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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:27:46 -0600
The best approach is to send your CV and interest to the BSSC. If
nonbuilding structures are of interest, that would be Technical Subcommittee
13. The BSSC web site is: http://www.bssconline.org/ . I have served my
maximum of 2 terms (6 years) as chair of TS 13. The new chairman will be
The structure of the TS 13 is going to be overhauled for the next cycle to
make it larger and more responsive to the varied and diverse interests that
comprise nonbuilding structures. We are waiting to hear from BSSC and FEMA
to see exactly how the funding matches the goals.
Harold O. Sprague
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Higgins [SMTP:76573.2107(--nospam--at)compuserve.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 10:06 AM
> To: INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: storage racks with partially restrained moment
> connections - wind frame analysis in high seismic zones
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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.<