Would not all of the instances you list have occurred regardless of the
calculation submittal requirement?
The Hyatt was a deviation from the construction drawings, the site inspector
would not have had the calculations.
The Cal State structures lack of interior lateral resistance would have been
readily apparent from the drawings, with the compatibility question raised
regardless of what the calculations indicate.
I don't believe the issue was requiring plan check, only the inclusion of
formal calculations with the submittal. I could be mistaken.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yousefi, Ben" <Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at)ci.sj.ca.us>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 10:54 AM
Subject: RE: STANDARD PRACTICE/ Plan Checking
> Stan Caldwell wrote
> "The Hyatt disaster also had nothing to do with the lack of
> calculation submittals. It was primarily the result of very poor project
> communications, particularly regarding the shop drawing review and change
> order request processes. The EOR presented his perspective on this to
> earlier this year."
> Actually the Hyatt disaster is a great example of how plan check
> could have possibly averted the disaster. The failure occurred when the
> fabricator decided to revise the tie rod connection to the tube steel
> that supported the walkway, on his own, and it apparently didn't catch the
> eyes of anyone in Jack Gillum's (EOR) office. Let's assume this would
> somewhere on the west coast where you have a semi-decent building
> with competent inspectors and plan checkers. The inspector would
> send the contractor downtown to get the revised detail approved by the
> checker. This has been the protocol in all the California jurisdictions
> I have worked at. Heck, we sometimes get people back in the office who
> changed the raised floor framing to a slab on grade on a single family
> dwelling! A revision of the magnitude that occurred at Hyatt most likely
> would have had to go through the plan checker.
> Another good example of the role plan check can play is the Cal Sate
> Northridge Parking garage. The huge garage utilized precast concrete
> frames on the perimeter for the resisting lateral loads with no interior
> lateral force resisting elements. The plan checker on the project raised
> serious concerns during the review and would not approve the project. (all
> of this is documented in a great article published after Northridge
> earthquake in the LA Times) Eventually his boss (the manager of the plan
> check firm hired by the Cal State Northridge) under pressure form the
> university, approved the plans himself. Everyone knows what happened to
> building. We are lucky the quake happened at 5:00 when there was nobody in
> the building.
> Also, I am amazed that someone who apparently is so sure of his work
> and his track record (by the tread of emails I have read from Stan) would
> object to a second set of eyes looking at his work. I personally would
> welcome such a check and balance. None of us are that good that we can
> we never make mistakes and are the ultimate authority on what we do.
> Ben Yousefi, SE
> San Jose, CA
> * 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
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
* 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