Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Connection Responsibility

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
"This looks like a job for Superman."  Where are you, Charlie Carter?

Is there some way to merge this discussion with the steel detailers' list? 
There has been an active exchange going on, prompted by an October 14
question, quoted as follows:

> I heard last night in a meeting at there is a new code of std practice
> developed. That one of the big change forthcoming is fabricator/detailer
> to be responsible for connection design and checking structural drawings
> against architectural drawings for errors.
> Has anyone else heard of these changes and is there any truth to the
> changes????
> Paul Adams
> Cds/Steel Fab

I cannot imagine AISC going this direction, but I couldn't imagine AISC
abandoning ASD either.

Fountain E. Conner, P.E.
Gulf Breeze, Fl. 32561

> From: Steve Powell <Stevep(--nospam--at)>
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)
> Subject: Connection Responsibility
> Date: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 10:08 AM
> I know that the subject of who is responsible for connections designed by
the fabricator or detailer has been hashed over and over, however over the
past year I have started to see a large rise in jobs being bid that place
the liability on the fabricator or the detailer. Now these jobs are not in
the East where it is common for the fabricator to do this work (but not
take the liability), but these jobs are showing up in the West in zone 3
and 4 areas. 
> The question of the day is this legal or are the engineers making these
specifications and exclusions just sticking their heads in the sand and
thinking that they have protected themselves by use of a few weasel words?
And just think what a bunch of lawyers would do if they found some
engineers with their heads in the sand and their butts in the air.
> The reason for this question is not to start the debate over again but to
get some hard information show  these engineers that they may not be
protected by the exclusions in their drawing and specifications.
> Thanks,  
> Steve Powell