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

RE: UBC Live Load Reduction

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Gerard:  

That spot is already taken Baby.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerard Madden, SE [mailto:gmadden(--nospam--at)maddengine.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 8:50 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: UBC Live Load Reduction

Can you run for King of All Plan Checkers please?

Almost every 3rd party plan check outfit produces 2 pages of toilet
paper at minimum. Comment after comment requiring no change or a long
detailed explanation of why they are wrong, put ever so politely so they
don't come back with a "I don't like it, or my boss says so".

In house plan checking has its flaws too (namely, everything gets by
them and only the obvious is caught (can you add a crawlspace access on
the floor plan?)). Not that I try to sneak anything bye them, but I have
seen drawings from contractors showing asking me why they can't do this
and I just shake my head....

In summary, they are looking at the wrong things. Comments are just
standard. General Notes are not read. And they don't seem to be learning
from the response letters so they must not read those responses.

DISCLAIMER: I know there are some good plan checkers out there, keep up
the good work. I also would rather have a plan check than nothing,
simply to keep the playing field within reason.

-g

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Grinstead [mailto:Gary.Grinstead(--nospam--at)ci.stockton.ca.us]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 9:36 AM
To: dfisher(--nospam--at)fpse.com; seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: UBC Live Load Reduction

David,
   Bill mentioned this was an outside plancheck consultant.  I've always
suspected they create needless comments to justify their existence.  I
never minded a good thorough plancheck as it's another set of eyes to
perhaps spot something I may have overlooked.  However the one thing I
can't stand is when the majority of the comments don't require a change
in the plans.


>>> dfisher(--nospam--at)fpse.com 05/13/05 9:28 AM >>>
Gary:

Possibly:

1)	He has a comment sheet to try and fill up...
	Or
2)	hours to bill?
	Or
3)	He's jealous...



With exception to Scott and all the other fine plan reviewers on this
list:

(who are exempted 	from these comments...)

"Those who can, design; those who cannot, are plan examiners"



(I better go hide...)





David L. Fisher  SE  PE
Senior Principal
Fisher + Partners Structural Engineers inc
372 West Ontario
Chicago 60610
 
312.573.1701
312.573.1726 fax
312.622.0409 mobile
www.fpse.com

David L. Fisher  SE  PE
Director
Head of Design and Construction
Cape Cod Grand Cayman Holdings Ltd
75 Fort Street
Georgetown Grand Cayman BWI
mobile 312.622.0409
www.ccgch.com











-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Grinstead [mailto:Gary.Grinstead(--nospam--at)ci.stockton.ca.us]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 11:21 AM
To: T.W.Allen(--nospam--at)cox.net; seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: UBC Live Load Reduction

I've never heard of such an interpretation.  It sounds like the plan
reviewer has never designed a building in his life.


>>> T.W.Allen(--nospam--at)cox.net 05/13/05 9:03 AM >>>
O.K., I realize I haven't worked with the building code for very long
(tongue firmly planted in cheek), but I recently received a set of plan
check comments including one that has caught me off guard.

 

The plan check comment is as follows: "The live load reduction shall not
apply to the footing design." I called the plan reviewer (outside
consultant) to find out the section of the code which states this and he
told me section 1607.4 and 1607.6. I scanned these two sections during
our
telephone conversation and still could not find where it said that I
could
not take a live load reduction for the footing design. He told me that
the
referenced sections stipulate live load reduction for beams and, since
it
does not specifically permit a live load reduction for footings, no
reduction can be made. I hung up (politely) almost in shock and read the
referenced sections again. I know I'm not a good reader (otherwise I
would
be an attorney), but the sections read (to me) "structural members", not
"beams". I thought a footing was a "structural member", but if not, why
did
he not cite columns as well?

 

Anyone else have an interpretation?

 

TIA,

 


T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)


ALLEN DESIGNS


Consulting Structural Engineers


 <http://www.allendesigns.com/> http://www.AllenDesigns.com


V (949) 248-8588

..

F (949) 209-2509

 



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