From: Rick Burch <rburch(--nospam--at)conterra.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:14:08 -0500
> Charlie Carter wrote:
> That's an interesting take on the totally benevolent intent of Code
> Section 1.8.2. I'll put your comments in front of the Code Committee.
> Personally, I think they'll be shocked that you delete the very
> protection they intended for you as the EOR. Especially since the
> provision is under a section that is limited to the scope of it's
> title: means, methods and safety of erection.
> Section 1.8.2 of the 2000 AISC Code of Standard Practice states that
> "The Structural Engineer of Record shall be responsible for the
> structural adequacy of the structure in the completed project".
I just downloaded the Code of Standard Practice and read this section.
Can you elaborate as to how this statement can be considered benevolent,
or protection, as far as the structural engineer is concerned? Every
interpretation I can think of is bad.
Here are a few:
Wrong strength steel is used by the fabricator: engineer is responsible.
Details changed by someone without the engineer's knowledge after the
shop drawings are approved: engineer is responsible
Wrong size anchor bolts installed: engineer is responsible.
Contractor cuts out part of the bottom flange of a beam to let a pipe
pass through: engineer is responsible.
If this section had been intended to offer some protection to the
structural engineer, the first sentence would have been omitted, and the
second sentence retained: "The Structural Engineer of Record shall not
be responsible for the means, methods and safety of erection of the
Structural Steel frame."
It appears that some other group had a better lobby and won this point
and hung this thing around the necks of structural engineers. As you say
though, I'm sure they will be shocked, shocked to hear that anyone would
think this way.