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!

 

[Ron247]

May I ask why that got changed from what I said?

Ken, I made a statement of my own, I was not quoting you, "misquoting you" or taking it out of context. It was my own statement.

"Structural steel designs plans" does not necessarily mean the structural engineers drawing must contain ALL information.

The above is my statement and the words "structural steel design plans" is in one of the versions of the Code of Practice.

I know you are frustrated but I NEVER took your statements out of context, edited them etc. You went from missing dimensions to non-structural complaints to complaints about not getting RFI responses. I understand all that too. You also cited the Code of Practice, I just cited passages that showed that not all information had to be on the structural drawings. Also, the Code of Practice is not a law, so no need for the Attorney General.

Also, I have gotten many RFI that I responded to with the drawing number and location of the information. In other words, the person requesting the information failed to see it on the drawing. I guess I could rant about that but then again we all make that mistake.

I think I am done with this thread.

 

[BridgeSmith]

Maybe before ranting about structural engineers being too lazy to dimension their drawings, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the responsibilities of the various disciplines involved. As a structural detailer, perhaps you should also familiarize yourself with your own responsibilities. To my understanding, the exact dimensions for structural components would be details and therefore the responsibility of the structural detailer to take the required beam sizes, etc. and detail and dimension them according to the architectural drawings. Forgive me if my understanding of the architectural design process is in error; it's a different world than what we do in bridge design.

In our office, we engineers often check the details, so we often calculate (typically in a spreadsheet that gets reused over and over) and include many of the detailing dimensions in our designs and design sketches to facilitate checking the details. Of course, in our work there are no other discplines (architectural, mechanical, etc.) to coordinate with, other than the road designers, and sometimes the Geology guys, but there's little required coordination on that front.

In the past, for things like crossframes between girders, we would calculate the approximate unbraced lengths of the members in order to design them, and give the detailers the member sizes, but no lengths. They would draw them up to scale and dimension them. If an engineer checked the details, they would spot check the dimensions using trig, but that was about as far as it went. The squad leader (the engineer sealing the detail sheets) would check the details against the design to ensure, among other things, that the final member lengths were equal to or less than the lengths used for design. Rebar layouts were and still are the responsibility of the detailers, based on the required number of bars required by our designs.

 

[NorthCivil]

Ken62465 my mate,

Engineers, like all people make mistakes. I'm sure you did as well as a junior, when fresh faced out of drafting school.

after 33 years in industry, I would expect that you have accumulated a lot of experience and are able to execute projects smoothly, though of course you aren't always on a project team with the same level of experience, and things don't always go as smoothly as you like.

Not sure why this sparks this much anger in you though - instead of getting upset, you should try to help the young engineers out. I sure would appreciate a few pointers from a grey-bearded steel detailer.

perhaps try reading or listening to some Eckhart Tolle, or Sadhguru, I find they help me find some calm, I have a bit of a hot temper as well, though its not a pleasant trait. No sense letting your blood boil over something rather than trying to create positive change.

cheers

 

[darthsoilsguy2]

We work on a lot of historic preservation. Often times, old buildings aren't plumb or square and are covered up by multiple layers of finishes. To handle this appropriately we size the structural members based on being within a few feet of the span, but the actual members need to be fabricated to correct length to meet the connection/support detail. We put +/- on the plans with a note to field verify. The contractor doing the work needs to measure and supply the dimension and needs to carry all cost to investigate and it only makes sense to do this after the demolition of finishes has been done. It is not the job of the steel fabricator's shop detailing to get those dimensions.

New structural construction is straight forward. those should have dimensions

New structural support for HVAC is problematic. Equipment support can't be fabricated until MEP is vetted out. Too often there is substitution of equipment. Structural Egrs get information on the equipment late from MEP and it often changes during the construction phase.

 

[XR250]

Just listened to Eckhart Tolle - "The Pain Body" a few days ago. Pretty interesting.

 

[fel3]

I'm a civil, not a structural, but I was the civil EOR for quite a few building projects including four full prisons, a bunch of prison expansions, several industrial sites, etc. The building grid usually didn't matter a lot to me because I mostly just needed the foundation perimeter(s), exterior doors and stoops, utility connections, and exterior equipment pads. However, for the industrial projects it mattered a lot because some of the building grids extended out into the "civil space" to align one or more equipment structures with one or more nearby buildings so that overhead pipe racks and piping would work. Regardless, for all these projects I was fully involved in the multi-discipline coordination and I got to see how the different architects coordinated with the other disciplines.

Several of the architects I have worked with over the years (but not all of them) have a standard practice to create a master building control xref for use by all disciplines. (This was back when everyone worked in their own drawings; now some teams work in the same drawings using Revit, but I have never done this.) This xref includes the foundation perimeter, structural grid, exterior doors and stoops, a date stamp in model space (for revision control), and a few other items.

The most important thing about this xref that is relevant to this thread is that it also includes grid dimensions, foundation dimensions, and any offsets from the grid to the foundation perimeter. By having this information in a single xref, each discipline can include what they need in their drawings. For example, I would show the overall foundation dimensions and usually freeze the grid dimensions and sometimes the grid lines. Structural, plumbing, etc. would show the grid lines and usually the grid dimensions, thus mostly addressing the OP's concern. If the building footprint and/or grid changed, the architect would send out a new xref with the appropriate explanations, then the other disciplines would update their drawings. By keeping the dimensions in one xref, as long as everyone used the current version (hence the date stamp), there was never a problem with grid dimension conflicts between disciplines. Also, when the grid dimensions were shown by other disciplines, we always add a note that the dimensions in the architectural drawings governed in the event of a conflict (this would only have occurred if one of the disciplines had not used the current xref, but it never happened on my projects).

==========
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

 

[NorthCivil]

XR250

"a new earth - awakening" by eckhart tolle changed my perspective quite a lot - I cant recommend a single book any more than that one

 

[CrabbyT]

I work as a structural engineer, and I always encourage our guys to dimension things in such a way that the contractors will actually be able to make the measurements.

For instance, I've encouraged my coworkers to not dimension off the column CL if the column is embedded in a wall. If it's in a wall, you can't put a tape on it. Instead, just use the wall as a datum.

There are times when dimensions do more harm than good in terms of conveying intent and proper placement. Recently, we showed some dimensions on a drawing to locate a large tank. The idea was to position the tank and some temporary shoring posts such that they were directly over existing beams. The dimensions were based on existing drawings and couldn't be field verified during the design phase. The contractor held to the dimension without realizing the intent, and if I hadn't seen it in the field, the shoring posts would have been on the slab instead of the beams. The slab wasn't thick enough to support the loads, and the tank might've wound up on the floor below had we not caught it in time.

 

[NorthCivil]

CrabbyT

Your example is exactly why I do not dimension any drawings. I draw to scale, include a reference to the scale, and that's it.

If you want a tank directly over a beam, a better way to accomplish that is a big note on the plans "PLACE TANK DIRECTLY OVER BEAM BELOW"

More straightforward no?

 

[JStephen]

I was just killing some time on YouTube on this unrelated video, the topic being French battleships of the late 1800/ early 1900's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ygXLnRAm-A

And curiously, a lot of modern day complaints seem to have been happening then, too. By the time one of the ships was completed, it rode a foot lower in the water than originally intended due to design changes made while it was in construction. Drawings for one of the ships showed over 500 changes made during construction. At one point, they were building 4 different battleships of similar size on a "design build" basis, so four different shipyards designed/built four different ships.

 

[MrHershey]

Someone suggested calling the EOR directly. I have had mixed results with that. About half of them are happy to talk to me and the other half freak out and tell me to go through the contractor.

Will circle back to this one since I had a similar conversation with a subcontractor the other day. This is something I really don't understand from some EORs. I have no idea why structural engineers wouldn't want to talk to detailers, who are probably the most critical people on the entire construction team in terms of making sure the structural intent gets faithfully executed in the field. If they screw up, it's likely to go unquestioned all the way through the rest of the construction process as most people in the field are looking almost exclusively at the shop drawings and only open up my set when they're not sure about something.

Most of the questions detailers have are relatively simple clarifications that can be cleared up real quick over the phone. Not like they won't ask the question if you don't talk to them direct, they'll just submit an RFI and now I've got paperwork and a fun game of telephone through a bunch of different hands to answer a question that could have been answered in a matter of minutes. Not like there's less liability, instead there's now RFIs out there that even a crappy lawyer would know to use as support for my designs being unclear or incomplete.

Edit: To clarify, using RFIs to support my designs being unclear on incomplete may not have much merit as an argument, depends on the RFI content. But even a bad lawyer would still try and tie them together.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

MrHershey: The process I've used often with the local DOT and the EORs on bridge and culvert projects has been to call the EORs directly with simple questions with the understanding that I will follow up with a formal RFI if we feel it's warranted. For example; asking for the intent of some note or detail would be done over the phone and no RFI submitted if it was a simple question (but generally the responses are documented on our end). But, asking if we can change a major component to something else would also be done over the phone initally, and if the answer was "no" then we'd not waste an RFI generally. But if they approved preliminarily then we start working on a detail and send out an RFI as normal. Keeps everything running smoothly and efficiently but keeps the paper trail intact and all parties benefit by smoother communication.

Ian Riley, PE, SE
Professional Engineer (ME, NH, VT, CT, MA, FL, CO) Structural Engineer (IL, HI)

 

[Ken62465]

Little late getting back here as I initially figured I said what I had to say and leave it at that...but I've returned for the foolish comments and a good laugh. Now here's one


Here's the last weeks fun adventure since I've been gone, and I'm kind enough to leave names out.

1.) small $500. job I didn't want but as a favor to an old time fab friend I helped him out...4 revs later and 7 working days total. First rev was comical. eor had the only 3 beams on the job projecting 3" above the ramp area based on his given TOS. change all beams, add a post column in and to floor below and cut beams to avoid ramp...now GC is tweakin he's got to demo the floor below because eor wants it supported by existing structure.

2.) Cleanest job I swear I ever saw...I was praising it when it came in for bid and wanted it badly. Submittal comes back and mezz is 6" to low...wth I said and studied to see where I went wrong, not my mess up. I match the structural given TOS exactly! Architect and eor do not match. You guys don't really believe it's our job to check your stuff do you? I tell them this is not my problem and I detailed it in accordance to the structurals I was given first and foremost so I expect to be paid to raise it. Generally is not to bad to do so but when you involve bracing and manual modeled ugly moments...ahh that's a bit of work. Yall can't even get your drawings in sync is a riot yet blame others for it, ohh it's part of approval process..what an ass! I challenge that inn court with a document say what TOS is. Fab shop agreed to pay me my time to fix it and claimed they're going after them for it...so be it and I don't care nor my fight. Ohh gets worse...moment I start the mezz rev shop calls to say the eor has a column they need out...umm what that SOB supports the mezz and roof with a brace bay. Now new column added and roof beam upsized to a w36x210 for the span, moment on one end only..ha? Nobody wants to tell me why...they know me and I'm all over these fucks ups because I DO NOT MAKE THEM, NOR RELEASE TO MY PAYING CUSTOMER THAT WAY FOR FAB, PERIOD.

3.) $2k job...reno and it's an ugly mess. Drawings come back from approval and the entire canopy is wrong they claim...see section blah blah. I call the fab shop and tell them, "no, his 10'6" dimension to eave now do math to his 4'-6" vertical dimension I'm a dead match, so what is that lope angle? lol..was a riot..mile off but they want a given pitch but give rise and run to work off and claim it's no good.

Yall keep making excuses but here's one I'll challenge any and fact I can prove. 350 ton job in Boston, MA...not a single touch pulled out...ever! 450+ shops and 17 framing plans all done with Tekla Structures, I did to the eor's 8 contract drawings. He couldn't even get page one boiler plates right and his general notes claiming fireproofing...didn't exit and when questioned was told, "Ohh that's a boiler plate you can ignore that"..freakin riot! I can not image saying on my shops, "Galv. all steel" then making a lame claim it's a boiler plate and can be ignored....lol..I got many more I'll place against any of you, hands down! Boiler plates are BS and stop doing it! Better yet you realize the average detailer does how many more drawings than you? lets see in that case 8 vs. 450+ you couldn't hold a candle! But you will sure justify it so let it roll as it only tells me the guilty...lol.

 

[Guest262653]

We all have "horror" stories with other structural and geotechnical engineers, local authorities, MEP engineers, architects, bakers, butchers, bus drivers (and even drafters, can you even imagine?). Certainly some people have horror stories about me as well but they have been kind enough to not tell me straight in the face how dumb I was and helped me correct my mistakes.

I've learned from my mentors to always assume that the people I work with are all properly qualified and that they know what they are doing, unless proven otherwise. If they aren't, I try to help to make the process go smoother for everyone and not complain how incompetent they are.

We all have our bad days and I just hope that mine don't result in anyone getting hurt. If a drafter (or anyone) spots an error, I'd be really glad that he could just warn me and not lose his time with a public rant. Our activity is much more important than anyone's feeling of self worth.

 

[CANPRO]

Ken, I am an engineer working for a steel fabricator. I work closely with detailers - they're a sharp bunch and deal with a lot of crappy uncoordinated drawings, I won't disagree with you on that part. The first thing they do is review all drawings, identify missing and conflicting information and send in a list of RFI's/clarifications. They do this in a very professional manner and the job moves on - its just part of the game. With all do respect, you come across as confrontational and condescending. The fact that you can take sub-standard contract drawings and turn them into workable fabrication drawings adds value to what you do. I don't like working with garbage drawings, but I don't like working with condescending jerks either - sounds like you need to take a chill pill and just keep up the good work.

 

[Coty]

Ken, I hope you and all detailers are better at detailing steel projects than an engineer, because while that’s most of what a detailer does, that’s only a small part of an engineers job. It’s easy to sit back and blame a collective group for the errors of individuals, but realize that’s a poisonous way to perceive the world. Instead of staying jaded, realize that buildings are designed by engineers of all experience and skill levels. Most engineers don’t make money having perfect drawings.

 

[Settingsun]

For some reason, I'm reminded of a tv scene where two characters were deciding whether various people they knew were wankers or tossers.

 

[dold]

@EngineerMary
@MrHershey
I tend to agree that a lot of RFIs could be easily handled over the phone. Totally doable if you're working on just a few projects. But currently we have about 20+ projects in various stages of construction between two engineers. If i had a nickel for every time a contractor or detailer called me... It gets overwhelming, to the point where you have to kindly tell them ALL QUESTIONS MUST COME THROUGH THE CLIENT IN A FORMAL RFI. We will get to it, typically within a day or two, we promise. You are one of 30 people who all think their project is top priority, and it is hard to explain that, since all of our projects are with the same client, it is essentially first come first serve. I have days where I get absolutely ZERO design work done and only address RFIs and other admin paperwork. It is a lot to keep up with.

We had a contractor who was absolutely relentless and would call every single day as soon as he perceived there might be a slight hiccup - typically the result of his inability to read a set of drawings (ahem...). He shit a brick when we hit him with $5k in admin fees. Luckily we had every single phone call and email documented and provided the client with a detailed list of these 'unauthorized' interactions. Client laughed and made him pay up. This is precisely why our contracts forbid construction admin outside of the chain of command.

That said, I enjoy talking to subcontractors. I like to pick their brain, figure out better details, etc. But time simply does not permit in most cases.

 

[Celt83]

...I match the structural given TOS exactly! Architect and eor do not match. You guys don't really believe it's our job to check your stuff do you? I tell them this is not my problem and I detailed it in accordance to the structurals I was given first and foremost so I expect to be paid to raise it....

Sounds to me like you didn't look at all of the construction documents, all of your comments seem to indicate you never look at anything but the structural documents. The contract documents typical consist of all of the disciplines. In your example above there may be a note on the structural documents indicating that in the instance of a conflict follow the architectural documents and by seemingly your own admission above you didn't review the architectural documents which at the very least should have generated an RFI or a clouded note on the TOS elevation in the shops for verification.

... Is what my responsibility to guess at grid line column centers because people are to lazy to do their job?...

No, but it is your responsibility to look at all of the contract documents, as has been stated above by others, and it is unfortunate that this is the case, there are potential legal issues for us replicating information provided on other disciplines drawings. I'd bet those grid dimensions you're on about are indicated on the architectural set.

In todays world we aren't working off of complete architectural documents, their, the other disciplines, and our drawings are evolving pretty much right up until we all hit print. We are all also at the mercy of ownership, I've had buildings go to construction off of bid sets that were 3 years old with the only warning we received was when the first set of shop drawings comes in asking for quick turn around because they are already behind schedule. You can bet those drawings were incomplete, but they were also never intended to be a complete set of documents. I am sure the detailer working off those bid documents was cursing us for some of the same things you are bringing up, but they also ignored the "not for construction" watermark which covered the entire sheet.

Open Source Structural Applications:

https://github.com/buddyd16/Structural-Engineering

 

[WinelandV]

"...our drawings are evolving pretty much right up until we all hit print the building is finally constructed."

Fixed that for ya, Celt. ;-)