Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re; Plan check submittals and shop drawings[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "SEAINT List Service" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Re; Plan check submittals and shop drawings
- From: "Drew A. Norman, S.E." <DNormanSE(--nospam--at)email.msn.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:50:19 -0400
My apologies for the length of this post. I think shared professional responsibility is the unrecognized reality of most projects, and the subject Mr. Hosseinzadeh raised should therefore be of interest to all of us. IMHO: Mr. Greenlaw is right on point. He says the, "term [shop drawings] is used ... carelessly ....," and proposes to distinguish, "between engineering drawings ... [and] ... drawings ... builders use for ... non-engineering purposes." In my practice I refer to the former as "design drawings" and the latter as "shop drawings" and I treat them differently. Design drawings require professional seal and signature. Mr. Hosseinzadeh is correct in classifying the drawings prepared by Mr. Tiedgen's company as design drawings. He points out that the details of the truss members were determined based on the manufacturer's design and this is the proof of the pudding. Mr. Natividad may be right in saying that specifying a steel joist is, "the same as specifying 4x10 beam of 51/8x24 GLB," but ONLY IN VERY LIMITED SITUATIONS. In most practical cases, there will be point loads, unusual bearing conditions, or manufacturers elective panel point details which vary, and Mr. Natividad will be wrong. I do not recall ever having worked on a job involving bar joists where the manufacturer did not provide a calculation in support of the design of the members to be supplied. Have you ever had a lumber yard give you a calculation along with your 4x10? In Mr. Natividad's second post he notes that VULCRAFT does, " ... provide engineering for the design of its projects ...." Mr. Dahlmann is right on point. If Mr. Tiedgen won't sign the drawings representing the design based on his calculations how can he expect Mr. Hosseinzadeh to do so? Under California's PE Act, Mr. Hosseinzadeh CANNOT sign the drawings unless the design they represent was prepared under his responsible charge. My understanding is that this means he would need to replicate and fully verify Mr. Tiedgen's work. Certainly once Mr. Hosseinzadeh signs it, he accepts full professional responsibility for its adequacy. Mr. Tiedgen seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. He acknowledges that his company "upgrade[d]" the design to account for information not available to Mr. Hosseinzadeh when the original design drawings, upon which Mr. Tiedgen's company presumably bid, were prepared. Mr. Tiedgen asks, "Does a product supplier finishing the design ... constitute engineering design work?" Does A equal A? OF COURSE IT DOES. Note that I have intentionally omitted the middle part of his sentence ("... for the engineer of record and submitting for the EOR approval ..." because it is irrelevant. The question here is whose design is it, not who approved it. Mr. Finley is correct in pointing out that, "... the drawings must be signed and sealed -- they are the .. final product." The results of the calculations Mr. Tiedgen performed should be reflected in drawings prepared under his supervision. He should sign those drawings. If they also contain information taken from the design drawings Mr. Hosseinzadeh prepared, then appropriate notations can be added to clarify. It is NOT appropriate for Mr. Tiedgen to ask Mr. Hosseinzadeh to take responsibility for Mr. Tiedgen's design. Mr. Wish is correct in saying, "... responsibility of the EOR should be limited ... to verification ...." As EOR, Mr. Hosseinzadeh must review the calculations and design drawings as submitted by Mr. Tiedgen in order to verify that design loads and other assumptions are consistent with design of other components and of the building as a whole. This is NOT equivalent to review and acceptance of responsibility for the design of the trusses themselves. Mr. Hosseinzadeh's verification review as EOR should ALSO have the purpose of assuring that there are no missing links (e.g., that each component requiring engineering design is in fact represented in design drawings signed and sealed by an appropriately licensed professional). As far as the public safety is concerned, this may be the most important part of his review, and that is why his post to this list is both important and appropriate. In this case there may be a problem. Mr. Hosseinzadeh says the plans which Mr. Tiedgen is declining to sign, "consist of a single sheet of erection plan and copies of our details pertaining to trusses." Where are the details for the trusses themselves (chord and web member sizes and panel point details)? Are they all "off the shelf?" My point is that the results of Mr. Tiedgen's calculations must be fully represented SOMEWHERE in the design drawings and it is in MR. HOSSEINZADEH'S responsibility as EOR to make sure this is done. Mr. Allen (and Mr. Slaysman), who, "would reject the ... drawings unless/until the comply with ... construction documents," have it right. Unfortunately for Mr. Hosseinzadeh however, Mr. Sprague has a point, in that, "Just saying [the drawings] need to sealed ... may imply that the EOR is to seal ...." Mr. Natividad also pointed this out. Contractually, this may weaken Mr. Hosseinzadeh's position. Professionally however, it is clear to me that the design is Mr. Tiedgen's, and, as Mr. Cain points out, the PE Act requires that he sign and seal the drawings which represent it. I think this should carry the day. Lastly, and perhaps to the surprise of anyone who reads this far, I think Mr. Sprague is WRONG when he says he, "... would not seal the manufacturer's drawings." In the end, the EOR has primary responsibility to the public and his client, and some building officials (e.g., DSA, OSHPD and, as of recently, I believe LACBD) will require Mr. Hosseinzadeh's seal and signature on ALL PARTS of the documents as a reflection of his acceptance of that responsibility. In my practice I would require Mr. Tiedgen to sign the portions of the design drawings he prepared. Once he had done so, and once I had satisfied myself as to the consistency of design assumptions and the completeness of the detailing, I would COUNTERSIGN the documents as EOR with appropriate qualifications indicating the scope of my review as EOR and recording the fact that responsibility for the design of the trusses themselves remains with Mr. Tiedgen. Thanks for listening. Drew Norman, S.E. Drew A. Norman and Associates
- RE: Re; Plan check submittals and shop drawings
- From: Bill Allen, S.E.
- RE: Re; Plan check submittals and shop drawings
- Prev by Subject: RE: RE; Slab on grade
- Next by Subject: RE: Re; Plan check submittals and shop drawings
- Previous by thread: Rehabilitation of bridge superstructure due to earthquake
- Next by thread: RE: Re; Plan check submittals and shop drawings