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

Re: STANDARD PRACTICE

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: RE: STANDARD PRACTICE
Stan,
 
You would rather allocate tax money to a waste of time and money?
Do you work for the government? :)
 
Outside reviews can be very beneficial depending on the project and
reviewer.  IMO, all "large/complex projects" should be reviewed.  It
wouldn't hurt to review "smaller/simpler" projects also.  I've reviewed
several large projects, and have had several large projects reviewed.
Let me just say that nobody is perfect.
 
The reason I asked if the wind blows, was because you said that homes
are never engineered in your neck of the woods.  You guys are just
letting the contractors do what they please?
 
Dan Goodrich, P.E.
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 12:28 PM
Subject: RE: STANDARD PRACTICE

Dan wrote:
 
It sounds like you are saying that there is no beneficial reason to submit
calculation packages.  I disagree.  
 
Well, I would rather allocate tax dollars to this than to many other things, so perhaps calculation reviews are of benefit in that respect.
 
Our firm tries to perform an in-house review of every project.  It's a rare
review that gets by without some comment, or change, no matter how
minor.  When things are checked, performance will improve. 
 
I like in-house reviews, time and budget permitting.  Outside reviews, in my opinion, are mostly a waste of time and money.   
 
By the way, does the wind not blow in Dallas? 
 
Yes, the wind blows here.  My group probably spends more time dealing with lateral loads and uplift than we do with gravity loads.  For a bunch of Texans, we also do a surprising amount of seismic design and analysis work.  What does any of that have to do with calculation submittals? 
 
Stan
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:09 PM
Subject: RE: STANDARD PRACTICE

Gerard wrote:

Submitting a calculation package is more likely to produce an efficient and safe design in my opinion. Omitting its need is putting too much faith the EOR.

Gerard:

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.  Does your doctor provide detailed backup on how he/she arrived at your diagnosis?  Does your lawyer provide detailed backup on how he/she arrived at the legal advice that you sought?  Believe it or not, as a licensed engineer, you also are being paid primarily for your judgment.  Your are not being paid to run numbers or draw sketches.  All structural engineers that I know run numbers and draw sketches every day.  It is a necessary step in clearly thinking through a problem and communicating with co-workers.  However, in most jurisdictions east of the Rockies, it is neither necessary nor beneficial to submit those calculation sets for review by anyone outside your office.  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 Caldwell in Dallas, Texas

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The buck stops here!
 ... Harry S. Truman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~