To: "INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: RE: 4-bolt patterns
From: Mark Gilligan <MarkKGilligan(--nospam--at)compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:23:12 -0400
Thanks for the response.
I agree with much of your statement in your posting.
<Speaking as a former steel erector, 4 anchor bolts is a good idea. Some
engineers perceived that there was a cost savings by using 2 anchor bolt
columns. It was in general a false perception. The problem in making it
mandatory, is that it can create some problems regarding function, and it
can create a false sense of security.>
<Erectors and riggers need some structural engineering input in order to
safely erect buildings. >
I agree that the risks to iron workers are unacceptable. I would suggest
that making the SEOR responsible for erection safety will not soleve the
problem. He does not have the control. If there is one thing that has
been proven time and again is that the individual who has control over the
work needs to take personal responsibility for construction safety. This
means that the Contractor responsible for erection has to take the lead.
He can, and often should, hire an engineer to help him but he needs to
exercise the leadership. In addition there should be real high penalties.
For example why not make the person in charge of steel erection be
personally responsible much like a professional engineer is. None of this
hiding behind the corporation.
<The problem is that very few structural engineers have a desire to get
involved in what is termed "methods and means",>
When I am hired by the Owner and not the Contractor this would be a no win
situation. On the other hand were I to be hired by the steel erector and
honestly felt that I knew enough about safety to help I would have no
problem with advising on erection difficulties.
<What is needed is a very conservative prescriptive approach, or an
engineered approach in which a structural engineer gets involved in
and designing the erection.>
The problem that I saw with the OSHA proposal was that it was strong on
proscriptive regulations that seemed to be tuned for a particular type of
structure, while not providing any recognition for the use of an
< We need to look with compassion at the thousands of workers that are
killed and injured every year that a little planning and engineering could