#$%^&*! Engineers

Thad,

it APPEARS, to use lawyer LANGUAGE, that you are looking at someones grading plan. all that i can say is that is what engineering submittals and finished products look like today.

until a surveyor somewhere finds the somebody that is responsible for the somewhat lacking performance (aka fubar and or lack of professionalism) to do w/ this, and asks that person if they were borne by somebody that didn't know something about engineering, mapping, mathematics, and/or etc., and then holds that idiot's feet to the fire in front of his peers, then it don't matter.

in essence, it's an embarrassment to the signee (and should be a bor offense), but some surveyor will make it work.

If you change it, haven't you accepted responsibility for your change working? And maybe even for things you didn't catch that needed change? Seems like you should only make recommendations and get them to sign off.

I recently had to set out a small turning circle that was being built at the end of a street.

The contractor wanted the kerb setout at a nominal offset with levels marked on each setout stake (not too difficult I thought initially).

I then start looking in depth at the design plan and realise that of the approx 10 points I needed to setout there were only levels on half of them. I rang the engineering firm that produced the plans to ask for some assistance in calculating the levels on the other half.

After asking for a 3D line from which I could get levels off it wherever the contractor wanted, I was told "oh no, we only designed it in 2D and we won't help you because we might get it wrong and then we would be liable".

At this point I was shaking my head in disbelief. I then look at the services section of the design as there was a small sewer and stormwater extension under the new turning circle. I found three glaring problems with the levels shown on the plans. Once I pointed these out to the engineering firm, they fixed them but no apology. The ensuing services changes also changed the levels of the kerb in a few points.

I could have played the dumb surveyor and just setout what was on the plan (and let the flak fall) but instead did the correct thing and found their mistakes for them on a plan that had been issued for construction.

Considering we had given them a full 3D detail survey of the site prior to the design phase, if they had of done any sort of 3D checks on their own work, they would have realised very quickly that their design was substandard and wrong.

I really dislike engineers that do not work in 3D!!!

Bill,
They (Contractors) are glad I adjust them so they can keep working and get things built (correctly). If things are too bad by my experience and knowledge I will stop and notify the Contractor for whom I am working.

I really dislike engineers that do not work in 3D!!!
:good::good:

> After asking for a 3D line from which I could get levels off it wherever the contractor wanted, I was told "oh no, we only designed it in 2D and we won't help you because we might get it wrong and then we would be liable".

This is a typical response. In the old days I could understand not giving out a set of digital plans but these days you can not build off of a set of plans. Plans used to have all the info you needed to do calculations with the Kurta, or in my case HP-41, in the truck. Rarely do I see a complete set of plan now. And when you ask for electronic files you get garbage and/or the response that we don't give that out because of liability. But are they not liable once they stamp the plans that are not construct able.

Thanks for getting my blood up before bed.

The guy that builds it always finds the errors and omissions in the plans. It happens more than it should. I don't do much construction layout any more but for about 10 years I did a lot. I fixed a lot of stuff. I tried to get stuff corrected by the designer but it's not always easy and sometimes they don't know how to fix it.

I went the rounds with an engineer one time that signed the plans but must not have supervised them. He had an asphalt parking lot with about 0.5% slope (among all the issues). I told him it wouldn't drain, they can't lay asphalt that even. Nope, water will drain at that slope, couldn't get him to budge. So we built it. One day during a rainstorm I was nearby so I went to see. Sure enough puddles all over the place that weren't draining. Whether it evolved into a maintenance problem or an unhappy owner I don't know. They should have been made to pay.

The best training that could be given to a site designer would be to have them work on a survey layout crew for a couple years and see what happens when a set of plans is applied and built.

Why can't you just create strip pads?

We mass grade the site, then let the individual lot builders do their own fine grading.

Constructible engineering plans are an anachronism.

The job of the 21st century PE isn't to produce plans that can be built, it's to produce plans that can be approved by regional planning authorities so projects can be funded.

The reviewing authorities don't catch problems like they used to either so when it's all said and done if the surveyors don't catch it, it'll probably get built like it's designed because the contractors attitude is they know it's wrong but have stakes and someone will pay for them to re-do the work and they're going to keep it moving.

Engineer designs plans, they go to 3 different reviewing authorities (multiple reviews by each) and they're approved to build. Crew gets everything staked and it's built. 3 yrs later I've taken over the crews and get a copy of a bill from our engineering dept. to re-lay 400 feet of 18" pipe through a parking lot. Seems our engineers designed a 12" to except a 15" pipe. I asked the crew chief what was going on and he said that he thought they were using the pipe for underground storage which they were doing a lot of at the time. Talk to the contractor who said he'd notice it but said that's what the plans called for. The engineers thought I should fire the crew chief because he laid it out as designed. I asked who was making all the money & who got treated like an indentured servant and walked away laughing. Now we're supposed to make sure the engineers don't make fools of themselves. What are they there for anyway if we're supposed to make sure it gets built right? I told them our job is to make sure it gets put in the ground where they call for it and if it's a noticable mistake we'll catch it. The bigger pipe into a smaller pipe should have been questioned and I told the crew chief that in private but it ticked me off the engineers got all high and mighty because the guys staked it like they designed it.

>
> The job of the 21st century PE isn't to produce plans that can be built, it's to produce plans that can be approved by regional planning authorities so projects can be funded.

Yup, pretty much every engineering plan I've worked on is to get an approval.

State laws

Doesn't your state have laws that require civil engineers to design grading & site plans in 3D that actually allow the water to run down hill?

Do any states have such requirements in their codes?

:good: :good: I once went to my engineer to show her problems with the plans she signed (hoping it would be a learning process for her) and her response was that the plans made it through the local agency's plan check process! It turned into a learning process for me instead! Plans were no more a guide to construct by but a document that had to be approved by a bureaucrat. I.E. 50' vertical curves on .5% streets that also have reversing curves with 0.42' of tangent between the reverse curves. Stations of the vertical curve beginning and ending at odd ball stations that don’t match P.C. or P.T......... On an on it goes. Jp

Just got back from trying to stake a railroad project inside a TVA power plant. Plans give alignment along new track, profile along old track (both in a curve and not parallel), no correlation between the stationing on either one. Nobody on site can answer any questions, emails haven't produced an understanding of why more info is needed, rail contractor finally said just stake the new alignment, eyeball over to the old track and use that elevation for the new one. Could have been so much easier if they would have just given me the information.

Got another one for the city that the dirt contractor (subbed through my contractor, I created the file) used machine control to build a parking area and street running to it. Almost finished with the earthwork and the city engineer decided to just make a few adjustments to a cross street (with curb and gutter around 4 radius) that intersects in a curve/super/vertical curve. Now I've either got to redo the whole intersection in a new file or figure new grades and set some stakes. I can't get anything finished for recalculating stuff I thought I was done with.

"The job of the 21st century PE isn't to produce plans that can be built, it's to produce plans that can be approved by regional planning authorities so projects can be funded."

It's sad but that's the truth!

Owner's will pay for whatever it takes to get a permit but are cheap an many other things like good topo's for design and a comprehensive design. They won't pay upfront but have to pay later. This story is as old as the hills.

Another problem is that permitting has evolved into a giant and very expensive mess. It drains so much of the resource that things get thin to complete the project. Yes engineers need to to develop good plans and I think more would if they could get paid for the work. Surveyors have the same problem ans should have some understanding.

I think you nailed it.

If all the information needed to build it were to be reviewed by the governing body the plans would never get approved.

State laws

> Doesn't your state have laws that require civil engineers to design grading & site plans in 3D that actually allow the water to run down hill?
>
> Do any states have such requirements in their codes?

[sarcasm]So, Idaho has solved they're #$%^&*! Engineer problems by codifying natural law? Brilliant![/sarcasm]

> Owner's will pay for whatever it takes to get a permit but are cheap an many other things like good topo's for design and a comprehensive design. They won't pay upfront but have to pay later. This story is as old as the hills.

Yep. For years I worked for a firm known for doing the most comprehensive design surveys in the area. We worked for sophisticated clients who knew that spending the extra $$ on the front end saved them much more in the long run.
It's been my way of doing business ever since.

Funny part is, we were a mostly-autonomous division of a large engineering firm who often didn't want to pay for the kind of work we did... :pinch:

> rail contractor finally said just stake the new alignment, eyeball over to the old track and use that elevation for the new one.

:excruciating:
Did you get him to sign off on that?