Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: ASCE 31-03

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Larry,

I have used both FEMA 310 and ASCE 31 for seismic evaluation and upgrade. While I didn't make a comparative study, I didn't notice any major differences between the documents in terms of the technical evaluation.

I find your terminology "compliance with ASCE 31" interesting, because I've had the same request. The document is not really structured like a building code that a building "complies" with. A request to "conduct a seismic evaluation based on the guidelines of ASCE 31" would be more appropriate. The underlying assumption is that the client does not have to get involved - the building either complies or it does not - it is a black and white condition. The reality is that the ASCE 31 based evaluation highlights a set of issues, and the client and/or the building official has to get involved, examine the situation, and determine the appropriate next step.

So, I think your suggestion of making a determination based on the previous report is wise. If the client really wants to pay you to redo the same work, just make sure they know that is what they are doing.

Dmitri Wright



From: Larry Hauer <lhauer(--nospam--at)live.com>
To: "Struct. Eng. Assoc." <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: ASXE 31-03

--_1bfb6566-0cd4-4ec8-ac7a-fb93744087f4_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


To All=2C

I have been asked to evaluate an existing office building for compliance wi=
th ASCE/SEI 31-03 due to a California state agency wishing to occupy part o=
f the building=2C (2 story wood frame with OMF lateral resistive system ove=
r a concrete flat plate parking area at grade=2C and designed in the mid. 8=
0=92s).

Back in 2001 this building was reviewed by a California SE using GSA/FEMA 3=
10 with=2C (in my opinion)=2C some pretty serious non-compliance items such=
as masonry shear walls overstressed=2C moment connections Pre-Northridge E=
arthquake=2C bottom reinforcing in flat plate at column strips not continuo=
us=2C etc. If these items are still applicable under the ASCE 31-03=2C it s=
eems to me that another evaluation of the structure may be unnecessary due =
to the high retro-fit costs.

So=2C my questions is: Is ASCE 31-03=2C (which I have a copy of)=2C basical=
ly the same as FEMA 310=2C (which I do not have a copy of)?  If there is a =
difference between the two publications=2C is one more liberal/conservative=
than the other?

Any other comments would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance=2C

Larry Hauer=2C S.E.



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********