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

Re: Steel Joists - Shop drawing review

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
If the steel joist calculations and drawings are designed and stamped (with
a stamp from the state where the joists are going to be installed) by the
manufacturer's engineer, can the city building department rightly demand
that the EOR for the building also stamp the drawings?  If the city can,
should the city demand the EOR's stamp?

Or should the EOR only review the drawings, etc. and place a shop drawing
review stamp on it since the EOR did not design nor have responsible charge
for the design of the steel joists?  The EOR only specified loads, etc.

I am on the cusp of having a discussion with a city plan checker about this
and would like to get some input.

Mike O'Brien, SE (as of 2 days ago)



----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Ransom <ad026(--nospam--at)hwcn.org>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: Steel Joists - Shop drawing review


> > From: "Philip T. Hodge" <phil(--nospam--at)joistdesign.com>
>
> > > state PE laws require? Is joist design "engineering" or is it
> > > "manufacturing"?
> >
> > Both.  A steel joist is manufactured in accordance with an engineered
design.
> > There, did that clear everything up?  :)
> >
> > If the joists were to be installed by the manufacturer than it would
make
> > sense for the seal to be in the state of installation.  But they are a
> > manufactured product.  The last involvement by the manufacturer is in
the
> > state of manufacturer, so the seal should be in the state of
manufacture.
>
> I suggest that the manufactured status of OWSJ is only for those listed
> in the SJI manuals (or manufacturer's equivalent) and only for the
> simplistic load conditions stated therein. The specifying engineer
> accepts a level of responsibility when relying on these published values
> (assuming no product defects) when specifying joist per catalog
> designation. In this sense I can accept a seal for the state of
> manufacture.
>
> Anything else is a unique engineered product for which the manufacturing
> company must accept engineering responsibility to the requirements of
> engineered structures at the erection site. I believe that it is the
> responsibility of the manufacturer's engineer to ensure that due
> diligence is accorded to definition of loads and assembly conditions so
> that the joists will actually be designed to the expectations of the
> local market and perform as designed. I believe that many manufacturer's
> tread a thin line here and the staff engineer MUST be the public
> conscience. Needless to say, I always require site specific sealed
> designs - the cost is minimal.
>
> > personally stand to make more money if their manufacturing designs need
to
> > be stamped in the state of installation.  But I see no value in such a
> > requirement, and placing such a requirement will only raise the cost and
> > time for completion, and further the belief that all us design engineers
> > place all that stuff in our specifications only to duck our own
> > responsibilities.
>
> I don't make this requirement to duck my responsibility but rather to
> ensure that the joist manufacturer does not duck theirs! If they are
> selling product into regions for which they don't have a staff licensed
> engineer then they must deal with the issue of competitive pricing to
> sell to the project.
>
> I was involved with a project where the manufacturer was reluctant to
> seal the drawings for the site without additional cost for an
> out-of-state engineer. When I did receive a sealed copy of the drawings
> (after much anguish) the signature was qualified. The joists were
> inadequate for the specifications. By the time that they finally
> resolved the issue the joists were on site and had to be reinforced
> before installation. All the while, the manufacturer claimed that, as
> manufactured product, they had no requirement to seal the drawings for
> any location despite the fact that this was clearly stipulated in the
> specifications.
>
> I could go on a big rant here with other examples and about
> sophisticated engineering software with integrated manufacturing that
> makes the bottom-line appear to look good ...
>
> --
> Paul Ransom, P. Eng.
> Civil/Structural/Project/International
> Burlington, Ontario, Canada
> <mailto:ad026(--nospam--at)hwcn.org> <http://www.hwcn.org/~ad026/civil.html>
>
>