Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
[SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Re: Inspection[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)power.net, seaoc(--nospam--at)power.net
- Subject: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Re: Inspection
- From: David Owens <dtowens(--nospam--at)cogent.net>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 21:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
At 12:04 PM 6/9/96 -0600, Christopher Wright wrote: >>Engineer can not always inspect every building he designs. > >>Inspectors should stop working for contractors. > >I've been following this thread from the outside, since I don't do >buildings. I do work with pressure vessels and that industry has adopted >third party inspection. The Authorized Inspector is paid by an inspection >agency, usually an insuror, which has been retained by the manufacturer as >a condition of compliance with the ASME Code. The AI is specially trained >for the work and a member of the National Board of Pressure Vessel >Inspectors. He has the final say on whether a vessel can be stamped. I've >worked with AI's off and on for about 30 years. We've had some >disagreements on how the pressure vessel codes should be interpreted, but >nothing that couldn't be worked out. Looks to me like the construction >industry should adopt something of the sort. > >For its cultural value, the pressure vessel codes work in a sort of >tripartite fashion, betweem the ASME, manufacturers and inspection >agencies. The ASME publishes the Code, which is a joint effort of all >interested parties who have technical expertise to offer. There's some log >rolling, but the individual biases pretty much cancel. Manufacturers agree >to comply with the Code subject to examination and inspection, including >quality audits by the inspection agency. The inspection agency and the >Manufacturer jointly are responsible for Code compliance. For good measure, >most states have laws regulating pressure vessel placement; these usually >are written so that Code compliance makes the most sense. > >Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant from >chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com | this dist--" (last words of Gen. >Voice phone (612)933-6182 | John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864) > > Fabrication shop inspection is different from construction site inspection in many ways, but probably the most important one is the chaotic and random nature of on-site field construction. Different crafts do different trades, and do not care a damn about the other. Get in, get out. In spite of great effort, a lot of construction is ahead of or behind schedule, sometimes both at the same time. The bigger the job, the more out of control it is. There will be crafts that the superintendant does not know are working. Many times, subs do not show up. Frequently, structural problems (the most important-architectural problems we have some slack with) will hold up many others, so the pressure is on to let it go as is. This pressure goes right up to the top-owner, engineer, architect. Time is money. Make it work. Revise the calcs. Other than the Pyramids, does anyone think a project was ever built as planned? > ...
- Prev by Subject: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] RE: garrulous?
- Next by Subject: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Re: suscribe-- another point of view....
- Previous by thread: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Buried or partially buried structures
- Next by thread: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Structural Observation, Special Inspection issues