PERSPECTIVE NEEDED. 3

[AUCE98]

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.

 

[LonnieP]

Assuming you're working for, via contract, an Architect, express your concerns to your client and let him decide what to do.

LonnieP

 

[cntw1953]

Be calm. Send one of your confidant to take the abuses, so he (your confidant) can pretend innocent and pointing finger at you, but without questioning your integrity. At the end, you only need the plan approved, for which "excess" is a non-issue, unless he (the examiner) comments/requests response in writing.

 

[dicksewerrat]

His only job is to make sure the plans meet the local minimums. I don't understand why he would even comment on the cost of the building. Maybe he is related to your client, or he couldn't get a job in your firm.

Richard A. Cornelius, P.E.

http://WWW.amlinereast.com

 

[JStephen]

Sounds like he's just a know-it-all.

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.

 

[weab]

First of all, his comments are out of his scope and without outright saying it, he is insulting you. Ultimately, just keep your cool with him or express that the client is satisfied. If you get upset with him, I'd be afraid that the paperwork will take a long time to go through.

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.

 

[msquared48]

Since the Code requirements are a minimum, designing above that limitis the call of the engineer. So long as the minimum limits of the code are met, it is really not his concern or call. He is overstepping his limits of authority.

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

 

[beton1]

I am assuming the architect gave some guidance; ie.how can this reviewer suggest to use masonry to handle the shear whereas you designed a moment frame. There must be architectural implications. Get the architect to step up to the plate at least in this part. Regarding the welds, find out how current this guy is or what his design background consists of. He may just be trying to impress his superiors or team. You can also get input from the steel fabricator if they are prequalified or short listed. Sometimes to blow off the client or even architect, my old boss would just mention earthquake, knowing they would not have a clue how to respond. (We are in a low risk area, but nonetheless it is still a consideration). Try to be tactful, at the start... then hit.

 

[Ron]

Your design is your prerogative. Not his. He is to review for code compliance, and nothing else. If he disagrees with your design, and it meets the code requirements, so what! He's not signing/sealing the plans. If he is licensed as an engineer, then he can have his opinion, but doesn't need to interject that on you. If he's not a licensed engineer, he has no business even commenting on such. Screw him. Go pee in the pool.

 

[DaveAtkins]

It depends on the project.

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

 

[paddingtongreen]

That was my reaction Dave.

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.

 

[Lion06]

This is quite an interesting thread. I enjoy hearing the experienced engineers discuss how a situation like this would/should be handled.

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.

 

[Stillerz]

A 25' tall masonary shear wall that is only 10' long?
I am not all that versed in masonry design, but that seems a little extreme.

 

[graybeach]

As Dave points out, you do not say whether the reviewer is the client or a code compliance officer. If it was a code person - they are out of line to make such comments.

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.

 

[dgillette]

Perhaps the OP could explain the situation - what the government guy's role is, and who the client is, and who will bear the cost of making any design changes.

 

[dm3415]

If the reviewer is available to communicate to directly, in a polite way I find it useful to exhaustively list the code requirements that have guided you on your path to your final design. Something along the lines of AISC 13th Ed. section J.XX paragraph xx states welding...and that's why I was required to use FP welds.

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.

 

[vmirat]

As a "government plan reviewer" with 30+ years of engineering experience, perhaps I can give you a little insight into this situation. I work for the Department of Defense, so I am charged with insuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely (these days, that means getting more with less, so we are very sensitive to how much things cost). Our office acts as the regional building department to insure code compliance but also checks designs for cost and technical adequacy. Most of the time, I let the A/E decide what structural system to use for a building. However, there are times when I feel a certain detail may incure more cost than necessary and I will recommend the A/E consider other options. Ultimately, we only care about the bottom line and the structural engineer of record is usually a subcontractor, so we put the burden of cost control on the prime contractor (usually an architectural firm). If they can keep within the programmed amount of the project and still use the more expensive structural system, then so be it. Sometimes there are other factors that come into play which may warrant a different type of design. Maintenance is one of those factors.

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).

 

[AUCE98]

The reviewer was working for the GSA, so he was looking at the project from a financial standpoint as well as a code compliance standpoint. While the project had elements that were very different from typical building he may have been accustom to did not mean that they were wrong or too expensive. The issue was the engineer reviewing did not want to hear what my responses were to his comments, regardless. He wanted the entire building changed to a different framing system, without looking at all the aspects of project which were originally considered such as, building geometry, site constraints, construction sequencing and lay down area as well as cost. I took the approach to respond in a very concise manner sighting chapter and verse from the applicable code and reasons for the decisions made during the course of the project. I submitted it to my client, the architect, and have not heard any response yet. Thank you all for your insight.
AUCE98

 

[JedClampett]

Once, when I was desperate for a job, I interviewed for a plan reviewer position. One of the questions they asked me was, "If you noticed a design that was uneconomically conservative, what would you do about it?" I responded that if it met code, it was none of my business. I didn't get the plan reviewer job, but I would answer that way again today.
IMHO, plan reviewers are there to enforce the code requirements. If you exceed them, that's between you and your client.

 

[MiketheEngineer]

If he/she is not an engineer/architect - then they are practicing without a license.

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.