COEngineeer
Structural
The photo and the plan explains it all. Enjoy 
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
This is why you need good drawings (or contractor w/ common sense) 13
- Thread starter COEngineeer
- Start date
- Status
-
1
- #41
I am not surprised at all that the contractor poured the stair cut out with out asking for dimensions. Why?
1. The Architect never responded to his RFI, asking for clarification.
2. The contractor showed the cut out on his shop drawings with dimensions asking the Architect to verify the dimension. The Architect failed to comment on any of the shop drawing verification requests, so the contractor proceeded on the basis that the drawings were approved with no exceptions taken. No exceptions means the review agreed with all the elevations and dimensions that the contractor requested be verified.
3. The Architect's response to the RFI was to see the structural drawings. The structural drawings refer the contractor back to the architectural drawings and also show no dimensions.
4. The architectural plans shows one cut out with 4 steps. The structural shows the stairs twice as wide with two cut outs and 8 steps.
I graduated in 1978 and have seen the quality of architectural and structural plans decline signifcantly since then.
I have seen structural plans where the interior beams frame into cmu walls above the roof outside of the building envelope. Ridge beams that were supported by the roof rafters. Details that can't be constructed because the members framing in are sloped and skewed and run into each other unlike the detail that shows everthing flat and at a 90 degree angle.
I am tempted, some times, to give out annual purple shaft awards to ten architectural or engineering firms who put out the worst plans. Such a practice would be bad for business.
However I should give out annual golden sliderule awards to the firms that put out quality plans. Even today their our many firms that still put out excellent plans.
1. The Architect never responded to his RFI, asking for clarification.
2. The contractor showed the cut out on his shop drawings with dimensions asking the Architect to verify the dimension. The Architect failed to comment on any of the shop drawing verification requests, so the contractor proceeded on the basis that the drawings were approved with no exceptions taken. No exceptions means the review agreed with all the elevations and dimensions that the contractor requested be verified.
3. The Architect's response to the RFI was to see the structural drawings. The structural drawings refer the contractor back to the architectural drawings and also show no dimensions.
4. The architectural plans shows one cut out with 4 steps. The structural shows the stairs twice as wide with two cut outs and 8 steps.
I graduated in 1978 and have seen the quality of architectural and structural plans decline signifcantly since then.
I have seen structural plans where the interior beams frame into cmu walls above the roof outside of the building envelope. Ridge beams that were supported by the roof rafters. Details that can't be constructed because the members framing in are sloped and skewed and run into each other unlike the detail that shows everthing flat and at a 90 degree angle.
I am tempted, some times, to give out annual purple shaft awards to ten architectural or engineering firms who put out the worst plans. Such a practice would be bad for business.
However I should give out annual golden sliderule awards to the firms that put out quality plans. Even today their our many firms that still put out excellent plans.
- Thread starter
- #44
COEngineeer
Structural
I dont get it.. who could you not have rebars in the elevated slab? Photoshoped for sure?
boffintech
Civil/Environmental
I have this pic on the bulletin board so all the techs at my office are familiar with it. One of the techs called me from a job site and said that the contractor had the same picture on his bulletin board. The contractor however had very different caption:
"Just because it's on the drawings doesn't make it right!"
What the ?!
"Just because it's on the drawings doesn't make it right!"
What the ?!
StructuralJoe
Structural
WTF!!!
Why does it sound like most posts are attempting to blame the Architect/Engineer/Draftsman?
Doesn't anyone know that the majority of the states in USA require General Contractor's to pass a written exam and have a certain level of experience prior to becoming certified!
I am licensed as a General Contractor and soon I will be taking the PE exam. When I took the exam for my GC license there were 5+(over 10%) questions on Florida Building Code requirements for stair riser/tread dimensions and a 5" riser is not allowed. PERIOD!
Regardless, I agree that drawing standards are important but there are no standardized requirements in my state so it falls on individual engineers/architects and those standards will vary from company to company.
In addition RARSWC has a point but the Architect should have answered the RFI, structural engineers ARE NOT Architects, dimensions of risers/treads is not on the PE Exam!
The principal of my company thinks that we as engineers need to dumb down our drawings to the point that a 2 year old child could build a skyscraper, I DISAGREE how about requiring GC's have just a little bit of common sense?
Either way some of the funniest crap I have ever seen, it's a shame the name of the builder isn't posted I hope he doesn't work in my part of town...
![[2thumbsup]](/data/assets/smilies/2thumbsup.gif "[2thumbsup] [2thumbsup]")
Why does it sound like most posts are attempting to blame the Architect/Engineer/Draftsman?
Doesn't anyone know that the majority of the states in USA require General Contractor's to pass a written exam and have a certain level of experience prior to becoming certified!
I am licensed as a General Contractor and soon I will be taking the PE exam. When I took the exam for my GC license there were 5+(over 10%) questions on Florida Building Code requirements for stair riser/tread dimensions and a 5" riser is not allowed. PERIOD!
Regardless, I agree that drawing standards are important but there are no standardized requirements in my state so it falls on individual engineers/architects and those standards will vary from company to company.
In addition RARSWC has a point but the Architect should have answered the RFI, structural engineers ARE NOT Architects, dimensions of risers/treads is not on the PE Exam!
The principal of my company thinks that we as engineers need to dumb down our drawings to the point that a 2 year old child could build a skyscraper, I DISAGREE how about requiring GC's have just a little bit of common sense?
Either way some of the funniest crap I have ever seen, it's a shame the name of the builder isn't posted I hope he doesn't work in my part of town...
DonPhillips
Structural
I think you can have a 5" riser - I only recall maximum riser height of 7.75" in the IBC (and FBC is suppoed to be based on IBC). You are required to have a 5' landing on each side of an door, however.
Don Phillips
Don Phillips
BigInch said:
I think you are seeing this wrong. There is not supposed to be any arrow, the detail cut isn't stuck on the object, and there is no pedestal. The heavy line and detail callout is for a plan blowup detail of the edge of the door.
To me, this is mostly readable. True, the callout could have been pulled off to the other side, but we don't know that, we can't see the entire plan. This may have been the only spot available to locate the callout. It could have been moved up so it didn't look like a riser, but this is definitely the contractors mistake. I'm suprised he didn't question this odd looking stair!
I work on plenty of plans where space is an issue. As much as I hate having bad looking drawings, there is usually not much you can do about it, and you just have to fit things in.
Contractor licensing programs may test someone at the contractor, but don't normally test every foreman or worker there.
But the big question that has been bypassed is whether even the original picture is a factual portrayal of what went on. In doing some searching for this a while back, I found scads of references to the same picture, or versions with additional digital modifications, but never any hint of the actual circumstance behind this shot. It's obvious that the picture has been further modified digitally, it's obvious that similar pictures have been created digitally, and anyone reading Snopes knows it's not uncommon to have "real" pictures circulated with misleading descriptions.
But the big question that has been bypassed is whether even the original picture is a factual portrayal of what went on. In doing some searching for this a while back, I found scads of references to the same picture, or versions with additional digital modifications, but never any hint of the actual circumstance behind this shot. It's obvious that the picture has been further modified digitally, it's obvious that similar pictures have been created digitally, and anyone reading Snopes knows it's not uncommon to have "real" pictures circulated with misleading descriptions.
half the workforce on construction sites here are illegals (not just assuming--1st hand knowledge). and they do not know how to read or speak english so who the heck is looking at the drawings? sometimes, it's the one that speaks english who also happens to be the foreman. more often than not, they're not looking at the drawings...they follow the direction of the foreman so it's very easy for things to completely be missed since they're just working from the neck down. as far as the picture goes, it may very well be enhanced, but i'm absolutely sure that silly things like that happen all the time--sometimes because of poorly thought out plans but more often than not as a direct result of the quality of the contractor. either way, the contractor should be throwing up red flags to the project team--that is part of their job (plus it helps their relationship with the rest of the team if they don't intentially put stuff in that will not work--sure makes pay adjustments flow easier when you're on the same team as the people that are paying your check). that's my thought for what it's worth.
I agree with all of you ! We have a professional issue here! I train structural engineers how to do calculations with a little bit of quality thrown in. It blows my mind that most of them now appear to lack all confidence in checking their own drawings, but if you can't do it, you can't do it. We are losing our craft.
The last ten years has seen a decline in engineering standards. In the petrochemical business, the rise of the designers usurped the roles of lead engineers in the previous era (pre-computers) because we are 'copying' something that was done before....... Now designers stand alongside engineers eclipsed by the rise of the modellers. The modellers are defining and designing the jobs, and god help us! Drawings cut from the model are deplorable in standard, sackable offences! Expect more confusion.
The last ten years has seen a decline in engineering standards. In the petrochemical business, the rise of the designers usurped the roles of lead engineers in the previous era (pre-computers) because we are 'copying' something that was done before....... Now designers stand alongside engineers eclipsed by the rise of the modellers. The modellers are defining and designing the jobs, and god help us! Drawings cut from the model are deplorable in standard, sackable offences! Expect more confusion.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Question
