Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Field welding

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I don't want to give the impression that just believe that what the
engineer requires is pure "gospel".  If the contract documents require
something that is less that than required by the locally accepted code,
then it is crap not gospel that the engineer (or architect) is requiring.
It must at a minimum meet code requirements (although, code requirements
can be wrong or not necessarily critical...take the masonry issue talked
about today...the commentary admits that there is little factual basis
behind the code provision in question).  Anything beyond the code level
that is on the contract document prepared by the engineer _IS_ gospel so
to speak.  It might be overkill, etc, but if that is what the engineer
requires, then that is what must be provided by contract (unless both
parties agree to lessen the contractural requirements at a latter date).

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, David Maynard wrote:

> I tend to agree with Scott on this one.  For a given project, what the EOR
> reports is gospel, whether it be right or wrong.  And if there is a
> conflict, the specs as shown in the contract documents trump all.  Or so I
> understand things.
>
> And as for halving the allowables, this, I believe, is simply an engineer
> putting a safety factor into a procedure that has a great chance of coming
> in under qualified.  According to this spec, I would assume that the EOR
> would like to have twice as much field welding as needed by analysis.  I am
> also going to assume that the spec writer meant to say "strengths" rather
> than "stresses."  I could be wrong, and in that case, I would stop assuming
> everything and get answers directly from the horses mouth.
>
> Finally, I would never write a spec like this as there is a potential to
> conflict the AWS D1.1.  Therefore, my specs always read, in short, welders
> and inspectors shall have proper AWS certification and shall be as called
> out on the plans and performed in accordance with the AWS.
>
> ...because, that's how I roll.  Others may roll differently.
>
> Dave Maynard, PE
> Gillette, Wyoming
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/92 - Release Date: 9/7/2005
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********