC
2000, which took extraordinary effort to correct), and my frustration is
If you need "volunteers", I will be happy to submit my name for
consideration by the committees. Kindly send me an address to contact them.
And again, thanks for doing it at all. You have both my gratitude and
Peter Higgins, SE
Message text written by INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
There have been a lot of changes in the code that do not reflect the
"current" practice. If there were no changes to current practice, we would
still be building tons of URM buildings, and pulling bodies out of
The days of SEAOC developing the Blue Book and that becoming the seismic
section of the building code are simply over. The various SEAOC's have a
voice in the process, but the NEHRP development process is now a lot more
open especially geographically.
My committee has received criticism for being way to liberal with steel
storage racks, and now the perception is that we are being too draconian.
TS13 is a group of engineers dedicated enough to volunteer their time just
to make the code a better guide for the practicing engineering community.
They obviously aren't doing it for the accolaids. There are few accolaids
for the work of those volunteers presented on this list.<