Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Steel Detailing Charges

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I was being facetious. It used to be three to five sets were required for
approval, now sometimes 12 to 15 are required. It's amazing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Feather" <pfeather(--nospam--at)SE-Solutions.net>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Steel Detailing Charges


> Jim,
>
> I appreciate what you are saying, and am not taking issue with it.  But
one
> thing that caught my attention, why in the world would anyone need 32 sets
> of approval drawings?
>
> Paul Feather PE, SE
> pfeather(--nospam--at)SE-Solutions.net
> www.SE-Solutions.net
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "JLand(--nospam--at)affiliatedmetal.com" <JLand(--nospam--at)AffiliatedMetal.com>
> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 7:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Steel Detailing Charges
>
>
> > Mark/Gary-
> >      As a steel fabricator (not an architect or engineer), I take great
> > interest in your problem. My company has 5 detailers on staff, and the
> worst
> > thing that happens to my detailers is when somebody changes the design
> after
> > detailing has begun. It throws off schedules, it disrupts the flow of
> work,
> > it can totally negate work previously completed, and it complicates the
> > entire detailing process.
> >      At first glance, 8 hours per column does seem high, but you should
> also
> > ask yourself when was the change made, and how many connections were
> > affected. Columns are where "everything happens". These changes may seem
> > simple to you, but one little change at a baseplate affects everything
> above
> > it, and the detailer is ultimately responsible for its' accuracy. T.O.S.
> > elevations on E drawings, connection elevations, stub dimensions, etc,
> even
> > re-running 32 sets of drawings for approval. It all takes time. Also,
were
> > the changes enacted before checking or after? If after, the whole
process
> > needs to begin anew. The timing of these changes is extremely important
> when
> > it comes to detailing. If they occur early enough, there should be no
> cause
> > for extras at all.
> >      As you said, your columns were similar, not typical, so
theoretically
> > the changes could not be readily copied from one column to another. How
> > about the members framing into the columns? Are they all the same size?
> > Different section depths will have differing stubs which also need to be
> > changed. All this information must be changed and checked.
> >      How was this change information disseminated? Was it through one
> simple
> > RFI? We had a job recently where there were no fewer than 5 revisions to
> > 100% "for construction drawings". (Not to mention 4 or 5 revisions prior
> to
> > 100%) No changes were clouded. We had RFI's that had anwers which were
> > contrary to approvals AND latter drawing revisions. We had RFI's on top
of
> > RFI's. It was a nightmare. When we went to claim hundreds of hours of
> extra
> > detailing, we were naturally shot down as well. But the architect didn't
> > understand how badly he made us chase our tails. To justify one
elevation
> > change through 5 sets of drawing revisions, 3 RFI's, 2 approvals, and
> > multiple contrary sections and elevations is extremely difficult and
time
> > consuming. Do this time and time again and the hours add up
unmercifully.
> As
> > a fabricator, we don't want the headache, we just want to get the job
done
> > and move on to the next project. We have other projects with schedules
in
> > the pipeline that need to be tended to. Detailing firms have the same
way
> of
> > working. (and they can't go down to the detailers union hall and get
more
> > men to make up time) So when all of our time and energy is being burned
up
> > by inadequately conceived design ,somebody beside us should pay for it.
We
> > didn't ask for or cause the changes.  In retrospect, we would have been
> far
> > better off waiting for three months for the design to get to "150% for
> > construction" before beginning detailing. But as usual, it was a "fast
> > track" project. But I digress....
> >      Anyway, my people draw, check/change per approval,check, back
check,
> > copy check, and scrub. While this process may seem onerous, it is the
only
> > means of ensuring complete agreement between two pairs of eyes and
brains.
> > Also, too few A/E's understand or accept the cause and effect
relationship
> > which ill timed and perceived "simple" changes bring about. Is 8 hours
per
> > too much? Probably, but again, the context in which the changes were
made
> > must also be brought to light. In the end, to answer your question about
> > challenging detailers' extras, I think the best way to challenge
detailers
> > is to not make any changes to the design, and if you do have to make
> > changes, make them as early as possible in the design process.
> > Thanks-
> > Jim Land
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gary Hodgson & Associates" <ghodgson(--nospam--at)vaxxine.com>
> > To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 7:47 AM
> > Subject: Re: Steel Detailing Charges
> >
> >
> > > Mark,
> > > As most columns are dimensioned from the base, changing
> > > the base elevation will affect everything above it.
> > > However 80 hours seems excessive- I worked in a fab shop
> > > for 14 years as Manager of Engineering.
> > > In one claim on one of my jobs (after I went on my own)
> > > where the detailer claimed 7 hours for an item, I drew
> > > the item myself. It took one hour and I threw in 1/2 hr
> > > for checking.  I suggest you try that route.
> > > Gary
> > >
> > >
> > > On 27 Apr 2004 at 3:46, Mark Gilligan wrote:
> > >
> > > > On a recent project there were some changes made during construction
> > > > and the Contractor has a valid claim for the changes to the steel
> > > > work.  The problem is that the Steel Detailer's part of the claim
> > > > appears to be way out of proportion to the amount of work.  As an
> > > > example, when the elevation of the base plate changes the same
amount
> > > > in 10 similar columns they claim 80 hours.  The detailer justifies
> > > > this by presenting a list of seventeen steps that they go through in
> > > > making and checking each change and listing listing the time for
each
> > > > step.  In this manner they justify 8 hours to change one column and
> > > > then claim they repeat this process for each column.
> > > >  This approach can create a situation where the size of the claim
for
> > > > relatively simple changes is way out of proportion to the total
> > > > detailing fee.
> > > >
> > > >  We appreciate the need for the steel detailer to work carefully but
> > > >  we
> > > > find these hours difficult to justify, to put it mildly.  We would
> > > > expect that after the first column was revised that the subsequent
> > > > hours per column would be significantly reduced.  Remember we are
> > > > changing the elevation of the base plate but leaving the base plate
> > > > detail alone.  The problem is that challenging these hours appears
to
> > > > be difficult and the detailer tends to be fairly successful with
this
> > > > approach.  I have seen this happen on several projects over the
years.
> > > >
> > > > Has anybody had success in challenging these claims and identifying
> > > > the real costs and if so what has your strategy been.
> > > >
> > > > Mark Gilligan
> > > >
> > > > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > > > *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > > > *
> > > > *   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
> > > > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > > *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > > *
> > > *   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
> > > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> > >
> >
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > *
> > *   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
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********