CivilPE22
Structural
- Mar 4, 2011
- 7
I work for a smaller consulting firm. I have worked under a PE with 40 plus years of experience for the past five years as an EIT. I received my PE license about two months ago and will be stamping my first project in the next month.
The PE under which I trained directed me to use “old school” methods in analyzing and designing structures on the basis that a more conservative design would result. I used these methods for the past five years in analyzing and designing structures. As a new PE my designs will still be subject to review by this senior PE. I have decided to basically consider both the out dated methods taught to me as an EIT, and ACI 350-08 and let the most conservative criteria prevail.
While designing my first project using this new approach, I discovered a significant difference in calculations between the two methods. I researched older codes and determined that certain provisions had been misapplied in the methods I was taught as an EIT. The result of the “old school” methods I was taught and the misapplication of certain provisions results in a less conservative design than the methods described in ACI 350 – 08. In some instances, some portions of the structure need to be twice as thick.
The fact of the matter is, there are many, many, structures that have been designed and passed the test of time under the “ old-school “ design methods I was taught as and EIT. However, I feel that I cannot place my stamp on something that’s designed under these methods.
I would like some advice on how I should approach the senior PE with this issue. I thought about going ahead and pushing the project through drafting and simply handing him the design; however, I know it won’t pass his smell test. He will immediately pick up on the differences and say I have been way too conservative. Since he does not want to learn the methods described in newer codes, I will have to take the older code that he has been working from for the past 40 years and show him how it has been miss-interpreted. I can also see him making the argument that there are literally dozens of these structures that have been designed under the same criteria and have withstood the test of time, which in my opinion has significant merit.
Any suggestions?
The PE under which I trained directed me to use “old school” methods in analyzing and designing structures on the basis that a more conservative design would result. I used these methods for the past five years in analyzing and designing structures. As a new PE my designs will still be subject to review by this senior PE. I have decided to basically consider both the out dated methods taught to me as an EIT, and ACI 350-08 and let the most conservative criteria prevail.
While designing my first project using this new approach, I discovered a significant difference in calculations between the two methods. I researched older codes and determined that certain provisions had been misapplied in the methods I was taught as an EIT. The result of the “old school” methods I was taught and the misapplication of certain provisions results in a less conservative design than the methods described in ACI 350 – 08. In some instances, some portions of the structure need to be twice as thick.
The fact of the matter is, there are many, many, structures that have been designed and passed the test of time under the “ old-school “ design methods I was taught as and EIT. However, I feel that I cannot place my stamp on something that’s designed under these methods.
I would like some advice on how I should approach the senior PE with this issue. I thought about going ahead and pushing the project through drafting and simply handing him the design; however, I know it won’t pass his smell test. He will immediately pick up on the differences and say I have been way too conservative. Since he does not want to learn the methods described in newer codes, I will have to take the older code that he has been working from for the past 40 years and show him how it has been miss-interpreted. I can also see him making the argument that there are literally dozens of these structures that have been designed under the same criteria and have withstood the test of time, which in my opinion has significant merit.
Any suggestions?
