Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: STEEL: Q - What is the proper procedure for submitting/approv ing an alternate design?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Jen Wadsworth wrote:

"Since they're not my client, and since my client has already paid me ONCE
for the steel design, I don't see why I should oblige them."

that's your answer right there. Why do we continue to do work that we're
not paid for? You aren't getting paid to calculate a new design. If they
want you to accept something different than what you specified then they
need to provide you with a design, including calcs, for you to review. If
not, they need another engineer's seal. Why you should assume liability for
a design that you didn't do?
A totally separate issue is the fact that the shop dwgs don't have a seal.
We never accept shop dwgs without an engineer's seal.  We specify this
requirement in our general notes, but it's a standard that's widely
accepted.
Jen
Jen, thanks for your response. I do agree with you on the way it "oughta be," but what I'd like is "chapter and verse" so that I can explain my position in terms other than what the EOR's opinion might be.

I'm assuming this shop is an AISC member (if not, why not?), and therefore (Charlie and Co. can correct me if I'm wrong here) have pledged to abide by AISC standards of practice.

I'm wondering if there is not a standard of practice for a situation where the fabricator/detailer/erector is submitting an alternate design. Even if the alternate affects only a small portion of the structure--which, I assure you, is not the case here--I would think there'd be an engineer who is responsible for that specific redesigned component or portion, but who has to submit it to the EOR for approval anyway.

As we know, it has been customary to leave certain details such as design of simple connections to the Fabricator, while retaining authority and responsibility for the performance of the structure overall. The AISC SOP Commentary (4.4.1) states "...only the Owner's Designated Representative for Design has all the information necessary to evaluate the total impact of Connection details on the overall structural design of the project."

I would think by extension this would apply when larger-scale designs are submitted by the Fabricator.

As to having the shop drawings sealed in any event, I have seen this in many cases, but in most cases, not. I'm not aware of what the Board rules have to say on that subject and will do some research and report back later.

Thanks again.

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