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

Fwd: Charles Greenlaw Response to

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Frank,

You must have been a bear on the first draft of the Blue Book and Code.

With respect to you Frank, your comment " With all due respect, FEMA
273/274 and 310 are sent from Washington, 
D. C. to help us.  A  takeoff on "I am from the Federal Government and I am
here to help you."  "  really does the group of California Structural
Engineers that worked on this project an unfair review.

Many of us do not believe that FEMA 273/274 is the be all and end all for
the profession, but you also must remember the technically challenged
members among us that thought that the 94 UBC lateral forces analysis was
TOO difficult and completely un-necessary.

Williston "Bill" L. Warren, IV - S.E.
Newport Beach, California



From: FEMCCLURE(--nospam--at)aol.com
Subject: Fwd: Charles Greenlaw Response to
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org


--part1_1c9570bf.2477c786_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 

--part1_1c9570bf.2477c786_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: FEMCCLURE(--nospam--at)aol.com
From: FEMCCLURE(--nospam--at)aol.com
Full-name: FEMCCLURE
Message-ID: <1c9570bf.2477c677(--nospam--at)aol.com>
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 04:36:07 EDT
Subject: Charles Greenlaw Response to
	"Unblocked Plywood Diapghragm Deflection Calc."
To: cgreenlaw(--nospam--at)speedlink.com
CC: FEMCCLURE(--nospam--at)aol.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 10

Charles Greenlaw,

You have done it again.  You hit the ball out of the stadium for a
"homerun."

In your May 21, 1999, 12:58:42 am, Pacific Daylight Time, SEAOSC List
Server 
posting you stated:

[C.G]  "I can't relate this to FEMA 273 which I don't have and am not 
interest in yet, in observance of the Satchel Paige principle."  

[F.M]  As I recall Satchel Paige is quoted as saying:  "Do not look back
they 
might be gaining on you."  Is this the correct quote or did you have
another 
quote in mind?

Please do not apologize that you do not have a copy of  FEMA 273.  Keep
your 
innocence (virginity) and "just say No."

If you like the 1997 UBC, you will love FEMA 273/274 and 310, a 
"Prestandard."  What is a " Prestandard?"  It sound like a "Prestandard" is

like a drug that is available to the public that has not been completely 
tested for approval by the Food and Drug Administration. 

Seriously,  As I understand it, the University of California Systemwide has

designated FEMA 310 as the "de facto" standard for the evaluation of  
University of California buildings.  FEMA 310 is the "Reader's Digest" 
version of FEMA 273.  Refer to Lynn Howard's SEAOSC List Server postings on

this subject

[C.G.]  "These look like rank guesses, not like authoritative results of 
research.  I hope they are not supposed to be used for other than very
rough 
estimates."

[F.M.]   FEMA 273, Chapter 8 has many numerical values that look like "rank

guesses."  In FEMA 273, Chapter 8, Table 8-1, Numerical Acceptance Factors 
for Linear Procedures - Wood Components.  Why are the "m" values for Gypsum

Plaster on Wood Lath, Gypsum Plaster on Metal Lath, Gypsum Sheathing and 
Gypsum Wallboard greater than the "m" values for Structural Panel or
Plywood 
Panel Sheathing or Siding?  The authors of  FEMA 273 have told me that
these 
"m" values are based on research, but they have not referenced the relevant

research so one can make one's own evaluation.

[C.G] "Where's FEMA in this? Church, state or is it all the same?

[F.M.]  With all due respect, FEMA 273/274 and 310 are sent from
Washington, 
D. C. to help us.  A  takeoff on "I am from the Federal Government and I am

here to help you."  Call FEMA Publication 1-800-480-2520 for a copy of 
FEMA273/274, but not FEMA 310, which is being handled by ASCE.

I am glad I am not young any more and will have to apply these FEMA 
Guidelines on "real buildings."  George Greenlaw, there is a whole new 
"cottage industry" developing out there.  Establish a "900" number (not an 
"800 number) and provide a peer review or "fee for service" to interpret
and 
answer questions concerning FEMA 273/274 and 310.  You will make a million 
dollars.

One of my pet peeves is how the issue of  "Linear Treatment of Overturning"
 
is treated in FEMA 273.   A Draft  March 30, 1999, BSSC Case Studies
Project 
Report (Final Copy will be available in September 1999) based on the 
application of FEMA 273 to "real" buildings states: "The provisions for 
determining overturning effect using the Linear Procedures in FEMA 273 are 
not adequate.  Without the use of the sidebar on page 2-38, FEMA 273 
calculated overturning effects produce deficiencies inconsistent with 
observations of past building performance.  With the use of the sidebar, an

odd inconsistency may result in which the superstructure is not in 
equilibrium with the reduced foundation forces."

I can hardly wait for the comments from the authors of  FEMA 273/274 and
310 
who will say I have "stepped over the line" again by raising questions 
concerning FEMA 273/274 and 310.  I have tried to work within the FEMA 
Committee System, that developed these FEMA Guidelines, to attempt to
resolve 
many of the important questions and issues, but with little success, so I 
feel I have a professional obligation to bring these matters to the general

structural engineering profession for its consideration.

Stay well!  Keep your SEAOSC List Server postings coming.  It is later than

you think!


Frank E. McClure      FEMCCLURE(--nospam--at)aol.com   May  22, 1999