Plan reviewer requesting electronic copy of structural design model 1

[enginerding]

I don't know exactly where this question should be posted, but I think this might be as good a place as any...

I have recently received plan review corrections where one of the corrections was "provide e-file of the RISA-3D."

Questions:
1. Has anyone else received this request from a plan reviewer?
2. If so, did (would) you provide it to them?

We have already submitted full input/output and all kinds of graphical key plans.

 

[cvg]

CD with analysis data and output files is required here by certain agencies. it is submitted as part of a sealed engineer's report, in a pocket in the appendix. perfectly legal. can't get county approval without it.

I imagine some less than ethical folks have "tweaked" computer output in the past to try and substantiate a design. It is very easy to do since many computer programs spit out an ascii output file which can be edited to show anything you want. This allows a check by the reviewer to make sure that doesn't happen.

 

[beej67]

In SFWMD (Florida) you upload scans of your plans in PDF, and then print out an authorization page from their web form listing all the documents you sent, and you stamp that page and mail it. They stick the page in the file and keep your PDFs on their hard drive.

The types of files you're allowed to submit are very limited though.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[Ron]

Zelgar...you really need to read the whole document...

In 61G15-23.002 (6)...the following statement refers to documents submitted by a licensed professional engineer......

(6) A professional engineer shall not seal original documents made of mylar, linen, sepia or other materials which can be changed by the entity with whom such document(s) are filed unless the professional engineer accompanies such document(s) with a signed and sealed letter making the receiver aware that copies of the original document as designed by the professional engineer have been retained by the professional engineer and that the
professional engineer will not be responsible for any subsequent changes to the reproducible original documents.

Further, in 61G15-23.003.2(d), the statement that I made before is contained therein....as regarding an electronic signature....

the signature shall be:

(d) Linked to a document in such a manner that the electronic signature is invalidated if any data in the document are changed.

 

[MiketheEngineer]

FYI - around here the "plan checkers" are down to four days a week - and JUST wait to "fix" something!!!

Plans now take about 3 weeks to get approved.

Three years ago - you could get it done in two days or less??

Go figure!!!!!!!!!!

 

[cvg]

3 weeks, good luck, they will also stretch it out to two or three or four reviews or whatever it takes - they have way too much time on their hands and just looking for anything to "comment" on

 

[jgailla]

One thing I have done when submitting to review agencies/reviewers I knew to be intransigent was to intentionally leave a couple obvious and easy to fix issues on the original set of plans.
The reviewer would see the issues, comment, and the fix was easily done and resubmitted.
This approach was after having several stupid arguments with reviewers over some minor technicality they were wrong about and that was difficult to resolve.
There are several organizations and reviewers I don't have to pull this nonsense with, but too many are just looking to justify their job.

 

[MiketheEngineer]

JG -

I used to ALWAYS leave off smoke detectors and GFIs ---

Two minute fix and planner did his job and I did mine!!??

 

[oldrunner]

We had an argument once over the weight of a large structure with another firm that I was peer reviewing. There were other problems like the drawings weren't completed and the calcs were suspect. The building was modeled completely in a well known program but it was hard to follow the input. The building had been built and approved and was ready for operation. I requested the input so that I could check the foundation loads. The engineer provided me with the input file and I ran the file - with no changes. I was just looking for the vertical loading but the results had loads in the x, y and z directions. Not likely. I sent the file to the programs help desk which was returned in about 15 minutes - with the file corrected and re-ran the file - the results now about 1% from my hand calcs. Unfortunately because the drawings had never been completed some connections weren't address and eventually the building was demolished and rebuilt.

We've also reviewed input for long cantilevered columns (poles) that were being analyze by the DAM method. Unfortunately it appeared that this was the first time the engineer had used the method and didn't provide the correct input, such as dividing the pole into many sections and adding small horizontal loads. They thought the program would automatically do all these things without understanding the process. When we asked for the input, their lawyer said that all the engineer had to do was just fill in the blanks. I still have the picture of the pole after it was cut down only 24 hours after erection.

I have another example of bad input and detailing - but that one just ended up with a lot of iron on the ground.

Even had one where the output for the bearing forces on a damaged bridge foundation was stable as long as the tension forces between the bottom of the concrete footing and the sand were glued together. Found that in the output on page 400 something. The bridge was stable but was moving around when a few horses galloped across it. We did salvage the bridge but the original consultant was gone.

Even had one project where we received this super colored output with the maximum forces provided on the graphic. Still having problems with obtaining the drawings that the model was made from.

We're still having trouble with engineers who provide huge finite element analysis but don't provide any connection details or additional documentation.