OWSJ Strengthening due to Mechanical Openings - Contractor vs EOR's responsibility 4

[Enable]

I've bidding a job where there are a number of additional roof penetrations due to mechanical upgrades (grocery store re-arranging things). The EOR provides a typical trimming schedule for the new openings and per usual has us doing the connection design for all structural steel on the project. That's fine and all. But they also have a note saying "OWSJ must be designed for the additional loading".

I don't do roof openings for others typically and so am a tad confused on what responsibility falls on the EOR vs me in this case. The note makes me think that it's also part of my scope to design the OWSJ reinforcement, if required. But that seems problematic for a few reasons: 1) they don't provide the additional loading from the mechanical units for me to use, and 2) I'm not going to review the OWSJ capacity prior to award to see what might be required.

Am I misreading what that note implies? If so, what's the purpose of it to remind themselves as the EOR to design the retrofit?

CWB (W47.1) Div 1 Fabricator
Temporary Works Design

https://www.enable-inc.com/

 

[dik]

Taken to an extreme, you can set up a set of drawings to make the contractor responsible for 'lots of stuff'... in the extreme, this is a 'design build' project. It the responsibility of the contractor to address this... or simply 'don't put in a bid'. As long as it's not illegal, you can set up a contract for a variety of things. This type of approach really detracts from the profession.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[KootK]

So not sure what has gone on but somehow word is out that I am Ontario's make small openings and reinforce joists guy because I received 4 separate calls TODAY for similar add new RTU type stuff.

.

If you can make it work, maybe lean into that. I've got a childhood friend who is a truly gifted welder, particularly when it comes to the delicate stuff. We've often kicked around the idea of doing something like this out west:

1) We offer joist reinforcement design and installation as a packaged, stand alone offering. Most obviously, engineers want this.

2) I get real good at aggressive, skillful joist reinforcement design, using my friend for bounce with respect to how to make it field friendly.

4) My friend gets real good at installing joist reinforcement, knowing that he's got a friendly engineer to bounce ideas off of if he knows of ways to get costs down.

5) We split the profits. The contract for the work on this stuff is usually vastly more than the fee garnered for the design. With me getting more fee through this route, I can justify more optimization of the design.

Just yesterday, a good friend reminded me that the root of technical sales lies in identifying a customer's source of pain and relieving it. I think that joist reinforcement does represent "pain" for a lot of folks. I hate doing it myself but I think that I'd like it a lot more if it was buying me a summer house in northern Michigan.

 

[Aesur]

I have mixed feelings on this post based on experiences. I don't believe the EOR is in the wrong without knowing more information as to their decision to note it the way they did.

Far too many times the owner doesn't want to pay for the EOR to field verify the joist member sizes and have the EOR calculate the capacity and strengthening requirements. This can get quite pricy quickly for the EOR as joists are typically designed for the exact loading on the original drawings. Because of this I suspect that the existing joist cannot support the additional loading.
The owners options become:
1. Pay the EOR for his time to evaluate and reinforce the joists (rare for the owner to do this as the money typically comes directly out of his pockets)
2. Have the EOR note on the drawings that the joists shall be reviewed and reinforced for the additional loading (commonly done as the price is then hidden in the construction loans rather than out of the pocket of the owner). The loading should be noted somewhere on the construction documents, typically there is at least a note on the structural plans referring to the mechanical drawings. In this case, the the construction budget needs to account for an allowance for the review of the joist. One way to handle this is to get a quote from an engineer (maybe even the EOR) to review the joists and build that cost into your construction budget. If the joist information is known, it may be the best course for the original joist manufacturer to review the joists for added loading and provide reinforcing details.

@JLNJ I agree that if lawyers got involved it may get difficult for the EOR to justify what they did; however I would expect they have documented that this was not part of their scope/contract and I'm not sure by code that they did anything wrong by deferring this portion of work. This could be a case of the EOR defending his scope of work his fee was based on, but providing a path that meets code and gets the work done, although it pushes the joist design into a deferred design scenario. Engineers need to do a better job defending their scope of work and not accepting added scope without fee.

 

[MotorCity]

The joist designer needs the loads to design the joists. The structural design loads, like equipment weight, should be provided by the EOR. In a perfect world, I get the equipment weights and note them on the drawings. Unfortunately on many projects, the structural drawings are way ahead of the mechanical drawings. So I am either provided with preliminary equipment weights or nothing at all. If I don't receive any equipment weights in time, I'd probably use the same note as above and put the responsibility on the contractor to provide the weights to the joist supplier. That said, even if I do get equipment weights from the mechanical folks, we always add a note for the contractor to confirm the actual weights match those noted on the drawing, and inform the EOR if they differ.

 

[dik]

I had a project a couple of months back designing angle supports for curtain wall for a single storey building at grade. When I did an RFI asking for the design loads, I was given the NBCC climatic wind loads... no coefficients, nada... I ended up 'meatballing' loads for the EOR to confirm.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[KootK]

I absolutely would not use the note in question here even if I were delegating the joist analysis and reinforcing exercise.

"OWSJ MUST BE DESIGNED FOR ADDITIONAL LOADS FOR MECHANICAL UNITS" is only appropriate for new construction in my opinion.

For this, it should have been something more like "EXISTING OWSJ MUST BE REVIEWED FOR LOADS IMPOSED BY NEW MECHANICAL UNITS. IF JOISTS ARE FOUND TO BE DEFICIANT, THEY SHALL BE REINFORCED AS REQUIRED (REINFORCING DESIGN BY OTHERS)".

There is not a damn thing in the original detail that would have indicated that:

1) These joists are existing rather than new and;

2) The parties bidding the work should have anticipated having to design and install joist reinforcing.

That is indefensible slop in my book. The EOR failed to communicate the likely scope of the work required, grossly. That, unless there are other useful bits of information floating around in the drawings that would elucidate the situation adequately to compensate for the failing of the detail in question.

 

[Aesur]

Going back and re-reading the detail, I agree with you KootK. I would tend to read it as if it was new joists at the mechanical loading. There is a note to see plans, are there notes on the plans that indicate new or existing joists? Maybe the intent of the detail is to provide the framing at the opening only and not the joists themselves with the joists having been noted as ok, or how to strengthen elsewhere in the set?

 

[KootK]

I am of the mind that almost anything can be delegated so long as it's done skillfully. Some things obviously make more sense to delegate than others but each situation is unique and needs to be considered in it's appropriate context. I view this rather like contracts in general and believe that one can create a contractual obligation for pretty much anything that isn't illegal. If I choose to sign a contract indicating that I plan to dance on Aesur's hood in a hulla skirt and coconuts next Wednesday at 2PM, so be it. There doesn't really need to be a "why".

 

[Aesur]

@KootK what would you charge to do that dance?

 

[Enable]

There is a note to see plans, are there notes on the plans that indicate new or existing joists? Maybe the intent of the detail is to provide the framing at the opening only and not the joists themselves with the joists having been noted as ok, or how to strengthen elsewhere in the set?

I don't actually mind about the lack of reference to new vs old in this case as it is clear from project scope we are dealing with a retrofit. And I don't mind the delegation. Delegation means more work for me!

What I mind is a process that is all but guarantees that the person who is going to get the job either A) missed the note entirely (we are all busy after all. Cant catch all the Pokémon) or B) saw it but went super aggressive (read: no reinforcing) because they want the job.

It just sets up the construction to come as such a fight for EVERYONE. It doesn't need to be that way.

BTW I'm not going to share too much more of the DWG set as I don't feel it will add any. You'll just have to trust me that the plan refers back to the detail I gave above with no additional info.

CWB (W47.1) Div 1 Fabricator
Temporary Works Design

https://www.enable-inc.com/