Risa Report for Code/Plan Reviewer

[Everroux]

First, thanks to those who are taking time to reply to the questions. As I gain confidence, I will reply as well.

Wanted to get suggestions on what to include in a custom report from Risa to provide plan reviewer that makes the most sense while keeping the reports to a minimum of pages. Small projects seem to have more than 100 pages, depending on what I select.

Your thoughts appreciated

 

[strucbells]

Generally, I like to provide more graphics showing loading, geometry, and results with annotations as needed and minimize the computer vomit. Include important sections from the report as needed (ie code checks, etc.). For plate models, select some representative results and annotate as such rather than printing the entire plate result file.

It can be time consuming but makes it so much easier for internal QA/QC as well as plan reviews and returning to a project after months not working on it with changes during construction or after client review to evaluate what needs to be done.

 

[Everroux]

Thank you

 

[JLSE]

Envelope designs. Checkers typically dont need to see every load combo. Also, get familiar with the "exclude from results" functions.. so you only get reports on the members you need output for. Lastly, I always make a note that says I am not providing the entire report, because its voluminous nature, but I can either provide the report or the file upon request... They typically dont want to see it, as much as you dont want to provide it.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

It depends on who you're producing the calcs for.

1) Standard building / plan check: The computer output can be relatively minimal. Personally, I like to show some images which demonstrate that my gravity loading matches the code requirements, and that the lateral loading matches my calculations elsewhere. Then I might show an image with the member sizes showing that they passed the code checks.

2) OSHPD / DSA or a more stringent reviewer: In these cases, I want to tie in my model elements to the drawings and calculations more directly. Like I make sure my equipment is called out the same in my model and on the drawings and calc sheets. Plan Views and Elevations showing agreement between the drawings and my model, et cetera.

3) Another engineer at the firm: This would be the case when I've done the "preliminary" design before all equipment and weights and such are known and I expect another engineer to handle the calculation again after me when the final loading and such is known. In that case, I try to be really explicit with what I've done.... More related to how I built the model so that it is easy for another engineer to come in and make changes. I like to have different Basic Load Cases for each piece of equipment that might change. That way when that piece of equipment changes, they only have to review the gravity or lateral loads in that one load case.

 

[271828]

In my experience, reviewers only look at the big picture, not the details. Imagine if you had only a few hours to become comfortable that the engineer made all of the critical checks. What info would you need?

Clearly indicate which design standards have been used, such as loads from ASCE 7-16 and steel design per AISC 360-16 and LRFD vs ASD.

Include elevations, plans, 3d views, or small summary tables, as appropriate to show member numbers, node numbers, load cases, and final unity checks.

If there are other critical checks, such as torsional irregularity that might be on the reviewer's mind in a high seismic zone, include enough info so the reviewer can see that you were aware of the check and took care of it.