Structural Engineers Getting Slammed 30

[swthwdy]

Thanks again casseopeia. Our structural engineer's opinion is that our house has to come down. This house is only 7 years old and has major differential settlement. Our expansive soil moves with the rains and dry spells here in Texas, which of course can be very unpredictable. Too bad that some home builders just can't do it right, perhaps even in California?

 

[LPRooster]

Thanks JAE,
I agree with the problems contractually. I'm speaking hypothethically as a detailer NOT associated with a fabricator. You hire an outside source (if need be) for IT service, printing, payroll, office cleaning, etc. What's wrong with hiring a detailer to "troubleshoot" as an adjunct to your own QA process, if you have one? The questions that I could bring to you during the design phase can be addressed collectively at a more appropriate time (now). You're going to get the questions anyway. Why not address them early and be done with it? Wouldn't you rather not have to answer later for simple issues that a good analysis can resolve now? We're talking simple things: dimensions, sections, welds, clashing, erectability, fabrication economy, LOADS, etc.

 

[UcfSE]

I think that's a good idea LP, except the problem is we don't get paid enough to take the time we should with drawings so there isn't a lot of money to hire someone else in the process. I do agree though, having a detailer review drawings would eliminate a lot of problems before they happen.

 

[tsboxman]

There always seems to be time to re-do things so why can't we have that time up front and so it is right the first time?

Again I cannot speak for your environment, but I am also seeing a real lack of sufficient training. It seems if someone can use a CAD system somehow that qualifies them for what we do and there is no specific detail training applied. The one thing that is a sore issue for me is the individual is tought after there is a mistake and sometimes to the point of ridicule. Bad for morale and not good for quality work up front.

I am where I am by stubborness and learning through mistakes. I have been that route and expect new people to be able to comprehend instructions and apply reasoning to why we do things but will do everything I possibly can to pass on what I have learned the hard way. The other sore spot is when those people don't listen...

 

[jike]

We have constructibility reviews, value engineering (don't get me started on this one), peer reviews, why not steel detailing reviews? Perhaps, it should be part of the constructibility review rather than a separate review. This is usually done by the GC and so it would seem logical to approach the GC about it. However, this would only reach one firm at a time and so it would take a long time to affect the change we would like to see.

To reach a larger part of the profession, in a shorter time, it would have to be done thru continuing education. This is already being done by AISC. I believe LeJeune is also involved.

This appoach reaches a larger portion of the profession, but unfortunately not everyone.

 

[L775]

Just some extra fuel to the fire. Building codes are getting bigger, more demanding and much more complicated, yet our fees are relatively unchanging if not less than what they used to be. We have to constantly polish our skills with newly required CE units. I suggest that we unify our voice and make all of the above addressed concerns well known to the public and developers. We can accomplish this by improving our PR and image. And show to the public how important our work is.
A doctor my save few lives in his lifetime, but an engineer is saving countless lives every single day during his lifetime and beyond.

 

[SperlingPE]

I would like to build on some of the things that have been said. The biggest reason I see for the state of some of the drawings that go out the door is lack of time to do a complete set of drawings. Archictects and project managers need to educate (manage) owners about what it takes to put a complete set of drawings together. The amount of automation has made the job of designing faster, but there is a limit to how fast a project can be done.

 

[JStephen]

"I can see howls of protest by one fabricator if another fabricator is given the opportunity to see the job prior to its public issuance and have input into its content. On public projects, this sometimes could even be considered unethical or illegal."

I disagree with the above- it is done some, should be done more- but I'm not aware of anything unethical about it either. Engineers are not obligated to keep their work secret until it is bid. It is quite common to have plans and specifications that favor one company or process or material over another, and also quite common to get details from specialty suppliers.

 

[connect2]

There's a bunch of rants going on here, we'll leave the money issue and the getting pushed around by 'others read architects' alone ... the issue is quality of drawings. Personally i blame it on CAD. Hand drawing is always superior. When you have a big sheet of paper the whole building of the structure on paper seems to work better, lining up the grids, whats going on at a grid intersection as you draw, always begs a detail to be drawn. You think differently i fell, probably more like the guy that has to actually build the building. Pride of draughtsmanship is long gone replaced by cut and paste,...... line work, lettering, boy you really used to have to figure out your sheet layouts before you started. We do alot of forensic work and often get drawings from the 20's 30's and 40's sometimes i find myself staring at the draughtsman work thinking 'holy cow the work that went into that, this guy knew how to build' and in ink too. I love to draw it's one of the reasons i became a structural engineer. If you let garbage out of your office well thats your problem then. Zoom and pan don't work for me. The draughtsman in my office don't bring me anything to review unless its on paper. I have specific type of pen and pencil i use to mark them up ...... hahhahaha this is when we start loosing money on the design portion of the job.

 

[BigH]

Connect2 - good points and I agree wholeheartedly. Suggest any Canadian Engineer (and maybe at US universities with good libraries) take a look at some of the older Journals of the Canadian Engineering Institute - say from the 1910-1920 era. They used to attach in the Journal drawings of such things as dams and the like. The drawings were astonishing - I guarantee you'll be blown away - like listening to Miles Davis' Bitches Brew!

 

[LPPE]

Connect2 - good points. I'd argue that you may have to get with the times. If you cant or dont know how to use AutoCAD, then you're really behind the 8-ball in my neck of the woods. Unfortunately, my company hired some people who were very knowledgable in their field, but couldnt use AutoCAD, much less a computer. They were soon released. AutoCAD is an important tool today, not just for drawing, but for the transmission of information to and from parties in a project.

I wouldnt blame it on CAD for bad drawings, I'd blame it on CAD operators not knowledgable enough.

 

[tsboxman]

You can't stand in the middle of a road because thats where a field used to be where you played as a kid and not expect to get ran over.

Drawings are an art form no doubt, but the quality of work, or lack thereof, is not because of CAD. It is the user and the environment of the user(high expectations). If they are taking shortcuts or do not have the experience or knowledge to put in the detail required, where does the problem lay?
Maybe they need to do things by hand to learn, maybe they need a new type of system to ensure the quality, maybe they are expected to do more in less amount of time - those all need to be addressed. CAD is a tool to help but should not be used as supplement to the quality of the output. You can blame CAD all you want but I seriously doubt your going to see it go away. Put out the fire not the smoke.

 

[tsboxman]

Disregard last post. I was ranting.
I am just trying to emphasize that we (everyone, not just engineers) need look at what is going on and work with it. We may not like how things are changing but they are. If we are to be succesful (not salary but quality) we need to focus on how to work with the change. If its coming from the top down, start there. Talk to them, tell them the truth, whatever. If it is inexperience or someone cutting corners, fix it. Train them, fire them, beat them whatever. Fix the problem. We (as people) think too highly of ourselves as indespensible. We that do are wrong.

 

[JStephen]

I wonder, if you took those old drawings and actually started through the geometry, if they would look near as good then?

I've seen plenty of hand-drawn drawings that were lacking in detail and aesthetics. So it's not like hand drawings were just always these works of art in the past.

I've seen drawings that were most beautifully done, only filled with details that just weren't applicable, or that had to be redesigned by the contractor anyway. Meaning some owner paid some big bucks for all the time spent, but received zero benefit from that extra time.

I wonder how many draftsmen in the world have just adamantly refused to learn CAD because they loved to hand draft? The main ones whom I have heard praise hand drafting are the ones who don't have to do it. It can be very boring and very frustrating. "Change this and draw it over again" is simple to say, but not so simple to do by hand. Did anyone besides me ever start in on a drawing and run out of room on the page?

 

[TomBarsh]

I "worked on the board" for 10 years. I never ran out of room on the paage I sure wore holes in the paper a few times rubbing out and redrawing. I loved hand drafting but maybe I like CAD even more.

 

[EddyC]

Here's another perspective for you folks: I am an ME (machine design background) who ended up working for a structural company by mistake (a long story). I remember sitting in my first meeting at that firm while the owner discussed the "detail drawing" that he had up on the wall. I looked around and saw no detail drawing, only a subassembly drawing. I asked the person next to me what "detail drawing" the boss was talking about? My colleague also happened to be an ME who recently had joined the firm. He said he would explain it to me later. I later found out about the "engineer's drawings" and the "shop drawings" process. I was aghast when I found out about this process where the structural engineer produces drawings which are turned over to an outside entity (the detailer) for production of the "shop drawings". No such division in production of drawings exists in industry. In industry, an ME would produce a complete set of fully dimensioned and toleranced drawings. If information was missing, the machine shop would send the drawings back to the engineer. I find this division of engineering between "engineer", "detailer" and "contractor" in the A/E world to be weird. While I was at that particular job, I noticed that a set of structural drawings for a high school had fewer sheets than a 2-foot long pressure vessel that I designed in the past. A structural engineer's 100% drawings would be considered 30% by the standards of the manufacturing industry. The detailer's "shop drawings" would bring things up to 70%. No wonder that you structural folks have so many headaches when things go to get built. Looks like 70% of the design has been taken away from you structural folks and has been given to detailers and contractors, no doubt in the interests of supposedly saving money. How did this ever come about?

 

[JAE]

EddyC - with respect (and I mean it) I don't think you understand the vast difference between the ME drawings you describe, and a set of structural drawings, say, for a building.

You are, in my humble opinion, comparing apples to existentialism.

Your drawings are used in a particular context, or culture, of fabrication where there is no "in-between" entity between the designer and the fabricator. Thus, the ME drawings you refer to MUST be precise because the culture in which they are used, and the kind of "thing" you are producing demand it.

For structural designs, the level of detail of locating each hole in a beam, determining how long a column is between connection plates, etc. is not required on our plans because the process of creating that beam or column is performed in a vastly different community or culture. The information is there, and is shown on the 100% structural plans via dimensions, notes, references to industry standards. A steel fabricator, or a formwork designer picks up the structural plans and works through them, adding value from their own expertise, to provide the necessary (and adequate) level of precision.

In other words, this vast community, or culture of structural engineering/fabrication/construction negates the requirement for the kind of precision that you require in your ME world.

One isn't better than the other...just different.

There is also a vast amount of calculations, analysis, and constructability that goes into a set of structural plans that is essentially "hidden" from those who don't know structural engineering but which are "in the plans" none-the-less.

 

[EddyC]

JAE,

I've now been in the A/E side of engineering for 7.5 years. I'm fully familiar with the numerous calculations that go into making a set of structural drawings. I still disagree with the engineer drawing/shop drawing division of labor. In my opinion, only engineers should be doing engineering, not detailers or contractors or anybody else. It belittles the engineering profession. I believe that the entire drawing package for a building should be done by the engineer, or subcontracted out by the engineer. As someone else pointed out on this forum, the shop drawings are not always properly checked by the engineer for conformance to the engineer's design. That has been my experience as well. From what I have heard, the engineer drawing/shop drawing division of labor also contributed to the Kansas City Hyatt walkway collapse as well as to the deficiencies of the Citycorp Building in NYC (Thankfully discovered).

 

[connect2]

tsboxman
I know how to draw with AutoCad, however we have CAD operators, my stuff is usually 'sketchy' ... hahaha .... contributions. When i said the draughtsman always bring me paper of course i meant their CAD drawings to review. Panning in and out of the drawing means i'm changing glasses to quickly and i get dizzy. 20 years in the business .... I'm still a youngster, just getting going.

 

[JAE]

EddyC,

If I would ever be compelled to sit down and draw out countless pieces of steel, figuring out every little dimension, angle, piece number, bill of materials, etc... I'd go mad.

And performing these kinds of tasks, in my opinion, is a TOTAL diminshment and belittling of the engineering profession. We are not micro detailers. In fact, shop drawing preparation is NOT engineering.

We are engineers who apply science to the design of structures. Its our overall expertise in framing out a building and ensuring that buildings are safe that is our value to our clients...I can pay a guy much less to sit down and figure out all the messy details. And clients aren't going to pay me at my salary to do this kind of task.

The Hyatt Regency collapse was in fact a result of poor shop drawing checking - but was really antagonized by a comedy of errors when the fabricator/detailer hired someone else to do the shop drawings - and this was almost 30 years ago! The Citycorp was a design flaw...not a shop drawing issue. The nasty separation between design and micro-detailing that you so despise is not a primary culprit in the lowering of engineering drawing quality this thread is talking about.