Which has more power in decision making?

By jrw159

Date 06-11-2008 04:11

soilschick,
I would think specification.

jrw159

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 06-11-2008 07:22

jrw159, respectfully, I would see it the other way. Drawings are supposed to be reviewed by folks who "should" be knowledgable about Project Specifications and in some instances may take exception to some points of the specification. I'm also interested to see what the consensus is!

By CWI555

Date 06-11-2008 11:12

Structural engineer vs standard. While I don't have the standard in front of me, most standards have squirm words in them pushing off the responsibility on the engineer.

However; Who is the engineer of record in this case? You state that the drawings specified one standard, but the engineer states project specifications another.

I would read that standard carefully, especially looking for squirm words pushing off responsibility onto the engineer. I would also "request a copy" of that specification. From your description, this is the first you've heard of this "specification", which is not a good thing at the stage your at. That raises a flag in my mind.

Then I would be looking at the laws of your state/government. Make sure following that standard is not mandated by law. Law trumps engineer most everytime.

Usually a standard specified on drawings/contract documents has to be followed. In your position, I would go with whats in writing as just being "told" i am going to the wrong thing is not good enough in the face of a recognized standard and potentially the law.

If that engineer provides a copy of that specification, and it is signed of by the engineer of record, and no law specifically prohibits what's in the spec, then I would go with the engineer, if those conditions are not met, I would stick with the design drawings and standards.

If it's not in writing it never happened.

By swnorris (****)

Date 06-11-2008 11:15

soilschick,

The job specification requirements will sometimes vary from common industry standards in order to meet particular requirements of a specific structure. Sometimes when this happens, the job specifications are more stringent.
Typically, it's an "industry standard" to review the job specifications and address issues prior to any work being performed. I'm just speculating here, but it sounds to me like the job. specs. were not reviewed and followed. Industry standards were assumed and followed, and now there's a problem. Just remember that the engineer is typically the responsible party on a project and can override anything, including practices that are assumed to be common everyday industry standards. Therefore, a thorough review of the job specifications is necessary to help understand and carry out those requirements.
Just curious. Who prepared, reviewed, and approved the drawings?

By swsweld (****)

Date 06-11-2008 20:19

In my experience the project specifications are the determining factor. There are times when the standards, details, notes, prints etc. conflict with the specs. That's when a RFI should be issued. That doesn't help you now. To me the project specs are for that job, specifically. No other. Standards are a broader range documentation. Maybe the Structural engineer will do the calculations using the ACI standard and see if it's in the acceptable range. The 2% or 1/8" difference doesn't sound like alot but I wouldn't know a post tensioned post stressed slab if I were standing on one. There is also the manufacturers reccomendations. They must be followed if warranties are to be honored. The product that I am installing now has prints and details (from the manufacturer) that override the contract drawings and specs. If the ACI 416 is sort of a manufacturer recommendation you may still be OKSpecs are not always right. We catch things in the specs from time to time that need to be and are changed.Looks like it is your EOR's call at this time.

By g32141

Date 06-12-2008 01:22

I would say go with the project specs.
They are going to at least meet the code or exceed it. From what you posted the project specs are exceeding what the code requires. If a manufacturer had more stringent specs that the project specs call out for or fail to mention you need to let them know so they can change the project specs.

While they are smashing heads over that just do everything that meets the most stringent of them all and you are covered for all of them.

By soilschick (*)

Date 06-12-2008 01:11

The drawings were prepared by DSI, the industry leader in post tensioning. They make the cables, thus the manufacturer, and has guided up through the entire process. And you would know a post tension slab because if you live in a condo/skyscraper or work in a high rise office, then you are standing on it. :P The strucutral engineer works for the GC. He changed our calculations for estimated acceptable elongation for the last pour. And now we are wondering if we have to use the new requirements, then all the previous pours on other floors will need to be re-measured or destressed and restressed the previous cables. Which is impossible to do because the extra length of cables/tendons have been cut. It is a clusternut my friends.

By CWI555

Date 06-12-2008 11:04

Who ever did the engineering for DSI put those values in there for a reason. It's generally not a good idea to over ride the SME.
As said before, I advise identifying the responsible EOR, and make them put their requirments in writing if they have not already done so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse is what happens when they get lazy, greedy, or are just stupid.
PT cables are not something to be tinkering with loosely, should it fail due to this engineers change in calcs, and you don't have
those requirements in writing, and or he is not the responsible EOR, take a guess who is going to be blamed should some people get killed in a collapse.

Regards,
Gerald

By kipman

Date 06-12-2008 15:15

The answer to your question may be in the spec or in other contract documents. A well written spec and/or contract will specify a hierarchy of documents, the purpose of which is to specify which document takes precedent in case of conflict between documents.
Hope this helps.
Mankenberg

By Bob Garner (***)

Date 06-13-2008 21:24

Right on, Kipman

Look for an "Order of Precedance" clause or similar in the Contract Docs. Also, look for something under "Authority of the Engineer". If he's issuing directives, the Contract probably requires they be in writing.

Bob Garner

By jrw159

Date 06-14-2008 02:16

Bob,
BINGO!! on the written copy. One thing I might add is to make sure it is signed.

No signature, no validity.

jrw159

By soilschick (*)

Date 06-20-2008 04:31

Well I have heard nothing about this issue this week. I did ask my boss about the Structural Engineer/EOR, if he sent signed documents. My boss said he sent the info in e-mails. Do this qualify as acceptable? And I am pretty sure IL is an ICC state. I have to get the Special Inspectors certs for steel and concrete this winter. :(

By jrw159

Date 06-20-2008 13:31

soilschick,
E-mails are a form of documentation, but in a situation such as this I would be a little hesitant to hang my hat on that alone. If they buck the request for information with a signature from the EOR, thats a red flag. "Industrial amnesia" is alive and well in this world. Just make sure that IF it ever comes down to an "I never said that" situation, that you can CYA in a way that leaves no doubt in anyones mind as to who made the call.

If it does not conform to code and spec. and EOR will not sign off, fill out an NCR. IMHO

Good luck and keep us posted,
jrw159

By jrw159

Date 06-14-2008 02:17

"Validity" ???

Im not sure that is even a recognized word. LOL :-)

jrw159

EDIT: If it is, it is for sure misspelled.

By Metarinka (****)

Date 06-18-2008 14:52

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/validity

the validity of his word choice was 100%

By jrw159

Date 06-18-2008 15:12

Thanks.

BTW I am him. In other words I was critiqueing myself. LOL

There was an underlying humor involved in this one at the time.

Most do not realize that you can have a whole gaggle of documents from an EOR, but if he has not signed them the do not mean squat, IE not valid, no validity.

And yes, believe it or not EOR's can have a sudden case of "Industial amnesia" in a pinch just as quickly as anyone.

I personally have been in a few positions where the EOR, at a later date, stated that he "never authorized any such of a thing" until thier memory was "refreshed" when presented with a document. Funny part is, they never even read the document, they just flipped to the last page to see if indeed I had the copy that they had signed. This proved to me at least that the EOR in question knew full well they had authorized it, but would not have admitted it if there were no signature on it. JMHO

jrw159 :-)

By ctacker (****)

Date 06-20-2008 03:33

I see the underlying humor was your 4th diamond, congrats!

By jrw159

Date 06-20-2008 13:20

Two birds with one stone, so to speak. :-)

jrw159

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 06-12-2008 18:35

If this inspection is in an ICC State, where the IBC is the controlling document, the EOR's choices are limited.

Go to Section 1704 for Special Inspection requirements. You may be obligated to go over the EOR's head to the "Building Official".

If your Boss is the De-Facto "Special Inspector" he may be the one obligated to do the reporting to the Building Official.

My advice- Write it up as non-conforming. Remember "YOU" may have to answer for it if you do not follow the IBC rules.

By waynekoe (**)

Date 06-18-2008 03:24 Edited 06-18-2008 03:46

I can't recall where exactly I read it, so please don't chastize me for this. But, it goes something like this-A conflict between drawings and spec, specs prevail, conflict between specs and the EOR, then the engineer of record has the say. Should it go beyond that, as Joseph says, then the plan review guy (or lady)at the building dept and the engineer can dual with calculators at 20 paces. Unless its stated in the specs that you have to follow the ACI standard, then the specs would prevail (I believe). Bypassing the engineers calcs on yopur own, and using the industry standard, whether it was written by the ACI, or god itself, seems to put you in a dicey position. So, if the specifications say one thing and you did it another way, then you would most certainly be in non compliance with the contract documents unless written approval from the engineer of record is obtained.

By waynekoe (**)

Date 06-20-2008 01:32

The info I gave in my first post is now obsolete. The ninth edition of the ASD said the the specifications would trump the drawings,the '05 Code of Standard Practice reverses itself and says the the drawings prevail, and if there is a discrepency between the details and the numbers, then the numbers prevail. But, this is for steel buildings, and I'm not sure how that impacts post tensioned structures.