Proud Engineer, or Dumb Engineer?

Jeremiah Johnson

I am currently working on a multi-million dollar steam job at a local university. My apprentice just finished hooking up a steam coil on a make-up air unit when I noticed he had piped it wrong. "That's what the print said!" was his answer. After a long scolding he understood that we do not do things wrong just because it's on the print that way! I looked at the print. Sure enough! Here is what it had drawn. On the outlet of the coil was, of course, the trap. There is a by-pass for the trap allowing maintainence to fix the trap without shutting the steam down. However there was no valve in-between the first by-pass tee and the trap! Or, in other words, there was a valve after the trap, a valve on the by-pass, but no valve before the trap, making the by-pass completly useless. I called the engineer and explained I must put a valve before the trap or I will have to shut the steam down to work on the trap in the future, making the by-pass useless. He demanded I did not know what I was talking about and refused to OK another valve without giving me any answer as to why. Am I missing somthing? Is this engineer to proud to admit his mistake or to dumb to realize it? Problem is, every trap on the job is drawn this way! Please tell me I missed somthing! Thanks, Jeremiah Johnson

Bill Nye

Well

that's engineers for you. They are just so much smarter than us, they just can't be bothered explaining something if you can't see it their way. The first thing they teach 'em in engineer school. Engineering 101.


Maybe you should give him a second chance. He was probably looking at the drawing as soon as he hung up with you. Trying to save face most likely. Politely invite him out to the jobsite and have him explain it to you. Tell him that you are just to ignernt to understand and maybe if he explained it real slow to you..........Then he would realize he was wrong and let you put in the valve.

You can never ever get an apology, or a, maybe you'r right from these guys. But when they realize they are wrong it is kinda priceless...........

Weezbo

the company policy is You are supposed to Know it ...

needed one and the drawings are not intended for Non engineers to interpet:))) which is hog wash for we dont make mistakes and of course any qualified steam fitter would Know that by now!:))) really its done every day..the drawing are what are called Representative drawings and are supposed to have been interpeted as such when you gave them the bid:) oh yeah its done every day:)today two of my guys were looking at the prints...what are you guys doing looking at these drawings? i ask them. you know they are Meaningless, get back to work:)

Paul Rohrs

Then again.....

Engineers help grease the wheels of the economy.
Can you say, "change order" when they understand that
you are right? Hang in there!

Regards,

PR

Don Walsh

Engineers

But before you invite the engineer out to the jobsite, you will have to empty the parking lot and several side streets.
He does need somewhere to park his train, afterall! ;>)

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

bob young

xtra money gift s from engineers without trains

i love engineers like that. CHANGE ORDER. Just set up the pipework so a valve can be added . never look a gift horse in the mouth

Brad White_2

Hey, wait a minute....

I resemble that remark....
As an engineer, (and a human being, hard as it may be for some to conjoin the two terms) I find it the best policy to admit and error and move on.

(Some engineers give the rest of us a bad name. One I used to work with, when he entered a room, the cry went out, "Tranquility Base here; the Ego has landed".)


Maybe, just maybe, that engineer thought you could replace a trap very, very quickly? ;^)>

My guess is, it was a young Turk seeing details and engineering principles more like religion than reality?

You are doing the engineer a favor by pointing that out. Any change order is called "tuition". The mid-term and final come when you see his details on the next job.

In the past 25 years, details have become a commodity, from tracings to stick-ons to AutoCAD. Repetition of mistakes has never been so easy. What surprises me is that no one has checked it. Best policy is a fresh pair of eyes. In fact, I learned (and still learn) more from a guy in the field with a wrench in his hand than from a guy in the office with a slide-rule, (whatever that is :^)> )

ernie_3

Real nice...

Should we get on the subject of architects.........I have some doozys on them!

jackchips_2

Maybe what

we should do is hold up a mirror and say:

"I am perfect".

don_52

typical steam, showing bypass

didn't have a better iso on my machine, this one
doesn't show the traps but "at least" shows the
bypass(s).

this comes from the army public cadd library.

http://cadlib.wes.army.mil

under "mechanical", they have many "typical" drawings
there, which means "change as required" which is also
typically left for "field to determine best method".

http://cadlib.wes.army.mil/DetailsLibrary/Type.asp?TableName=mech&Discipline=Mechanical&DetailType=Heat Transfer

Tell him I approved the "extra" and give him my email
address, ask him if he knows what "sustaining" or
"maintainability" or "best practices" mean, better yet
feed him to me.

kind regards to all, don

ah, found it, doesn't show bypass around trap, shows
bypass around valve, which if done in both cases
would allow you to work either without shutting
down.

Matt Undy

Of course it should have been cleared up with an RFI during the bid process.... I have some inclination to add a clause to the contract that states the bid must be for a functional system such that anything glaring overlooked in the design isn't the responsibility of the owner. My reason for this is that we have an A/V contractor that is famous for doing both the design and wining the bid by designing a system that doesn't work then jacking up the price in change orders. The owner is now repsonsble for the cost of the extra even though some combination of the engineer and the contractor screwed up. After all you should have asked for clarification before you bid not in the middle of the job. An engineer doesn't maintian the system, they are not in the best position to design such things. Somone trying to keep the budget under control is more likely to just remove the whole bypass at this point than to do it right if more money is involved.

I'm certianly not saying the engineering firm shouldn't have drawn it right in the first place, but the contractor who bid it without asking also has some responsibility. The bad part is the construction process is structured to absolve both of you from liability and place it on the owner.

Matt

Paul Rohrs_2

Your right...

I'll have a piece of "humble pie" over here please.

thank you Jackchips for reminding us that we are
fallable as well.

Regards,

PR

DanHolohan

Beautifully said.

Thanks for the insight, Brad.

Brent_2

rfi

Matt, sorry to tell you but I think you are off base when you say that the piping detail error should have been cleared up during the bid process. Adding 1 valve per coil would be such a small amount that nobody would be concerned about it at that point. Especially since the estimator may not be experienced enough in that area to question it.
I think Jeremiah did exactly what he should have. He looked at the detail provided by the engineer. He called the engineer to allow him to review the detail and realize there was a mistake before installation was complete. The engineer said there was not a mistake. If the owner complains then Jeremiah is covered and the owner can go to the engineer. Of course the owner will not get anywhere and he will end up on the short end of the stick.
Regarding adding a clause...
I'm not sure what your background is, maybe general contractor? I am sick of doing plan and spec work where there is a whole list of general notes where most of them do not apply. They are just cya notes for the engineer. It is the engineer's job to design a system that will work. If the contractor realizes there is an error then he can alert the engineer to the issue. If he doesn't realize there is an error and he installs it according to the print the contractor should not be held responsible.

brent

Constantin

Ditto

On vacation in ME and all that but now on a wireless network... as an engineer I was never trained to be haughty... quite the opposite. Like other crafts, an engineer has to go through a apprenticeship-like process before being tested and accepted as a PE. Thus, the education does not stop in the classroom.

Furthermore, we all have the tendency to overlook the misdeeds of our own groups while noticing the mistakes "others" make all the more. Something along the lines of timbers in peoples eyes and all that. So, a ding-dong engineer who simply parrots what the print says instead of thinking about the problem in a meaningful manner is no less ignorant than anyone else who thinks they know the right answer, even though they don't.

I make it a point to listen to folks in the field as a matter of course. My training and experience usually pales in comparision to the lifelong experience that some machine/plant/etc. operators have had. That does not mean that I have to agree with them, but there is always room for dialogue unless a life is in danger. Treating other people with respect usually engenders a like response, which is always easier to deal with than an acrimonious relationship.

Bill Nye

Constantin

> On vacation in ME and all that but now on a

> wireless network... as an engineer I was never

> trained to be haughty... quite the opposite. Like

> other crafts, an engineer has to go through a

> apprenticeship-like process before being tested

> and accepted as a PE. Thus, the education does

> not stop in the classroom.

>

> Furthermore, we all

> have the tendency to overlook the misdeeds of our

> own groups while noticing the mistakes "others"

> make all the more. Something along the lines of

> timbers in peoples eyes and all that. So, a

> ding-dong engineer who simply parrots what the

> print says instead of thinking about the problem

> in a meaningful manner is no less ignorant than

> anyone else who thinks they know the right

> answer, even though they don't.

>

> I make it a

> point to listen to folks in the field as a matter

> of course. My training and experience usually

> pales in comparision to the lifelong experience

> that some machine/plant/etc. operators have had.

> That does not mean that I have to agree with

> them, but there is always room for dialogue

> unless a life is in danger. Treating other people

> with respect usually engenders a like response,

> which is always easier to deal with than an

> acrimonious relationship.