PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
(OP)
I need some suggestions. How would you handle a government plan reviewer which is telling you that "your building is over-designed" yet they have not performed calculation #1 to show where anything is incorrect. I am being told that full pen welds on a moment frame structure only need to be fillet welds, and instead of a steel moment frame (BECAUSE IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE), to use a cmu shear wall system, with masonry walls which are 25' tall x 10' long. The comments he is making are out in left field, yet he has the people in his agency listening. So, before I go pee in the pool and tell this guy what I really think, I would like a fresh take on the situation.






RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
LonnieP
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
Richard A. Cornelius, P.E.
WWW.amlinereast.com
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
I'd try to draft a nice note to say that while I realize there might be multiple ways to approach a problem, the design as shown is the one you wish to use, unless there are specific objections to it in terms of meeting the building code.
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
However, there may be some truth to what he says. If he is an old codger, strike up a conversation and ask him about his experience. He may have done your job for 30 years and is now working for government as a semi-retirement. If he sounds experienced, listen to him even if you don't take his advise. If he is just a jerk, blow it off and move on.
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
He is opening up himself, and the jurisdiction he works for, up to litigation here, serious litigation if the plans are not approved as is.
Talk to the Architect as suggested, being willing to justify your design, and suggest he consult with his attorney if the BO does not back off.
Your reputation as a designer is being slandered here in the public forum of a municipality. You need to defend your self.
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
If this is a government project, then the plan reviewer is the client and has a right to argue for less expensive solutions. Work with him to find the best answer.
If this is not a government project, and the plan reviewer is the regulatory agency, then I am not sure why he cares about an "overkill" design.
DaveAtkins
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
If it is a government contract he is entitled to question the design, but if there is an architect in the lead, the reviewer should be talking to the architect.
I must admit, if I saw a moment frame with masonry walls filling the spaces, I might say something.
Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
Just my two cents, but it's difficult for someone who is not completely plugged in to a project to make the kinds of comments that he seems to be making. There are all kinds of conversations with architects/subs that go in to making the decisions. To look at something cold and make those kind of public statements seems bold at best, and being a serious jerk at worst.
As far as the fillet welds for a moment frame are concerned, unless the beams are very oversized you'd likely need a huge fillet weld. The max moment in a moment frame will always be at the connection, and if the design is governed by strength (which it may not be) and is efficient, then you need to develop the full section strength at the connection.
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
I am not all that versed in masonry design, but that seems a little extreme.
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
The client is a different story. I review plenty of designs as an owner's engineer and often comment on something being over designed. We have limited budgets and need to get things done economically. One biggie is people using Category D for wind load at our facilities, when we always use Catagory C for our in-house designs. I have learned to get this worked out before the consultant gets too far along.
In my previous position working for a consulting engineer, I worked on several design/build projects and was on the receiving end of such comments from the builder. It was a total pain, but a lot of the time the builder had good ideas.
The best way to avoid problems with your own design budget is to submit a well thought out preliminary design early on and get all stakeholders to buy in.
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
You could also shoot down his alternate design by citing some choice ACI 530 requirements; those SW dimensions sound pretty extreme, especially in seismic country if you're there.
But above all, as I'm sure you know, be professional, courteous, and emotionally detached from the problem. Good luck.
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
My recommendation would be to meet with the reviewer and discuss why you chose the structural system that you're using. Keep in mind that government organizations responsible for managing other peoples money (taxpayer) usually want designs that just meet the code requirements so that they are maximizing the use of funds. A little extra factor of safety on your part does not give them a warm fuzzy (unless you can justify it).
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
AUCE98
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
IMHO, plan reviewers are there to enforce the code requirements. If you exceed them, that's between you and your client.
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
NOW - where that goes is anybody's guess and how long would it take??
But do it anonymously - or will NEVER get anything passed again.
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
Working for GSA as Contracting Officer's Technical Representative, he is obligated to get the most economical design that is adequate and constructible. If he's not questioning, he's not doing his job. Likewise, if he's not listening to the answers, he's not doing his job.
JedClampett - are you referring to being a plan reviewer for code compliance, or a plan reviewer for some agency as owner? Big difference!
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
DRG
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
Will the GSA's proposal work? Will it reduce construction costs? Will it cause a lot of rework for you?
I expect this sort of situation whenever I work for a government entity.
DaveAtkins
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
That is the most frustrating aspect of this issue, the framing scheme the GSA is proposing would not work from a design standpoint yet the GSA reviewer is insisting it would. We have stated our position with the current design, and all the aspects that factored into our decisions. At this point to go back and forth and argue with the GSA would be pointless. My father always said do not debate with the crazy person on the street corner, a passerby will not know which one is crazy.
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
This is a crock of BS. The erection companies i work with price by the ton. They work for the steel fabricator, who is looking to sell metal. Maybe if you're whole system is moment welds, it could be looked at... but i'm guessing it's not.
if you change the whole system from a steel to masonry building... then you might have some savings... but what good is a shear wall or two going to do you.
Wonder what this Jacka$$ thinks about wasteful spending in unnecessary permitting. It's hard enough to earn a living as an engineer without the BS-Tax taking out our potential profits on every other corner.
RE: PERSPECTIVE NEEDED.
Could the OP please (on an empty stomach), talk to the GSA jackass, and obtain the proposed "expert" construction of said walls, i.e. number, size, spacing of bond beams, vertical rebar schedule, grouting, anchoring, etc.?
Oh yeah, and if it won't compromise Dick Cheney's security, could you please post the locale of the proposed structure, i.e. wind and seismic zones? Thanks in advance.
PS: I thought the GSA had switched from "get the most bldg for the buck" to "make it BLAST-RESISTANT at any cost"...? Guess not.