Dimensions on structural drawings... 7

[cva1993r]

Hello all,

My question pertains to structrural engineers refusing to show dimensions such as gridline spacing (column spacing), beam spans e.t.c...on the strucutral drawings "because these are shown on the architectural drawings".

There are SOME design standards referenced in the Building Code (CANADA) where it is CLEARLY stated that the STRUCTURAL design documents should indicate the critical dimensions. Other design standards however do not specifically mention that the STRUCTURAL docs, should depict these dimensions.

I am concerned that if the architect were to make a dimensional change and not inform the strucutral engineer, then the engineer would have nothing to "fall on" as his drawings would not be indicating the (max. aloowable) design spans.

I am of the opinion (in this day and age with the help of CAD software), that the strucutral drawings SHOULD include the basic dimensions as these would also be required by the fabricators to prepare shop drawings.

Your thoughts for and/or against my argument are most welcome.

Thank you,

CVA1993

 

[mjohan]

This was sent to me in an email.

I thought this thread would enjoy it.

...
Subject: "A Few Good Men"

CAST:

Structural Engineer: Jack Nicholson
Architect: Tom Cruise

Structural Engineer: You want answers?

Architect: I think I'm entitled to them.

Structural Engineer: You want answers?!

Architect: I want the truth!

Structural Engineer: You can't HANDLE the truth!!

Son, we live in a world that has HOLDOWNS, I-BEAMS AND COLUMNS. And those PIECES OF STRUCTURE have to be LOCATED AND SIZED PROPERLY. Who's gonna DESIGN THEM? You? You, MR. ARCHITECT? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for LOST PARKING SPACES and you curse the SIZE OF MY ELEMENTS. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that THOSE STRUCTURAL MEMBERS, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that DESIGN TEAM. You need me on that DESIGN TEAM. We use words like DESIGN, CODE, ANALYSIS...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent PROVIDING CLIENT SAFETY AND BUILDING STABILITY. You use 'em as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain my DESIGN to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very STABILITY I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a CALCULATOR and CODE BOOK and DESIGN a STRUCTURAL SYSTEM. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Architect : Did you OVERSIZE THE SUPPORT BEAMS AND ADD TOO MANY HOLDOWNS?

Structural Engineer : (quietly) I did the job you HIRED me to do.

Architect : Did you OVERSIZE THE SUPPORT BEAMS AND ADD TOO MANY HOLDOWNS?!!

Structural Engineer : You're 'goshdarn' right I did!!

 

[cva1993r]

mjohan for PREZ !!!!!!!!!!!

cva1993r

 

[connect2]

another 'architect' thingy here ... about dimensioning no less. we are structural engineers, look we establish the 'grid' and design to it, detail and dimension to it. TOS, TOC, is our domain and it's always correct. the foundation plans, including anchor bolt layouts off grid are critically reviewed before we'll release. Never worried about getting my ass in a sling because we've under designed, but always worried about getting my ass in a sling because we've under dimensioned. Anyways it all gets done sooner or latter and we've found sooner is better. Fabricators won't decide, and the 'Architect' just sends us the 'shop' drawings to figure it out in the end anyways ... so go figure. 3+4=7 , 4+3=7 . Changes? ... we'll we figure it into a particular Architects fee, ... you get to know each of them after awhile.