Weld Failure

Date 03-01-2002 18:42

I ordered a document from FEMA, titled: "Recommended Specifications and QA Guidelines for Steel Moment-Frame Construction for Seismic Applications". Our company does heavy industrial (civil/mechanical) construction on a large scale. I stumbled across a reference to this somewhere and decided it would be worth reviewing. It was written after a Gov't/industry committee studied the results of structural failures caused by the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Southern CA.

It's a pretty good document and covers structural steel fabrication and erection very thoroughly. The document is free and FEMA will send it out immediately if you call them and place a request. I don't remember Department within FEMA that I called. However, it's a safe bet that if you call and tell them you want to order a pulication they will send you to the proper department. The document you want is FEMA Publication 353. They will send you a copy. Charles Hall

By Wildturkey (**)

Date 03-01-2002 19:23

Thanks Chall,
just in case you want to write the nuber to FEMA for publications down.
(800) 480-2520

By DGXL

Date 03-01-2002 23:26

WildT,
I would exercise caution about quoting or using FEMA 353 for your presentations. I have reviewed this document for the local Structural Engineering Association.

This doc has many flawed statements and erroneous information. I received comments from many professionals including registered engineers, ASNT, etc. Much of the information presented does not have any data to support it. This issue has been addressed formally to the FEMA task group who generated this doc. They had no response to many of the inquiries. Recently turned a copy of this review over to one of the national code enforcement agencies.

Please note while this doc does contain some very good information, most of it is theory on the part of the authors. For example, they (FEMA) recommend ASNT (or company) Level III's are not qualified to perform as a Level II. The other problem with this doc is it is VERY biased as to which certification programs are valid, except those whom the authors are involved with and compensated for. These are just a few of many examples of this document. Also note that this book and the companion documents (350, 351 and 352) cost tax payers about 11 million bucks to produce. None of the jurisdictions in CA have adopted 353 to my knowledge to date.

The AWS D1.1 structural committee chair has issued a somewhat harsh statement regarding the FEMA docs noting specifically: "...it would not be wise to conclude that these will be the last words spoken in the U.S. welding engineering community on the subject."

By Wildturkey (**)

Date 03-04-2002 12:39

DGXL,
Thanks for the heads up

By John T. (*)

Date 03-02-2002 05:30

Wild Turkey,
I have one article concerning poor craftsmanship. The structure was to be a large arena for livestock shows and rodeo, somewhere around 280' clearspan. Poor erection techniques and uneven loading resulted in about 300 tons of steel in a tangled mess. However it sounds like what your looking for is a poor fabrication practices, as was not the case here.

By Wildturkey (**)

Date 03-04-2002 12:38

John T,
What i am trying to do is stress the importance of Structural Steel inspections to some of the engineers and politicians in my area. Some believe that since the buildings that were constructed without having the structural steel inspected are still standing, maybe there is no need for inspecting it. I am not wanting to impose new standards for inspections but I would like to see buildings built to code.