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

RE: Charlie Carter: Code re: Detailer practicing engineering

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: RE: Charlie Carter: Code re: Detailer practicing engineering

>I note that in the commentary for section 3.1.2 there
>is a note that says: "It is not the intent of this
>method that the Steel Detailer practice Engineering."
>Can you elaborate on the meaning of this?

I'll try. There are two extremes with regard to connection design responsibility. At the one end, the SER designs and deatils everything on the design drawings. On the other end, everything is delegated. There's a vast sea of permutations between these extremes.

In the AISC Code of Standard Practice, we specifically address two options: the first extreme (SER does all) and an intermediate step into the vast sea where the SER allows the selection/completion of basic connections that can be picked out of the AISC Manual and similar references to be done by the fabricator/detailer. We then comment that it is "not the intent ... that the steel detailer practice engineering" to clarify that the detailer is not making design decisions in these options.

>Is the EOR is accepting responsibility for the structural
>adequacy of the connection design?

Yes, through the approvals process outlined in the Code. And I think that is what the courts say too.

>Are you saying
>that AISC's position is still the same as it was
>during the last writing of the Code but they
>just aren't willing to say it so clearly?

Yes on the position, no on the "saying it less clearly" part. I think we are saying the same thing in a way that doesn't slap engineers in the face like we used to. It's semantics in the end.

>I'm sure that all those review stamps
>that say "review is for general conformance with the
>contract documents" will be what is interpreted if
>there is nothing clearer in the code.

You're right in principle. The Code scope states that it applies in the absence of instructions to the contrary. But then again, the SER really can't get away with acting in bad faith (well, for too long anyway) even if he or she wanted to. I'm not sure what a review stamp that says "reviewed for general conformance with the contract documents" really means. If it fell down, I doubt that note would hold much weight in court.

Hope this helps.