For Review:Engineering Document Submissions 2

[code1]

Dear all,

May I please check with the Engineers in the USA and in Canada, please. I am currently discussing an offer (scope: Process, mech, EIA and equipment for a dryer plant) with a supplier from Canada.

The supplier informed me that he will NOT submit any design calculations to support his design, only a Professional Engineer Stamped Wngineering Drawing. E.g. for a design of a tank (not to ASME), he will provide an endorsed engineering draiwng, but not the calculations to support his design. He informed it is part of his engineering know how and my company does not have access to it, to protect his company's engineering knowledge.

I was like, "Come on, if one goes to Bednar, you can get the design procedures there. I need the calculation to verify your drawing, e.g. weld and thicknesses"

He was like, "Well, I am not going to show another company how to go it. If you wish, you can perform the calculation yourself. I will take out the design package from my offer. You can verify and sign off the calculations yourself".

Is this way Engineers and Companies operate in Canada? (and USA)? I am in Asia now and have worked also in Europe. I have dealt with Clients like Foster Wheeler and Shell as supplier and always provided all calculations. Thanks and regards.

 

[JAE]

rbulsara,

I don't disagree with you that sealing a plan carries responsibility. The responsibility isn't transmitted to me when I seal it, but rather when I do it. The sealing isn't my statement that "I guarantee this design". In many states the seal "says" this:

"I certify that these plans have been prepared by me and that I am a duly licensed engineer in the state of _____"

The seal identifies me as the responsible party, it doesn't make me the responsible party.

Again, I'm splitting hairs here - just making a point (that probably doesn't really need to be made so I apologize for the time I'm wasting).

 

[code1]

Hi all,

The tank is just the simplest example I explained to the Supplier where the "technical know-how" and value-add is in the open, i.e. any competent engineer can pick up on his/her own. So what is there to be protective/ secretive of?

Of course there are many other process related black box deigns that maybe out of bounds from calculation submissions. And we will respect that.

But a simple mechanical calculation... come on. I can do it with procedures from handbooks/ software calculations.

 

[hokie66]

code1,

If that is the case, why don't you just do your own calculations and only challenge his design if you think it is deficient?

Provision of calculations to support a design, unless it is required by law in a given jurisdiction, should be strictly a contractual issue. If the terms of the bid require it, then a bid is either conforming or not.

 

[rbulsara]

As hokie said, either you as an engineer do the calc and design the "product" such as a tank in this example and let the vendor build to that.

Or specify an performance and have the vendor take the responsibility of meeting the performance and than let him hire the engineers, etc.

No vendor or mfr is bound to provide his engineering calcs unless required by law or by a provision in the contract.

I have "asked" for calcs for things like a backup battery sizing for a system whose current requirement varies from vendor to vendor. Even that was part of the "spec" not an after thought.

I have had AHU ask for a load calc to justify service sizing, etc. but that is little different than being part of a shop drawings to a potential buyer.

 

[BJC]

Code1
did you ask for weld records on the tank? welder qualifications? certifications on materials?
If you don't need any of that or calculations why not just put out a spec for some good old boys to build you a tank?
Just say you want a round tank, no holes, shiney metal etc.
If you don't have his calculations can't you say the welds are right? Did he allow for any overpressurization?
If the guy ain't willing to give you the calcs I wouldn't touch the thing.

 

[Ron]

BJC...but of course it should be in standard format....

Section 000TANK

1.0 General Requirements
A. A round tank
B. Qualifications: At least two good ol' boys and a welder. Big hammer desired but optional.

2.0 Materials
A. Shiny Metal, with some dull spots acceptable
B. Submittals: We don't need no stinkin' submittals

3.0 Execution
A. Weld the shiny metal together to form a round tank. Don't forget to close the ends.

It's Saturday...what the hell!

 

[JAE]

Ron,
Too much time on your hands?

 

[Ron]

JAE...was writing a specification for remediation of damage at a condo and checked in...just couldn't resist. Who knows...I might even include that one in my spec! Well...maybe not.

 

[JAE]

OK - sort of like this one:
SECTION 030052

Beer Specification

1.02 Reference Standards

1. ASTM B1116-03, Standard Specification for Hops, Barley and other goodies in Beer
2. ASTM B 1399-04, Obtaining Better than Average Residual Taste
3. ASTM B 1609-05, Standard Test Method for Enjoying a Cold One
4. JCI-SF 4, Method of Tests for Bitter Aftertaste in Malt Liquor

2.02 Materials

A. Barley, Hops, Wheat:
1. Grow it and harvest in time to get into the beer brewing process.
2. Do not include any girlie flavors
B. Water
1. Drinkable and clean
C. Other ingredients
1. As needed

3.01 Execution
A. When finished brewing, deliver to store for buyer purchase.
B. Do not break any bottles or dent any cans.
C. Chill beer as close to freezing as possible.
D. Do not allow beer to sit in the sun for any extended period of time.
E. Meet all OSHA safety guidelines when brewing, storing, delivering, selling, drinking, or throwing up the beer.
F. If beer goes flat, contractor to dispose of in a legal manner, preferably outside of vehicles or buildings.
G. Do not open beer bottles with teeth unless trained and licensed to do so.

 

[Ron]

JAE...much better than mine...that's worth including in the condo remediation spec! If you've ever had a condo project, you'll know the need for copious application of beer.

With my extensive testing background, I strive to be good at ASTM B 1609-05. I think I'll go practice one now...

 

[code1]

ASTM C 1609-05, Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam With Third-Point Loading)

ASTM B 609/B 609M Standard Specification for Aluminum 1350 Round Wire, Annealed and Intermediate Tempers, for Electrical Purposes

what a difference a "1" and B/ C Makes...

 

[Ron]

code1...if you follow provision 3.01 C. of JAE's specification, then consume quickly, ASTM doesn't matter!

 

[JAE]

code1 - you are looking at an older version of ASTM. The newer versions have been changed*




*Just another lame excuse when beer is involved.