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

RE: Designing Steel Connections - What Is Required On Drawings?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In "post-Kansas City", the engineer of record (EOR) is ultimately
responsible for "design" of structural connections. If the EOR leaves any
design, connection selection, or detailing up to the contractor/steel
detailer, the EOR should review the shop drawings (and calculations, if
applicable) since the EOR will be responsible for the connection detail. If
the steel details are fully detailed on the sealed construction documents, I
would think that someone else could perform the shop drawing review - but
they would have to contact the EOR before any changes could be made relative
to the EOR's sealed drawings.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bpolhem(--nospam--at)]
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 10:30 AM
> To: structx(--nospam--at); seaint(--nospam--at)
> Subject: Designing Steel Connections - What Is Required On Drawings?
> Another question in a similar vein to those I've posted recently.
> The "old practice" in routine (i.e. non-moment resisting) 
> connections was to
> simply put the maximum loads needed to be resisted on the 
> drawing, and let the
> detailer take care of them, since in theory at least, the 
> detailer "knew" the
> preference(s) of the fabricator.
> Then, post-Kansas City--and with the cost of litigation on 
> the rise--engineers
> of record began to give more specific information. At least 
> that's the way I
> believe I've seen it.
> What is "required"? What are the legal implications?
> I have a set of "go-by" drawings from a client where, for 
> example, a connection
> of a W beam to an HSS is shown with a shear plate, and some 
> vague instructions
> "3/8" plate weld to column and bolt to beam with 3/4" 
> erection bolts". I guess
> you could say that's a "design", but there is no weld size 
> given (my only real
> problem with the detail).
> Also, doesn't the term "erection bolts" connote bolts that 
> are "temporary" in
> nature? Haven't there been instances of A307 bolts used as 
> "erection bolts" for
> example? If so, is this not possibly misleading?
> Any input would be appreciated.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** 
*   Read list FAQ at: 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) to the list, send email to 
*   admin(--nospam--at) and in the body of the message type 
*   "join seaint" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe, send email 
*   to admin(--nospam--at) and in the body of the message 
*   type "leave seaint" (no quotes). For questions, send 
*   email to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********