Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: The Field Act

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Thank you for the background information.  The Long Beach earthquake marked a
number of significant changes in the way we do business.  The Field Act began an
awareness within government that we needed to become more prepared for the
"inevitable" earthquake.

The information you have presented is quite interesting and I, for one, am looking
forward to seeing your completed research.

Rick Ranous

FEMCCLURE(--nospam--at) wrote:

> Fred Turner,              July 12, 1998.
> Thank you for your information concerning the ""Future of California's Field
> Act - Sesimic Safety for Public Schools." you posted on July 10, 1998.
> If my memory serves me correctly, the Field Act passed the California
> Legislature and signed into law by the Governor on April 10, 1933, just one
> month after the March 10, 1933 Long Beach earthquake.
> In the middle 1940's, elder statesmen Structural Engineers, a generation ahead
> of Henry Degenkolb, John Blume, John Rinne, etc, who were in private practice
> at the time of the 1933 Long Beach earthquake, would tell the story that in
> the month before the passage on the Field Act,  the California "architects"
> were opposing the Field Act legislation.  The Structural Engineers told the
> "architects" that if they did not stop their opposition to the Field Act the
> Structural Engineers would make this information public.  The "architects"
> withdrew their opposition.
> It is interesting to note that the "Building Code" for the enforcement of the
> Field Act was a document called "Appendix A of the Rules and Regulations
> Relating to the Safety of Design and Construction of Public Buildings."  In
> 1941, this document measured 5 1/4 " x 7 1/2" x 3/8 " thick.  Compare that
> size to the size of the 1997 Uniform Building Code or the 1997 NEHRP
> Provisions.
> This document grew out of a early "draft" of the "Building Code of
> California" prepared for the California State Chamber of Commerce by
> committees representing the Northern and Southern Chapters of the  AIA, the
> Northern and Southern Sections of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the
> Southern California Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America,
> etc.  As I recall, the "Building Code of California" was never adopted
> formally because the Northern and Southern California Sections of the American
> Society of Civil Enginers could not agree on the value of the coefficient "C",
> in the formula, "F = C*W (Dead plus Live Load), the "base shear" formula.
> A very important, yet unpublished, report "Task 4, The Review and Analysis of
> the Experience in Mitgating Earthquake Damage in California Public Schools
> Buildings"  by John F. Meehan and Donald K. Jephcott, Summer 1993, funded by
> the National Science Foundation,  Grant BCS-9117732, Seismic Mitigation
> Strategies for Existing School Buildings Which are Subject to Earthquake Risk
> Throughout the United States Program, presents a more detailed history of the
> development and enforcement of the Field Act.  Both of the authors are retired
> Chief Structural Engineer, Heads of Office of the State Architect, Structural
> Safety Section, State of California that enforced the Field Act provisions.
> Copies of this report can be obtained from Mr. David. B. Hattis, Building
> Technology, Inc., 1109 Spring Street, Silver Spring, MD, 20910, telephone
> (301) 588-5020, FAX (301) 587 -5154.
> Frank E. McClure    FEMCCLURE(--nospam--at)