JAE
Structural
- Jun 27, 2000
- 15,543
This came up on a recent project for one of our repeat clients. They are a governmental organization (U.S.) that has developed a prototype design of a wood framed house with pre-engineered wood trusses, an elevated wood framed floor over a crawlspace and typical spread footings.
Now the prototype plans are 100% fully developed designs and the structural portion includes some general notes that indicate conformance to zone 4 seismic, fairly high wind loading, and 150 psf roof live load. Essentially, good to go for any location in the U.S.
They have asked us for a fee to site-adapt this prototype to a particular location. The location has lower seismic, wind, snow, etc. Soil conditions aren't really an issue at this site. (prototype was designed for minimal bearing capacity and our site is on rock).
The question is this: As an engineer, is it proper for me to TRUST the general notes and the original prototype engineer and assume that the wood studs, lateral resisting system (sheathing), etc. are indeed designed for the indicated loads, or must I actually re-design / re-check every part of the facility.
The client, we are sure, would be stunned to get our fee with the assumption that we had to re-design everything. After all, they already paid someone to create this "adequate-for-all-sites" prototype. I am arguing that I cannot just trust the notes....I must re-design/check everything. Others are arguing that there is a middle ground where I can spot check critical items and call it good.
I insist that we are totally liable for it all, despite what has been done before, and that we are taking a risk if we simply trust the notes.
What do you think?
Now the prototype plans are 100% fully developed designs and the structural portion includes some general notes that indicate conformance to zone 4 seismic, fairly high wind loading, and 150 psf roof live load. Essentially, good to go for any location in the U.S.
They have asked us for a fee to site-adapt this prototype to a particular location. The location has lower seismic, wind, snow, etc. Soil conditions aren't really an issue at this site. (prototype was designed for minimal bearing capacity and our site is on rock).
The question is this: As an engineer, is it proper for me to TRUST the general notes and the original prototype engineer and assume that the wood studs, lateral resisting system (sheathing), etc. are indeed designed for the indicated loads, or must I actually re-design / re-check every part of the facility.
The client, we are sure, would be stunned to get our fee with the assumption that we had to re-design everything. After all, they already paid someone to create this "adequate-for-all-sites" prototype. I am arguing that I cannot just trust the notes....I must re-design/check everything. Others are arguing that there is a middle ground where I can spot check critical items and call it good.
I insist that we are totally liable for it all, despite what has been done before, and that we are taking a risk if we simply trust the notes.
What do you think?