I must ask why EOR's do this crzy stuff/ 34

[Ken62465]

I don't mean to rant here but I must ask the structural engineers out there a few simple questions that are getting on my nerves. First I've been a structural steel detailer for 33years and I've never seen the industry so sad as I do today. May I ask how it is you feel comfortable releasing your design contract drawing without a single dimension, all while the architect has a full blown grid layout? Is this pure laziness or am I missing the reason behind doing this? Today I had enough of seeing this so I stated to the fabricator, who was requesting a price, "Can you imagine I release my shop drawings for fabrication without a single dimension"? Here's another one....I have a small job that's been on going for TWO YEARS and it's now on it's 6th redesign. I finally had enough and being nice I asked the EOR why 2years later we are moving steel to attach to existing col's. His response was, "Because existing conditions did not allow us to sit on the wall as originally planned". My response was, "Aren't you the one that provided the original building design drawings but 2years later you're now realizing this is a problem"? All I heard was.."well...well". I'm sorry but I'd like to do nothing more than form a committee where we can report this. It's my opinion that more than half the engineers today should not have a valid professional license to practice. Not that I want harm for anyone ever but the industry has turned into a disgrace, but my bet says all PE's will have some validation why it is this way...no? Lets see the excuses come.

Funniest one ever that I will never, EVER forget in my lifetime. I was requesting a curb cut for an RTU unit for layout dimensions. The cut sheets I received was about 6 pages long but the cover letter stated, "GAS FIRED CHILLER FRAME". What's wrong with that statement for a roof top unit? I call the fabricator, he believes they sent the wrong package set by mistake. Nope...not so. The EOR designed the roof support for the floor mounted gas unit. Next thing I know is the entire roof is all wrong with a complete redesign, ohh I made them pay dearly for this blunder. The real roof unit had pipe work underneath that required a dunnage system as well, talk about a blunder. I doubled the price out of frustration due to incompetence. Who designs a roof for a gas unit? Turned into quite a joke with the fabricator for months and you all don't realize we bring this up often amongst other trades and your name is not spoke highly of, get there early next job site meeting. I'm sorry but if you can't put a single dimension on your drawings, while the architect can, or you design a roof for a floor mounted gas unit you have no business being a PE!! I don't know what I can do to stop this but I plan to advocate highly that it needs to be corrected. My first phone call is to the attorney general to file a complaint that they need to fix this!

 

[Ken62465]

Was asked to see such a case of no dimensions. Here's one. Not a single dimension on any plan and they all were like this. Not even a set of architecturals accompnaied the structural set. Sorry I'm not posting the title block and naming specific parties that release this work. Job was a no start right off the bat then once the info was provided they discovered gas pipes not known to exist and that now was a year ago and the job died.

Here's another one...been dead for 3 months now while all are still waiting. How do we set schedule not knowing if and when this will come back alive? Then when it does they expect to jump through hoops like we are sitting here doing nothing but waiting for it. I don't know about you guys but I could NEVER release my work without a single plan dimension, never happened nor will it.

People don't think this issue is real?

@Rabbit12 that's ok I don't mind that label one bit. I look at it this way...changes in history started with a voice. Why not one be heard? Staying silent never helps to fix anything does it? Even on the flip side I'm always open to suggestions and ideas to make my own work better and suit the fabricators needs that I work for.

I'd even wager 1 out of the next 3 jobs that comes in will again have no dimensions.

This was never about more money to me for added work. It's about a smooth project and saving time with efficiency, every sub then benefits and the extras that are being passed onto your client for this could be saved. Take that "Gas fired Chiller" problem we encountered. That resulted in an added 8 days to do the roof over and add a galvanized dunnage support system. Those 8 days impacted my schedule, for not just that job but the next inline also paid the price, and I was forced to work many late nights to get back on track. That to me is not worth the extra money because all the fabricator is going to remember is things were late, and I find myself constantly saying, "a contract revision change is not my fault". That particular case should never have happened and the final cost was near double for all trades, was a fiasco and cost the owner dearly. If pushing out the work is a time constraint issue it's only going to cost even more money in the end so is it worth it? Penny wise pound foolish! I'm going to make a rough guess without pulling out my books that 75% of projects have extra charges for design changes, or completed work with added details of unknown steel during bid time. Yet time constraints is more important than costing your customer more money in the end? Maybe I'm living in a fantasy world in thinking this industry could become more efficient. But I fail to believe that change is not possible.

And yes to the comment about the old board drawing days. Honestly those days were faster than 3D modeling we have today as I use Tekla Structures, and happen to be told I'm officially the longest running US user so yes I'm old..lol. Take those two jobs I posted of not a single plan dimension. The old board drawing days we could rough it and fill in dimensions later, it was just a picture back then. That does not work in 3D modelling as you'll only end up doing the job over a 2nd time and this is simply just not done by any detailer I know. The drawings come from the accuracy of the model. I've actually tried a few times stating, "This is the price to get started with no dimensions as is, which means double the price if I have to move everything again once the dimensions are given". There are times when I get the architecturals and find the grid layout system there, which I'll gladly do but here's what the result is...means I'm going to be flipping back and forth and all trades hate the time they waste jumping around looking for info so I add 10% and call this my bullshit factor...lol..sorry that's the truth and all do it. Not putting plan dimensions is only costing more money. Speaking of flipping drawings...I also get structural drawings with little to NO sections at all. Next someone will ask for proof of that one to and I got it! Anyway again we're flipping through architecturals for the info so you just cost your client more money, that bullshit factor. It slows down the process. I'd love to post up one of my completed drawing sets to show how many sections I provide so the erector knows exactly what's happening and all related work he must perform. I even provide a final 3D drawing of the completed project for reference. It's just efficient and how it should be.

 

[MIStructE_IRE]

On this side of the pond engineers do not provide dimensions either since we are not responsible for the set out of the building and that is explicit in our standard schedule of services. Architect provides figured dimensions so contractors need to review ALL drawings.

 

[KootK]

Can't imagine CAD has made drawings worse.

I think that CAD may have indeed made drawings worse. Although, much more so, I blame computers in general. Waxing philosophical:

1) I get the logistical and CYA reasons for not showing dimensions but, in my opinion, that doesn't change the fact that is is much, much nicer to work with a set of properly coordinated and dimensioned structural drawings. The root problem is that we simply don't have time for the coordination. And what's the root cause of that?. Technology I say! You know, in my best Luddite/Amish.

2) CAD robs us of the ability to coordinate drawings because it allows project participants to make last minute changes that are the death of good project management and coordination.

3) The effect of computers is more subtle and nefarious. Imagine work flow akin to a river passing by you. Inevitably, there will be log jams that will mess with the flow and create backlogs. And, obviously, a higher flow rate will produce larger backlogs. Before computers, work flow was much slower than it is today. Therefore, backlogs were much smaller than they are now and the human labor required to clear them was less. Nowadays, our backlogs are much greater in scale than they used to be, requiring great amounts of human labor to clear. It is this, I believe, that is the root cause of our perpetual time crunches that rob us of our ability to properly coordinate our work. The flow of work is just so fast now that inevitable glitches bury us mercilessly.

4) Fundamentally, I think that this all ties back to our inability to use technology properly as a species. At the time of the invention of the cotton ginny, it was predicted that we'd soon be lying around all day drinking margaritas while machines did our work for us. Instead, we now work more than ever it seems, and under incredible stress. Our tendency towards greed has led us down the path of working as fast as we possibly can, no matter what, rather than holding our needs constant and using technology to simply see those needs satisfied less laboriously. We're pissing in our own pool in this regard. We're all blaming one another for this and that's fitting given that we're all to blame.

In a perfect world, I think that somebody should be able to generate structural fabrication drawings from my structural drawings alone.

 

[dauwerda]

I want to write a big long response to this as others have done, but don't have time right now because I am busy dimensioning some of my drawings

I do see dimensions on both of those drawings though...

 

[structSU10]

In my neck of the woods we dimension our plans always. Sometimes the architect doesn't dimension things other than room layouts. We always work with the architect to lay out the grids, tend to both show them on plans. At the end of the day the structure is built first, so it makes sense that grid dimensions are indicated on the structurals to me.

 

[Ken62465]

@MIStructE_IRE well on this side of the pond the AISC states in the "Code of Standard Practice"....

"structural steel design plans clearly showing the work to be performed and giving the size, section, material grade and location of all members, floor levels, column centers and offsets".

The two pictures I posted violate that. Beams framing a stairwell, almost no eor gives these dimensions but the above states "location of all members". Another violation. Then during submittal I'll try to figure out their location from the architecturals and finish work but I'm not responsible for this and I always state "PLEASE VERIFY" with a clouded flag. The drawings almost always are returned ignoring this.

I know one PE very well and he's on here, been waiting for his call on my post..lol. He's an exception and always provides plan dimensions and locates beams framing opening. I seldom have to hound him for info but he also knows the "Code of Standard Practice" like the back of his hand and I'll bet his response would be, "It's our job to provide dimensions".

 

[Ken62465]

@structSU10 agreed! Just curious..do you also provide dimensions for beams framing floor opening? Roof rtu I consider a whole different animal and it was mentioned about that. Those units are settled on so late in the game it's just how that is, wish that could be changed as well. I'm usually doing drop in roof frames sometimes after the project is in the shop. I'm mainly asking about floor framed opening for stairwells, chase etc. Some dimension these but most do not leaving us to guess and figure it out, something I tell the fabricator that if I must layout this stuff I'm not responsible for it is my opinion and the AISC supports my statement.

 

[Ken62465]

@dauwerda if you see column centerline dimensions on those drawings that satisfies the AISC spec...then you're a god. They don't exist

 

[Ron247]

this all ties back to our inability to use technology properly

I agree 100%. I remember the carbon paper days before photocopiers existed. I worked at a place where there was an original and 3 carbons. The 3rd carbon barely legible. You had to be someone to get one of the 3 carbons available. If not, do without and we did quite fine. Along comes the Xerox as we called it an wow, everyone all of a sudden needs a copy. I worked with people that had to have a copy of anything that crossed their desk. I began to see a copier as creating work at times. I also have seen Engineers walk 30' past the copier to get the secretary to make them a single page copy and bring it to them later. I always made my own copy. Felt really sorry for the secretary. The copier increased their work load.

Ken, I see the 2 drawings you submitted and agree it would be far easier to detail the parts if someone had dimensioned the drawings more. But I do see dimensions in both drawings. I was mainly curious about not a single dimension but now you are saying a single plan dimension. Now that I have seen. But if someone has to spend time dimensioning the drawing, so be it. I do not design the beam length to the 1/16", I design it to a 3" multiple generally. So minor changes can occur and it does not change my design.

 

[Ken62465]

@Ron247 in my first post I did use the term "grid layout". But to be clear dimensions I'm meaning what every steel detailer will say is priority we need to even get started....the grid layout, or column centers. I honestly think that would have jumped out at anyone looking at those pics cause it's the first thing jumps out at me.

Ahh wait a minute..my bad. The first pic I posted the fabricators bid set he sent me. Take note the red dimensions...doesn't look like part of the contract set does it? It's because it's the fabricators bid scale dimension for pricing he marked up the pdf. Nobody even detected something fishy there? lol. Even the yellow is his take off for connection material. Take out what is obviously not part of those contract drawings and look at it again.

 

[MIStructE_IRE]

I would have no difficulty providing tyem - IF architects would stop changing stuff without telling us.

Two parties providing the same dimension when only one of those parties dictates the dimension, will inevitably lead to a discrepancy.

 

[Ron247]

The entire project is supposed to be a team effort and we should all improve it where we can. The Code of Practice looks like a good place for a legal argument LOL.

"Structural steel designs plans" does not necessarily mean the structural engineers drawing must contain ALL information. A simple note such as "See architectural drawings for dimensions" would allow the use of those drawings to get dimensions even by the Code of Practice.

There is no way for the structural engineer's drawing to reflect "ALL" requirements even though the Code of Practice says this. All requirements would include what is being detailed.

See the highlighted parts of the attached Code of Practice to about section 3.2 for excerpts related to this.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://res.cloudinary.com/engineering-com/image/upload/v1562967202/tips/code-of-standard-practice-june-15-2016_Highlight-Copy_zyo1fj.pdf[/url]

 

[Ron247]

Ken; thanks for clearing up the first drawing. I looked at it and thought, "geez, I think this guy can't see the color red". LOL But I see what you are talking about.

 

[mtu1972]

Early in my career I worked on Architectural projects, long before CAD. As projects neared completion the Architect had coordination meetings where all disciplines exchanged and reviewed drawings. Our drawings were reviewed, commentated on, and returned to us to clear up before the bid sets were sent out.

Since the late 70’s I was primarily on industrial projects. I agree with canwesteng that we always included dimensions on our structural drawings. We had Architects in house and provided those drawings as well, often by the same drafters.

I retired as the transition to 3D CAD modeling was coming into play. So I have no idea how that has changed drawing sets.

gjc

 

[BUGGAR]

I would suggest you explore design-build. It's a different world, of course, with its own problems; but without a lot of the bits you mention.

 

[Ken62465]

@Ron247 to quote what you said "structural engineers drawing must contain ALL information"...now look at what I typed directly from the AISC book, in short and related to yours "location of all members". May I ask why that got changed from what I said? I'm not trying to be snotty to you Ron just factual because it looked taken out of context of what I said. Location of member to me would mean if there are beams framing out a stairwell please put dimensions locating these members, again most do not provide this. What almost always compounds the problem is if we ask on the submittal for "PLEASE PROVIDE" it's almost always ignored. I could post up plenty of returned approvals with tons of ignored LEGITIMATE information requests. Here's one and I'd honestly like an engineers opinion because imo it's a legitimate request. Take a brickshelf system. Do you provide an in/out dimension and elevation? Most don't and I'll hunt through the architecturals..count up brick courses...flip drawings and find window layout dimensions. When submittal time comes I always ask to verify the dimensions that "I" came up with. This is a highly ignored question. I swear the architect does not even look at approvals with the no comments and no stamp I see very often from them. Then the fabricator has to start chasing it because imo I asked for the info so what more am I to do but alert the fabricator we don't have these dimensions, or verified cases? If this is angering people the only view I can come to on that striking a nerve is, "I don't want to do that work"...and there lies the underlying problem and how it snowballs down into other trades, costing more money, and delaying job progress.

Yes that first pic I just recalled the job and clipped a quick snip and forgot all about the fabricator marking up the pdf for his own bid. I'll tell you this much, I had a laugh with him after he emailed that job over and did ask he stop sending me his take off version and send me the original unmarked pdf. Underneath some of his little yellow markings are moment connections..how'd he think I was going to know they were there? Could have been bad news had I not deleted a couple to see what was underneath. Called it a day and picked up the phone to please give me a proper drawing.

BUGGAR..I've done a whole bunch of design builds. They have there good and bad as well, usually nice clean box type jobs that I end up also doing lt ga. girts for. Mostly owner/architect changing stuff late in the game, and that comment was made by another and it's a valid one. The engineer I mentioned a few posts ago...worked with him on a number of design builds and he's one we each pick up the phone and call the other and we get stuff done, we don't do RFI's and usually my submittal set to him seldom contains a "PLEASE PROVIDE", that is a reflection of his own workmanship. Yes he does provide brickshelf in/out dimensions and elevations when the job contains such. I don't think I've ever had to call him for missing beam location dimensions, if I have it's surely the smallest count ever.

 

[dauwerda]

First, my previous post was mostly meant in jest and you and Ron already hashed out what dimensions my comment was referring to.

Second,
I truly understand your frustration, I've found myself going through drawings thinking the same things. On the flip side I was part of a project in an industrial plant where the structural steel and foundation drawings were all dimensioned out as you would like to see them, so we're the general arrangement drawings, the GA's had a few incorrect dimensions. Things were built off of the GA. Major field modifications had to be made. Had only one set of drawings (the controlling drawings) been dimensioned, this mistake could not have been made. A 10% BS markup is much less to pay than the cost of major field modifications and redesigns.

In a perfect world we would have time to completely finish a design before any bid or even construction drawings are issued. In the real world, designs will always be from the top down and construction will be from the bottom up. Clients paying the bill are not willing to wait for a design to be completed before they start permitting and building. They secure a loan to build and start paying interest, they want their project completed yesterday so they can have revinue coming in, not going out. They view the completion date of a project being moved up by weeks or months (by ordering steel off of incomplete drawings due to lack of information/decisions on equipment and material finishes, for example) as being much more cost effective than ironing out a complete design (to avoid mistakes and cost markups for BS drawings) before starting the building process.
That is at least what I have been told by thd people holding the checkbook.

 

[human909]

As somebody who has worked in detailing I agree with many aspects in this rant. But at the same time it was a pretty ranty rant that didn't look at the bigger picture. There are sometimes very good reasons structural engineers don't include dimensions. In many projects this is for the architects, you don't want conflicting numbers so this is avoided by not giving any.

But in the majority of the professions you get the skilled and the not so skilled. Though one the whole this forum is probably populated by skilled professional engineers and some novice/student engineers. The duds don't spend their free time on engineering forums!

 

[hawkaz]

As was stated previously, dimensions can be a litigious issue. I had a project many years ago where the architect changed the overall building dimension by 2" without letting me know. I had the building dimensioned out, so my plans and his no longer matched. All subs except the floor tile installer had no problem with this. The tile guy made a big stink, and the architect had to come out of pocket to pay for it. Since then, that architect does not allow any of his consultants to include dimensions that he is already showing.

For the question about brick shelves, I gather you are referring to brick veneer over an opening or at elevated floor levels. Most of what governs the dimensions is architectural (brick veneer itself is architectural- not structural). What is the backer, insulation, air gap... none of this impacts the structural design in a significant manner. We can get an approximation for our support designs, but the exact dimensions should come from the architect.

 

[BridgeSmith]

Many times, it seems there is a large gap between what some people would like to see on the structural drawings and what is needed on those drawings. From what I'm reading in this thread, it seems that to avoid discrepancies, many dimensions are only shown on the architectural drawings, not out of laziness on the part of the structural engineer, but because it's not the responsibility or within the purview of the structural engineer to specify those dimensions. If the structural engineer's part is to size the beam and decide how it is connected to the columns, and not to dictate whether the distance between the columns is 25' - 2 3/8" or 25' - 4 1/4", then dimensioning the exact length is not his job. As long as the beam and the connections are strong enough for a 26' span (in case the architect decides to change a wall thickness somewhere along the way), then the structural engineer has done his job in that instance.