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

RE: STANDARD PRACTICE

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Stan Wrote:
<
I don't see anything wrong with relying on the EOR.  After all, he/she is
the one doing the heavy lifting and is the one who is ultimately responsible
for the adequacy of the structural design....>

...  To the contrary,I would be concerned with the competence of any structural engineer who
might falsely derive any degree of comfort through the calculation submittal
and review process.  I would also be concerned with their efficiency.  Good
engineering practice has nothing to do with calculation submittals.  >

Stan,

I don't see anything wrong with leaving it up to the EOR - IF THE EOR DOES CALCS HIMSELF or CAN FOLLOW THE CHICKEN SCRATCHINGS OF HIS JUNIOR ENGINEER. 

Again, if ain't broke don't fix it argument is okay until it breaks - then what? Structures may not have experienced design wind load - so they may be standing today, but they may see it or worse in a few years and there might be problems. Or, the thing may be ridiculously overdesinged - again, both of these are when no calculations are performed - submitting them only guarantees that someone could not sidestep this phase in the design in an effort to meet a schedule or save money in design. 

My point is mainly that it would be very easy to abuse this system without formal submittal to keep people honest ... I know it doesn't take me a long time to number my pages and throw a title sheet on top of them. I also know that probably not too many plan checkers get very detailed in verifying my results. Just for the evidence that something was performed/checked and some outside body at least has a record of that check is good in my opinion for the customer. If you get into the habit of preparing calcs for review by an outside body, you will find that it does not add a significant amount of time to the calculation phase of the project. It also helps when you need to review a project you finished months earlier when revisions come up.

Don't worry Stan, I get absolutely no added degree of confidence in my design if a plan checker has zero comments or issues a permit. They cannot possibly check the design with the amount of time they are given to review a submittal. But I do gain confidence as a person in society, walking into the DMV to renew my license, that someone ,who may be a hack, had their design of the building I'm currently standing in checked for the basics ,so as not to endanger my well being via gross negligence as I go about my day to day business.

If a doctor is going to perform a major procedure on me, he better tell me as much as he can so I can understand. Same with a lawyer. Just as a client should be able to ask how efficient the moment frames are without having to know all the details in the code and all the mathematics involved in arriving at a number.

-gerard




* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. 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: http://www.seaint.org