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!

 

[BridgeSmith]

"Like I'm a fool knowing I would come to an engineers group and expect support...lol...hello. No support will come to substantiate lazy drawings right like you're doing righ? Can read that one a mile away."

Coming to an engineer's forum and throwing the hand grenade of "May I ask how it is you feel comfortable releasing your design contract drawing without a single dimension...Is this pure laziness...?" and not expecting some pushback, might be considered a bit naive.

The reasons for the lack of dimensions on structural drawings have been explained to you. If you don't want to make the effort to look at the architectural drawings, do some math, and figure it out, don't expect a great amount of sympathy here.

I don't do structural drawings. I check structural drawings from our structural detailers, most of whom are excellent and have an understanding of what we're doing. All they need from me is plate sizes for the flange and web of the girder and the number and size of the reinforcing bars in the deck slab, and they're off and running, which allows me to do my job, which is engineering.

I could tell you a hundred stories about the crap shop drawings I've reviewed, but it serves no purpose and is a waste of my time.

 

[glass99]

What about BIM? Revit is supposed to have fixed the coordination dilemma. Just ask for the model!

 

[XR250]

I don't have much to add here other than I rarely dimension drawings unless there is a special feature that needs attention.
Don't want the liability of duplicating dimensions.

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

I am 1/3 the way thru this book and also recommend it to everyone. It has been eye opening.

 

[271828]

I'm currently working on a connection design project and have something to share.

In this project, the EOR indicated about 80-90% of reactions on the plan. Good job for those!

For the others, the connection must be designed for 60% of the Maximum Total Uniform Load. In about half of these connections, the typical connection for a given beam depth won't work. In some of these, we'll need to switch to some other type of connection and have some oddballs. In many, the situation is much worse. The coped beam won't work and there's no room for more bolts, so we're going to have to do something stupid to make it work. There is so little time, I'm not sure if we can cycle RFIs through to get the reactions, assuming the EOR would give them to use. All of this for saving the ten seconds it would've taken to put each missing reaction on the plan.

In my last four jobs, the fabricator needed the connection design in one to two weeks. It probably takes me 3-5x longer to establish the MTUL than it would take the EOR to put it on the drawings. Dealing with the weird crap that is caused by the MTUL approach eats a lot of time. Using the MTUL isn't exactly being a team player...

PLEASE avoid this abominable practice. As an EOR, I designed several million square feet of fairly complex steel structures and I NEVER used this approach -- not once, ever -- so I know it's unnecessary.

 

[Mad Mike]

This is an extraordinary rant- it's a difficult line of work we're in and I think that in age, when your rants no longer cool down in a reasonable time period, it may be worth throwing in the towel.

I'm sorry it's come to this- I work in South Africa and there are more things to rant about than you could ever know- incompetence is absolutely rife...I'm sure in my later years I will publish a rant like no man has ever witnessed.

It just offends the good engineers when it's brought up generically, but I understand you've reached your breaking point.

All the best for the future- take up something peaceful, like gardening!

Mike

 

[BUGGAR]

On the other hand, I love these rants because I'm learning from them - still, after all these years.

 

[glass99]

Its a bit ranty but I think its good in the sense that a lot of drafters really never get heard from. When we get steel shop drawings we frequently get to meet the project manager or owner of the steel fab, but rarely the actual guy doing the drawings. The upshot from this kind of conversation can be that yes, there are good reasons why no dimensions are shown, but even so maybe we can all do better.

 

[Ken62465]

@Celt83 ..that's a riot. You did catch my explanation about the architect and engineer not being on the same page for TOS right? Are you implying this is a detailers job to catch that mistake?..nice try. That is hilarious and a lame excuse not being on the same page as your team. Here's a simple one for ya...if your drawings were good quality I'd not have to go into the architecturals to see what "STRUCTURAL" item you neglected to show or provide plan/grid line dimensions for right? Most detailers will tell you the intent of structural drawings is to show the structrual requirements and architectural are generally used by misc metals detailers, but the AISC, "Code of Standard Practice" says other wise ha? Yet I've never minded going through the architecturals so please read my comments cause I clearly stated it and you missed it. You did pay proper attention that I specified over and over how I comb through them looking for info not provided in structurals right?...umm brickshelf or maybe you weren't paying attention to tthat comment either...again. The point you seem to mis was when I stated the discrepancy of TOS you assumed I don't look but did you also consider it's not my job to check your mistakes either? Yet another sad excuse to support errors and I do expect that coming here and stating this stuff so I'm not dumb.

So Friday I get another change to a little job I drew already. Now the eor wants a 3/4 support plate for the misc window bracket support system...umm your structural section clearly shows 1/2 plate and the steel is approved and erected, I'm doing some misc. as a favor so little late to be contradicting your own design..funny none the less. Had to put it down till someone alerts him his drawing section is specific and I have his structural approval to match what was done and is in the field.

Just had an interesting discussion with the wife as she sits here frustrated I'm working on a Sunday night. My point was, Can you imagine a surgeon screwing up so bad it takes multiple surgeries to fix it? They'd keep their license no problem. The day I make my customer fabricate a piece more than once is the day I say, "time to retire and it's obvious my time has come".

 

[XR250]

Sounds like you need better boundaries!

 

[Celt83]

You did catch my explanation about the architect and engineer not being on the same page for TOS right?

I did however the way it read to me was this was found after the issue came up. I apologize for my comprehension error.

Are you implying this is a detailers job to catch that mistake?

Not at all, what I am implying is that as a member of the project team if you do happen upon conflicting information you bring it up either in a quick phone call, an RFI, a shop drawing clarification note, or an email blast to everyone where you can berate me all you want the only important thing here is if you discovered this conflict the question is asked and the conflict corrected. At the end of the day we are all part of the project team and we all have the common goal of getting the building built so it is safe and at reasonable cost to the client.



Open Source Structural Applications:

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

 

[JStephen]

I am reminded of this Dilbert from long ago:

I am also reminded of the time long ago when I contacted a pier driller about some belled piers and his analysis was "I hate belled piers with a purple passion!"