Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Fw: Overstamping, Disclaimers and DSA[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "SEAINT List Service" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Fw: Overstamping, Disclaimers and DSA
- From: "Drew A. Norman, S.E." <DNormanSE(--nospam--at)email.msn.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:10:31 -0500
- Cc: "Enzler, Jeff (DSA)" <jenzler(--nospam--at)dgs.ca.gov>
I finally got my buddy at DSA to agree to come out of the closet. His name is Jeff Enzler, S.E.; he is a senior structural engineer, formal plan reviewer and no field engineer for the structural safety division of the Department of the State Architect. His email address is JEnzler(--nospam--at)dgs.ca.gov (a new back door into DSA just in case anyone out there has something they want the Department to know) and the following (partly from a memo he has written for DSA management on the subject of overstamping) is extracted from an email he sent and said I could post to the list: >>It is unclear to me when the "overstamping" statement [DSA authorized disclaimer] may be used. It is >>also unclear what the statement means and how it is to be implemented. >> >>An article in a local architect's newsletter says that the statement >applies to, "...shop drawings, diagrams and calculations for fire alarm >systems, bleachers, handicap lifts, etc." The >>inclusion of "shop drawings" may reflect a general misunderstanding (or at >>least potential for misunderstanding) in the design community. DSA does >not review shop drawings. For example, truss drawings are generally >referred >to as shop drawings. However, DSA has generally taken the position that >trusses are an integral part of the structural system and must be completely >>detailed on the contract drawings and stamped by the architect, or >>structural engineer, in general responsible charge of the project. > > Trusses drawings are often "prepared by others." Would the >>"Overstamping statement" apply to truss drawings? I think the design >>community would assume that it would but DSA staff may think that it does >not. >>Could the statement be used for entire relocatable buildings? Heck, why >not an entire 200 story skyscraper? >> >>Regarding fire alarm systems (or any number of other building componenets), >will the inspector receive stamped drawings >>with enough information to inspect the installation of the fire alarm >>system? Or will they receive unstamped drawings along with the >>"overstamping statement?" If the latter how will they know if the >unstamped >>fire alarm drawings are identical to the ones that were reviewed and >approved? >>If changes become necessary how will they be able to tell if changes have >>been reviewed and approved? In fact, how would DSA field engineers or >anyone else be able >>to tell (unless DSA brought their office record set out to the site for >>comparison to the inspector's set)? >> >>Also, what does the statement mean? It says, "...examined by me for design >>intent..." does that mean that: > - the responsible architect (or SE) has done a complete and >thorough review and is accepting responsibility for the product and for its >compatibility with the building? > - he has only verified that the product is compatible with the >building and that "others" >>are responsible for the design of the product itself? > - he spent ten minutes making sure that the design loading that he >specified is printed on the truss drawings somewhere and that the span of >the trusses will actually make it from one wall all the way across to the >other? >> >>I believe that DSA needs to create an IR or some interpretation of the >meaning >>of the statement, and list a sample of building components, products and >>other things (like bleachers) for which the statement may be used. Also, >the statement should be made on the drawings; listing the drawings that the >statement applies to on a separate piece of paper does not provide enough >control. Finally the statement should be revised so that the extent of the >review and acceptance provided by the design architect is clear. > >Jeff Enzler > >PS: The State Architect, Fred Hummel, told me that we cannot "accept" or >"reject" responsibility for the design of a building or a part of a >building. He says that the law states that we ARE responsible and that no >disclaimer will allow us to avoid that responsibility. So it doesn't matter >what the statement says or how it is implemented; the statement will not >determine what we are responsible (or liable) for. The courts will do that >for us.
- Prev by Subject: Re: RE: RE: Oversized holes in sill plates
- Next by Subject: Overturning
- Previous by thread: Special Inspection for cladding?
- Next by thread: USGS's FAQ : Capped Maps