Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Details

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Dave,

I was rather too quick to send off my message below.  After reading
Charlie Carter's email, I wanted to point out that CSA S16.1,
"Canadian Standard for Steel Structures" has Clause 4.2 "Strucutural
Design Documents" which contains Clause 4.2.2 requirements for the
design documents.  Among the items this includes are:  

(l) The governing combination of shears, moments, axial forces and
torsion to be resisted by the connections;  

(m) The size and location of stiffeners, reinforcement, and bracing
required to stabilize compression elements;  

The failure of your design engineer to indicate the stiffeners 
violates (m) and his lack of forces violates (l).  

I think this makes him guilty of mis-conduct, i.e., failure to obey
all codes and statutes.  He may also be in conflict with the code of
ethics ? failure to co-operate in providing information necessary to
help complete the job.  

Having said all that, many Canadian consultants ignore the above
clauses ? they think that if they give you the dead load and snow
load, they have given enough.  

There have been enough complaints about this that the Professional 
Engineers of Ontario will be addressing the issue in a big meeting in 
February.  You should definitely send your complaint to them.  

My position is that the fabricator cannot include stiffeners, etc., 
in his quote unless the designer shows them or indicates that they 
may be required along with a note including the imposed forces so 
that the fabricator can size them.  

Given the forces on a connection, I can determine whether stiffeners
are required in a few minutes using a spreadsheet I set up.  

Hope this helps,
Gary


On 31 Dec 2005 at 9:18, Gary Hodgson & Associates wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- ---- Your following message has been delivered to the list
>   seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org at 06:20:25 on 31 Dec 2005.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- ----
> 
> 
> Dave
> I am with you on this issue. The Canadian consultants
> are just plain lazy or ignorant.  I have been on both
> sides of the issue-consultant and fabricator. I say that
> no fabricator can bid the job properly unless there is
> at least an indication that stiffeners may be required
> so the fabricator can at least state whether he has
> included them or not.  As a consultant, I find it just
> as easy to design and show them rather than go through
> the later arguments
> Gary
> 
> On 30 Dec 2005 at 21:00, dave lowen wrote:
> 
> > Comments, please.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > When designing 'big box' buildings, engineers sometimes (at least
> > in this area of North America) do not indicate that web stiffeners
> > are required for beams that cantilever over columns. In many
> > cases, stiffeners are not required but the fabricator and detailer
> > have no way of knowing this. Some fabricators and detailers share
> > the view that if you didn't 'call for it', they will not 'quote
> > it' and you will not 'get it'. Beam and column stiffeners are a
> > high priced item and can make or break a bid.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > In discussion with a local engineer, I find his position on the
> > matter is "it is the fabricators responsibility to determine if
> > stiffeners are required and supply them, if needed". His position
> > on this matter is similar to beam/column moment connections; the
> > design of column flange and web stiffeners is also the fabricators
> > responsibility. His thinking is that this area falls under the
> > scope of connection design.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > If the engineering drawings provided loads, I would be inclined to
> > agree with this position but most engineers don't supply them so
> > it is impossible to any calcs. Also, the majority of engineers
> > around here will not provide any loads when asked. I think their
> > insurance providers tell them not to.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > In many states, connection design must accompany the contract
> > documents but for those jurisdictions that do not, what are your
> > views? Do you leave these tasks up to the bidder or fabricator?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Dave Lowen
> > 
> > V 519 587 5797
> > 
> > F 519 587 5138
> > 
> > E jatech(--nospam--at)kwic.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ******
> ****** ******** 


------- End of forwarded message -------

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