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

Re: Fwd: Charles Greenlaw Response to

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I too must agree with Bill.  My experience with FEMA is that they like to
profess that there publications "ARE THE CONCENSUS OF THE ENGINEERING
PROFESSION."  I find this usually not to be the case!

Rick Ranous

"Williston L. Warren, IV - S.E." wrote:

> 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
>