quite knowledgeable. My anecdote was about the owner who was only
concerned about money. Generally, most contractors would rather spend a
few more dollars on material rather than labour and would like to know
they won't face any future problems.
Gary Loomis wrote:
> Yes, I have seen a contractor question the thickness of a wall that was to
> thin. He said it needed to be at least 18" thick not 12". The engineer's
> response was that "I analyzed it using the computer and the computer said it
> was ok". I got involved after the fact to re-analyze the wall because it
> deflected and cracked. It ended up in court. The engineer calculated the
> loads incorrectly and when checking the deflection used Igross and not
> Icracked. When using Icracked the deflections calculated were similar to
> those measured in the field.
>
> We have contractors (few) that will ask us to review a design because they
> think it is not adequate. When those contractors question my design, I
> listen.
>
> For what it is worth. There are good contractors out there that know more
> than I about getting things built right.
>
> Gary W. Loomis, P.E., Senior Structural Engineering
> Master Engineers and Designers, Inc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. [mailto:ghodgson@bellnet.ca]
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 7:45 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Re: question my authority???!
>
> This reminds of the time a customer came into my office yelling that I
> had cost him money as the footings were way over in size. I let him vent
> and then asked him how he knew the footings were over. At first he
> wouldn't say but then he said the concrete ready-mix driver had told
> him. Of course, everyone knows all these drivers have to have a degree
> in engineering.
> Gary
>
> Andrew Kester, PE wrote:
>
>> Scott actually brings up a good topic, and all good jokes aside, I
>> think he needs to address this to the owner or client expeditiously
>> before the owner thinks he is an overdesigner. Many owners/developers
>> only care about the bottom line, and if they get a permit and C.O.
>> they assume all is well. Anything over that is just
>> overly-conservative engineering to them, and that can cost you
>> business. I am NOT always sure of the best way to handle these things,
>> but trying to speak directly with your architect or owner and explain
>> that you perform your analysis and calculations to the latest code
>> standards, and that you would gladly review an alternative design and
>> calculations by another engineer.
>>
>> If this is during the design stage or prior to groundbreaking, you can
>> say "Well, let me review our numbers and drawings to make sure that
>> there was not a miscalculation or drafting error", and do just that.
>> We all make mistakes, sometimes it happens in the drafting stage, or
>> you fill out your footing schedule wrong or put the wrong footing mark
>> on the plans. Even if you are 100% sure and you simply look at your
>> drawings and say to yourself, "Man, I am so right" and call the
>> architect back and say you double checked but you believe your design
>> is to code, then you did your job and you will look better.
>>
>> I would like to hear from our seasoned vets on this issue because as a
>> young small firm owner I need to have some options ready to save face
>> with owners and clients.
>>
>> We have had this happen usually from a contractor who says one of the
>> following, or a combination of them, and many times not to us but to
>> the owner or architect:
>> -We have never done it this way and I have been doing this for XXXX years
>> -Engineer B down the street does it this way and he says it is fine
>> -This is a complete waste and overdesign and is costing the owner lots
>> of money (which if I could save I would not return the money but
>> pocket it)
>>
>> We had a single story retail building with a large covered canopy over
>> near the coast, and it was CMU with some CIP concrete arched beams.
>> Some contractor sub, probably slow from work due to the slow down in
>> residential/condo work, promised he could do the walls ALL in CIP
>> concrete rather than CMU cheaper than CMU (seems crazy to me, but
>> maybe he was really slow or had lots of forms and good subs). We get
>> an Ad Serv to redesign the walls, and the contractor flips out when he
>> gets our drawings as "we put way too much rebar in the walls and he
>> always does them with X amount and the engineer down the street does
>> it this way."
>>
>> Now the walls were single story and the design was not governed by
>> strength but by ACI vertical and horizontal min reinforcement. We
>> copied that section of the ACI along with some simple hand calcs
>> showing why we could not space the bars and use the size he wanted to
>> use, and the owner saw this as well. After a pow-wow they dropped the
>> guy and went back to CMU. I am sure he made a promise he could not
>> deliver, and I do believe that another engineer does it that way
>> incorrectly (like 24" o.c. and #3 bars). Most of our plans reviewers
>> will pass anything with a PE seal on it....
>>
>> On a side note, in this instance, I have to think that the ACI max
>> spacing seems a bit too strict for a single story, lightly loaded
>> wall, when you can reinforce 8" CMU with #5 @ 48" o.c. , while I
>> believe off the top of my head we were limited to 18" o.c. for
>> concrete. I am sure it can be explained but it is odd that weaker CMU
>> requires much less reinforcement in the vertical direction....
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew Kester, PE
>> Principal/Project Manager
>> ADK Structural Engineering, PLLC
>> 1510 E Colonial Ave., Suite 301
>> Orlando, FL 32803
>>
>>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *
http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *
http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*
http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********