Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Architect cheating on structural calculations - where's the building depa...

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

When a plan checker  checks the loading, load combinations, member inputs, boundary conditions and unity corresponds with code requirements & engineering principles  there is a big value.


From: ASQENGG2(--nospam--at) [mailto:ASQENGG2(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 10:14 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: Architect cheating on structural calculations - where's the building depa...


Normally mistakes are done in the drafting side.  Not all mistakes are seen by the EOR and that is where the plan checkers are needed to check and make sure that the calculations jibe with the drawings.  If the plan checker will not do his job thoroughly then what's the use of plan checking then?  EOR is not always perfect but mistakes are eliminated if the EOR and plan checker do as much as they can to contribute in eliminating those mistakes.  It is not a good idea that EOR get all the blames when mistakes occurred.  If this is the case, then the plan checker will not thoroughly check the plans because if there are mistakes it's not his responsibility anyway.  Again what is the use of plan checker in this case? Why spent time to plan check drawings you are not responsible for any mistakes anyway.  This should be team effort to reduce errors.


ASQuilalaJr., P.E. 



In a message dated 12/05/05 10:38:26 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, SAcharya(--nospam--at) writes:

Just curious where the engineering firm (EOR) who designed the unsafe building is based in?

Suresh Acharya, S.E.

>>> ASLCSE(--nospam--at) 12/5/2005 9:45:53 AM >>>
Yes I did read it ..they do have Building Departments over there, but 

There are Building Deptartments here too, unfortunately the one in San 
, CA farms out its structural plan check to a private firm. I  redesigned a
project in that city that was previously "ruberstamped" by their  consultant.
There was and still is no doubt in my mind that that  "approved" strcuture
would have collapsed with out the redesign, some mebers had  a safety factor of
0.33, yes 0.3!!!!
(The consultants "excuse" was that the city does not pay him enough, what a 
fine professional!!!)

Antonio S. Luisoni, SE