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

RE: STANDARD PRACTICE

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: RE: STANDARD PRACTICE
Stan,
when I heard the statements it was as incredible to me as our comment "Yes, Of Course!". Not submitting calculations that clearly reflect your design assumptions for submittal of anything other than a prescriptive method in California is unheard of. This is why I am so stunned to hear this. How do you verify that the structural materials are design in compliance with current code methods if the numbers can't be verified or the design method proven to  be in compliance? Do you look at a drag strap in a high wind region and say - "Well, this engineer must know what he is doing and therefore, until it fails or someone gets hurt, we will assume that he designed to the current code and that the strap is adequate based on trusting good faith?"
 
California engineers are used to being challenged on designs. If it doesn't look right and the calc's are missing, the engineer has the responsibility to prove to the plan check technician (or engineer) to justify the design. Anything less is, in my knowledge of submittals and plan check in California is incredible.
 
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Caldwell, Stan [mailto:scaldwell(--nospam--at)halff.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 4:20 PM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
Subject: RE: STANDARD PRACTICE


Dennis wrote:

I am assuming that calculations are performed, only not submitted.  Is this the case?

YES, OF COURSE!

Stan Caldwell in Dallas

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beer is positive proof that God loves us!
                    ... Benjamin Franklin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~