Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: FEMA Welding Requirements

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Also, FEMA and/or AISC has removed ASTM A36 specification from rolled 
shapes. There will be exceptions such as channels, zees, and 
plates/bar stock. The material to be specified is now ASTM A992 for 
structural WF, H shapes, W etc for the moment resisting frames, I 
beleive that is the designation. There are no flats , plates or bar 
produced in ASTM A992.
Quo Vadis?
Pax e Gratia
Bob Ross
Robert P. Ross, P.E.
Principal Project Manager
Washington Group International,Inc.
Industrial Processes
17320 Red Hill, Suite 300
Irvine, Ca. 92614 
Mobile 562-254-4604
Office 949-222-3978
FAX 949-222-3985
E-mail: Bob.Ross(--nospam--at)WGINT.com

----- Original Message -----
From: bob.ross(--nospam--at)wgint.com (Bob Ross)
Date: Thursday, December 6, 2001 5:44 pm
Subject: Re: FEMA Welding Requirements

> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> Your following message has been delivered to the list
>  seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org at 17:50:40 on 6 Dec 2001.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> 
> 
> FEMA MAY BE DOWN LOADED FOR REFERENCE DOCUMENTS.
> FEMA 353 addresses both Welding and welding material control and 
> Quality Assurance. Some engineer353 is applicable. At the moment, 
> I am lead to understand that San 
> Diego, Santa Monica, and Sacramento require the implementations of 
> the 
> recommendations on those projects that have moment resisting 
> frames. 
> And, I am told that Walnut Creek, althought not a part of their 
> Code, 
> are applying the recommendations in their plan check cycle. AISC 
> is to 
> have incorporated FEMA 353 recommendations with AWS working with 
> them 
> on this matter. (?Is this so Charlie??) So I am told by Lincon 
> Electric Engineering staff from Cleveland, Ohio. So, if these code 
> orgs incorporate the recommendations, how are we to defend 
> against "Why did you not include those FEMA recommendations Mr. 
> Engineer in your building design which failed?" Our response of 
> "It 
> was not in my contract." may not be an appropriate defense, 
> legally or 
> morally.
> 
> Quo Vadis?
> Pax e Gratia
> Bob Ross
> Robert P. Ross, P.E.
> Principal Project Manager
> Washington Group International,Inc.
> Industrial Processes
> 17320 Red Hill, Suite 300
> Irvine, Ca. 92614 
> Mobile 562-254-4604
> Office 949-222-3978
> FAX 949-222-3985
> E-mail: Bob.Ross(--nospam--at)WGINT.com
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rick.Drake(--nospam--at)Fluor.com
> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2001 4:12 pm
> Subject: Re: FEMA Welding Requirements
> 
> > 
> > I assume that you are referring to FEMA 350 and FEMA 353.  
> Neither 
> > of these
> > documents require anything.  They are guideline documents.  
> > However, many
> > jurisdictions in California accept them as meeting the test data
> > requirements of the 1997 UBC.  I suggest that you check with the 
> > applicablejurisdiction for your project to clarify to what 
> extent 
> > they expect FEMA
> > 350 and FEMA 353 to be used.
> > 
> > Rick Drake, SE
> > Fluor Daniel, Aliso Viejo, CA
> > 
> > **************************
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >                                                                  
> 
> >                                                
> >                    FSRahbar(--nospam--at)aol.co                               
> 
> >                                                
> >                    m                    To:     
> seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org 
> >                                                
> >                    12/06/01 02:13                                
> 
> >                                                
> >                    PM                   cc:                      
> 
> >                                                
> >                    Please respond                                
> 
> >                                                
> >                    to seaint            Subject:     Re: FEMA 
> > Welding Requirements.                               
> >                                                                  
> 
> >                                                
> >                                                                  
> 
> >                                              . 
> >                                                                  
> 
> >                                                
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Does anyone know if FEMA requires Continuous Inspection on all Full
> > Penetration Welds done in a Fabricator Shop, even if the shop is 
> > Licensedby the County or the City?
> > 
> > FS Rahbar, SE
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----------------------------------
> > The information transmitted is intended only for the person
> > or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
> > and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended 
> recipient 
> > of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review,
> > retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any
> > action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you 
> > received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the 
> > material from any computer.  Any views expressed in this message
> > are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily 
> reflect 
> > the views of the company.  
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ------------------------------------
> > 
> > 
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > * 
> > *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
> > *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
> > *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > *
> > *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > *
> > *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
> > *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
> > *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
> > *   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 
> > 
> 
> 
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> * 
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 
> 


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********