Structural Drawings Question

[XR250]

I designed some metal studs for a commercial building. The structural drawings call out a T.O.S. for the roof framing of 192'5". It did not show or indicate any slope to the steel. During my shop drawing review, it was pointed out by the project engineer for the contractor that the roof steel slopes upwards from that point. As such, my studs are under-designed for the longer span. No big deal as the material has not been purchased yet. However, they are hanging their hat on another note that was on the structural drawings that says,"Coordinate w/ Arch. and MEP drawings for dimensions, elevations, slopes, openings, sleeves, ducts, and all other requirements"

So, apparently, it is my job to figure out that the EOR screwed up with his T.O.S. designation. What a bunch of nonsense!
Isn't it standard practice to use the structural drawings for the steel elevations?

 

[Structcon]

You are asking a group of structural engineers who try like hell every day to get an architect to make decisions about all sorts of elevations and dimensions why another structural engineer doesn't have the info, and allege that he screwed up? Good luck!

 

[JAE]

Check out AISC's Code of Standard Practice - this would indicate who's responsible for what:

http://www.aisc.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=25256

 

[XR250]

Thanks JAE;

It clearly states in Section 3.3 that when discrepencies exist between the structural and architectural drawing, then the structurals shall govern.

 

[nutte]

That note on the structural drawings is a CYA note. The architecturals probably have one, along with the MEP drawings. It's not your job to find discrepancies; it's your duty to alert the design team when you do come across them.

This sounds like a coordination issue that should be resolved amicably and diplomatically. Of course, it often happens that somebody else has pissed off the GC before you ever got involved, so they don't have much goodwill left, and you happen to be where the frustration lands.

As for the Code of Standard Practice, it may or may not have been invoked by the contract documents. So whatever you find in there may help your case, but it may also be ultimately irrelevant.

 

[JAE]

nutte - is it your view that the Code of Standard Practice must be invoked by the contract documents?

I thought that it would be referenced out by the IBC via the AISC 360.

 

[MrHershey]

Generally speaking we try not to show top of steel for this very reason. Would always be in the habit of checking all consultant's drawings though. Seems like coordination just isn't important anymore.

 

[oldrunner]

This is the kind of thing that contractors look for at the beginning of the project and will eventually do a RFI and then possibly an extra. There is really a book for contractors that shows many of the non- coordination items between the architect and the engineer that they can get extras for.

 

[SteelPE]

This is funny. I've work on both side of the table. It's extremely frustrating to deal with.

I've seen drawings come out of power house engineering companies with a bunch of typical details and member sizes on their drawings. No dimensions, no elevations on their drawings and note sheets that contain no design criteria (wind speed, snow load, earthquake etc). They just say "see architectural drawings for dimensions and elevations". Eliminates confusion between the two, but makes it a huge PITA to design the products they don't want to (connections, stairs, studs, siding materials). Makes you wonder why they get paid huge consulting fees (I guess they are doing something right). I try to put all this information on my drawings when I'm the EOR.

Just yesterday I got a call from the architect on a project that I was the EOR on. He was asking me what the elevation was at a location on a building he designed. He said he couldn't find it anywhere on his drawings. He didn't think it was as funny as I did.

 

[nutte]

nutte - is it your view that the Code of Standard Practice must be invoked by the contract documents?

I thought that it would be referenced out by the IBC via the AISC 360.

Yes, the Code of Standard Practice is a non-binding document, unless it is invoked by the contract documents.

AISC 360 is the Specification. Not the Manual of Steel Construction, or the Code of Standard Practice, just the Specification.

 

[JAE]

nutte - thanks - I see what you are saying. I still have some doubts, however, as the AISC Specification (which is referenced by the IBC) has numerous references to the Code of Standard Practice.
In Section A4 of the Specification, it states: [blue]"The drawings and specifications shall meet the requirements of the Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges, except for deviations specifically identified in the design drawings and/or specifications".[/blue]

So this to me states that UNLESS the project documents specifically alter the relationships and practice "rules" then the Code of Std. Practice applies.

So the logic is: IBC references AISC 360 (the spec) and AISC 360 states that the Code of Std. Practice is binding unless stated otherwise in the contact documents.

 

[XR250]

Doesn't really matter in my case as no matter who is wrong, the metal stud sub is ALWAYS at the bottom of the food chain.
I really like it better when I am the EOR.

 

[nutte]

JAE, you may be on to something there. But as Excel mentions, position in the pecking order usually dictates who's "right." My experience has been that well-reasoned arguments of code intention and requirements are less important than cost and schedule impact.

 

[SteelPE]

Excel, yes, you are at the bottom of the food chain for this project... And it's better not to make the EOR angry because he will make your life a living hell.

 

[XR250]

Agreed. I am seriously considering not doing metal stud shop drawings anymore. The risk is getting too high for the reward. The drawings keep getting worse and less coordination is happening. Seems like more and more in-experinced staff working on these things. EOR's take no responsibility for their mistakes. Just finished a job where I was to design the studs for L/600 yet the EOR's girts barely met L/240. I pointed that out to him and nothing was ever done about it - except me adding a CYA note on my drawing.

 

[steellion]

In my opinion, a structural plan that does not clearly indicate top of steel elevation is not complete. I can sympathize with engineers struggling with getting architects to coordinate, but when I'm in that situation, I will mark up a plan with elevations indicated, send it to the architect and say "this is where I believe the TOS should be, please confirm."

You need this information for the design of columns, lateral system, etc., so no excuse for not having it clearly indicated on the final CD's.

SteelPE, if what you're saying is accurate, then these "powerhouse engineering firms" aren't doing their jobs, either. I'm sure their profit margins are nice by only providing a 50% complete design, but eventually the clients will get frustrated and move on.

 

[SteelPE]

steellion,

Not with these powerhouse engineering companies. The engineering companies are well known and responsible for designs from 1 story to 100+ stories. I was really shocked when I received their drawings only to find the missing information. Some of these companies even take the time to put their 3D BIM model on the drawings. Nice looking set of drawings, useless when it comes time to design the items the structural engineer will not.

What typically happens is they will push out poor drawings and then the owner, architect and engineer will hold the line against the GC who will lean on ExcelEngineering to "fill in the blanks". Much easier to push ExcelEngineering than the EOR.