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]
I do not think that the EOR should rely at all on the plan checker to catch mistakes - the EOR is responsible for the validity of the design and drawings.  The Plan Checker should only need to confirm that the work is up to par and is code compliant in general - not be expected to catch differences between the calcs and the drawings.  The Plan Checker should have little responsibility regarding the design, unless obvious code violations are ignored. 
 
Since engineers sometimes misinterpret the code requirements, the Plan Checker acts to verify code compliance within the time permitted.  But the EOR remains fully responsible.  This is similar to the fact that the Contractor remains responsible for compliance with the contract documents even though the Engineer reviews shop drawings.  And the Contractor remains responsible for construction even if the Engineer performs field inspections.  These checks are intended as confirmations, not as a transfer of responsibility. 

William C. Sherman, PE
(Bill Sherman)
CDM, Denver, CO
Phone: 303-298-1311
Fax: 303-293-8236
email: shermanwc(--nospam--at)cdm.com

 


From: ASQENGG2(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:ASQENGG2(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 12:14 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
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)ci.alameda.ca.us writes:
Just curious where the engineering firm (EOR) who designed the unsafe building is based in?

Suresh Acharya, S.E.



>>> ASLCSE(--nospam--at)aol.com 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 
Marino, 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