Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Level of Detailing

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

And on the other end of the scale………….

 

I received “structural” drawings for a small 3 riser maintenance stair providing access from one flat roof to an adjacent flat roof. The drawings were prepared by an architect. There were 4 drawings 34 x 44.

 

Rather than use a conventional channel stringer, he detailed small supports comprised of a 3/8 rectangular plate flanged on all 4 sides with ½ x4 flat bar. Each flange had 4 holes in it. At each side of and in the middle of the stair there was one of these frames under the first tread, 2 under the second and 3 under the third. They were all bolted to each other with galvanized bolts and galvanized acorn nuts with plastic caps on the bolt heads and acorn nuts to prevent corrosion. The stair was 9 feet wide so it had to have 3 handrails.

 

Instead of standard stair treads, he called for grating panels thet were wrapped in inverted 1 ½ x 1 ½ angle all around the perimeter. The toe of the horizontal leg of the angle was to be machined to a ¼” radius to eliminate a tripping hazard…………………………………

 

Regards,

Dave Lowen

V 519 587 5797

F 519 587 5138

E jatech(--nospam--at)kwic.com


From: Will Haynes [mailto:gtg740p(--nospam--at)gmail.com]
Sent: August 12, 2006 3:02 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Level of Detailing

 

I would like to give an example of what I think is a "1" is also.

 

There is an engineer I worked with who mass produced, designing several large projects at the same time. It was more of a small sweatshop type environment so he was highly regarded. He was also smart and had codes memorized. He could look at member sizes and tell you if they worked or not, and how high you could go with a concrete moment frame and still meet drift limits. But, I sometimes think he border lined on negligent (having 2 detail sheets for a large project that were not even full). The details he did have were less than "detailed" and just had lots of CYA notes on his plans. Also, sometimes he would get caught by a contractor who would not do anything without sending an RFI, or a building department that would consistently reject his drawings. But, he almost always came in substantially under budget and he never had any failures or even significant serviceability issues that I was aware of.

 

On 8/12/06, dave lowen <jatech(--nospam--at)kwic.com> wrote:

Time to get on my soapbox again.

 

On Will's scale, drawings rated 5 would be, to my mind ideal. I have seen an ideal set of drawings once in the last 10 years. The remainder have been 1's or less with a couple of 2.5's in there.

 

As for taking on more responsibility, that is akin to being deader. You ARE responsible, period.

 

Regards,

Dave Lowen

V 519 587 5797

F 519 587 5138

E jatech(--nospam--at)kwic.com


From: erik gibbs [mailto: erik.gibbs(--nospam--at)gmail.com]
Sent: August 12, 2006 1:56 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Level of Detailing

 

Although I only graduated in January and have been working at a structural eng company since, I do know where you are coming from. At an internship that I had, the SE was a 9 or 10. Very very detailed. I thought that was good until someone explained that not only are you wasting time and money, but also you take on more responsibility the more detailed that you become.

 

At the company that I work for now, the general acceptance is to produce drawings with a level of detail of about 4 to 5. This is hard for me because I tend to be very meticilious and detailed, but I understand the concept that too much detail may be a bad thing.