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]
The big question is "by who".  We got so fed up with receiving 10 sets of
approval drawings we have a standard note on our plans that we will not
accept more than three sets; one for us and two to be returned.  You can
send more, but they will end up returned as received without markup.

We try to be very thorough in our shop drawing review (you know, we actually
answer the questions), but the detailer can greatly facilitate the process
by providing clear easy to work with sets.  Why anyone would require so many
sets is beyond me.


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 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: Steel Detailing Charges


> 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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********