Reviewing precast shop drawings

[rjmorton42]

There is a debate going on inside my office about the scope of the structural engineer of record's review for precast concrete shop drawings for structural components that are part of the primary structural system and are delegated to a component engineer (e.g., precast hollow-core plank, panelized shear walls, etc.)

Our drawings specify the requirements for the components, such as the configuration, support locations, loading requirements, etc. We also explicitly state that the components need to be designed by a licensed engineer for these requirements, and that shop drawings and structural calculations need to be submitted for review and approval. When we review the submittal, we check for compliance with these items (i.e., we check the concept, support locations, loads, etc.) and mandate they are signed and sealed. The question is whether we should just review the erection plans, details, and structural calculations, or if we should also review the individual shop cards for each precast element showing the reinforcing, embedded plates, etc.

One side of the argument is that it is the responsibility of the component engineer and precast supplier to correctly apply the information in calculations to the individual precast component shop cards, and that checking this for them is beyond our scope. However, there have been many instances when I have reviewed the shop cards and found significant conflicts or omissions between the calculation results and the reinforcing/connections on the shop cards, so I feel that part of my responsibility as structural engineer of record is to verify that this was done properly for the overall integrity of the building.

I would like to know what everyone's thoughts on this are, and what the standard of practice is in the regions where you practice.

Thanks!

 

[Andy10]

In my experience, when another Engineer has designed and sealed the drawings of a particular element, they are taking the professional responcibility of that design / element. The Engineer of Record does a cursorry review to see any gross errors and if a construction Engineer is involved would check any construction tollerence issues.

As the Engineer of record you have the final say though. With adequate experience a general overview is adequate unless an element is critical where it may be prudent to perform a more in depth review. It has to do with a comfort level and confidence level.

Take as an example a modular expansion joint. I have never seen or heard of a bridge design engineer performing a detailed design reivew of the elements of these systems. These joints are designed by the Engineers of the Joint Supplier utilizing the design requirements given by the Bridge Design Engineer. The Joint manufacturer is the technical expert in this area and is responsible for this design, not the Bridge Design Engineer.

When in doubt, state on the design drawings / record drawings / shop drawings if somthing is designed by another professional engineer.

 

[rowingengineer]

I do a full review and charge my client appropriately, saves time on site.

http://www.nceng.com.au/

"A safe structure will be the one whose weakest link is never overloaded by the greatest force to which the structure is subjected” Petroski 1992