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

RE:Standard Practice

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
According to the "Building Big" television program, LeMessieur stated that he was being interviewed by a college student who was told by his college professor that the columns on the Citicorp Bldg. were "In the wrong place" (not at the corners). This prompted LeMessieur to go back to his calcs after thinking about what the student told him along with his knowledge that the brace connections had been changed from welded connections to bolted connections. Then he discovered the weakness.

Back to the argument, my point is that requiring submittal of calculations has two benefits,

1) is the record of the calculations is on file with the city and/or client - just in case.

2) It places all engineers on a somewhat level playing field in that they are required to show what they checked (i.e. a minimum standard is established). This prevents Stan Caldwell's competitors of beating his price on a similar project because they decide to do only half the number of calculations as Stan's firm because they are trying to save money. Stan does a thorough design with In-House calcs, his competitor does half the number and uses "judgement" to get the job finished cheaper or faster. If no outside body looks at the calculation package, it's each engineering firms responsibility to police itself. This does little for public safety in my opinion and the client may be getting gouged.

I'm through on this one ....

Gerard,
SF, 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