Small Project Sequence 1

[UofAGrad]

Hey Guys,

Long time reader first time poster, I love this site.

I'm a structural engineer working for a large company, I've done a handful of jobs on the side and plan to start my own small engineering firm to do some moonlighting this year. The work I have done is small structures that require county permits: solar panel structures, wood decks, etc... A high level view of how I usually operate is I meet with the client, agree on a concept sketch (sometimes they already have one), perform the structural analysis, draft. I seem to always spend time back forth at some point in the design that I see as wasted time, usually during the drafting phase. My question is, what advice can you give to expedite the engineering/design process?

Thanks in advance

 

[jayrod12]

given the scope of the projects, i.e. residential, some level of back and forth is to be expected. Even though you've agreed upon a concept in person, people change their minds more than their underwear. Factor that into your fees.

 

[WARose]

For a small project, it's probably cost prohibitive to do a 3-D model in PDS Frameworks and present it to the client before extracting drawings.

I've found the best way to define a project is a well written scope. But you are going to get comments on the IFA no matter what.

 

[MrHershey]

Just in case you haven't done so already, check your company's policies on side gigs/moonlighting. Some don't care, some are strictly against. Not to say you shouldn't do it even if they have a policy against it, just be aware of the risks. Also would make sure you have your own insurance for this work, your company's will likely not cover you.

 

[racookpe1978]

In my experience with 3D drawings, classic 2D drawings+detail views+section views-plan-elevation-section views and and 2DBOM drawing lists and specifications, few engineers and architects (much less owners and operators) fully understand the project configuraton until they "see" it in a single model combining all disciples and all components interoven with each other.

To be sure, there are very, very few errors found error-checking a single drawing against itself.
Seldom, when you error-check a single drawing against all of the section and elevation and plan views against itself, you will find problems. With today's integrated CAD drawings, you will seldom find problems; but will almost always find interpretation difficulties. In older manual drawings, this was a higher probability of actually finding real discrepancies.
Many times, by the time you combine four or five drawings from a single disciple together, you will find problems.
When you combine all the drawings from a single disciple together, you will always find two or more errors.
When you combine all of the disciplines together, you will always find discrepancies. Every time.

The iterations you find expensive are important. Your client needs to "see" a full scale view of what she/he has actually described, what they think they want, what they think they have described, what their description actually requires, what they think they need actually requires, and then the steps to make what they require into what they can afford or what can fit in the space actually present.

 

[kipfoot]

Also would make sure you have your own insurance for this work, your company's will likely not cover you.

I think this is one of the arguments, from the employer's perspective, against moonlighting. The client can sue the employer for errors made by the moonlighter and seek payment through the employer's insurance policy. Insurers have seen this enough that they insist that policy holders have a company policy against moonlighting.

 

[UofAGrad]

Great responses, thanks guys! As for the moonlighting with my company I believe all the above precautions are being taken care of.

 

[KootK]

My question is, what advice can you give to expedite the engineering/design process?

This may sound banal to the point of being insulting but it hasn't been said yet so I'll give it a whirl. Try to spend as much of your allotted time as possible at the beginning and end of any project, with less in the middle. You hit it hard at the beginning as client service and to steer as many decisions as possible towards outcomes outcome that represent optimal efficiency on your end (your standard details, things that you're comfortable with engineering wise etc.). You hit it hard at the end to, hopefully, bring it home and avoid much of the rework that would have taken place were you busting your hump to keep current during the middle phase of the project when a lot of iteration takes place. In my mind, a well behaved project is one in which I do things, on average, no more than 1.5X and at least 80% of my details are, substantially, regurgitation. That sounds easy enough to the uninitiated but really does take some skill and focused effort. And a good client. And some luck.

I've found this to be a useful project management resource for our line of work: Link. As with most things business, it's all common sense after somebody tells you or you've screwed it up a few times yourself.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[XR250]

I am with KootK about hitting it hard at the beginning. I always do this on projects where I am the "Architect" and basically just have to coast home from there. I usually do not have much re-work.
It is a skill that needs to be developed. I have also "trained" my Architect clients to consult with me prior to getting too far into a project so I can steer them in the proper direction that will benefit all parties. Occasionally, the Arch. or the Client does not cooperate and when it eventually hits my desk it is a total CF.

 

[spieng89]

As most have stated, put more emphasis on client communication in the beginning. Send over a preliminary concept sketch or computer generated drawing for them to review before making final calcs and drafts. This should help cut down the back and forth

 

[KootK]

I should probably mention that my early/late scheme worked a lot better pre-BIM. I work with folks these days that seem to not accept any form of idea communication other than 3D modelling. This tends to hurt me in the middle.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[Guastavino]

Establish a grid and work points early. Make them clean dimensions...

If using masonry...coursing coursing coursing

Be consistent with work points/grid. Repetition and repeat...

Don't be cheap...Have good software (don't use your day job company software...). And hardware for that matter

Draft as you design...Sometimes you can spend a couple hours designing and optimizing only to find out a bigger size you know would work is better for detailing purposes...

Run simple hand calcs on complex frames, etc. so that you can fight against garbage in garbage out data...that results in redesign...

Build your own spreadsheets that you know...that you have vetted, and that you know the limitations to...

 

[Budding_SE]

@OP if you can would you be able to share your new company's name or how i can get in touch with you?

 

[UofAGrad]

@Budding I am in the process of forming the company, you can reach me at pinalmountainengineering@gmail.com

@ everyone else thanks for the feedback!