FBPE Aluminum Design Sub-Committee

[David W Miller]

As usual, the aluminum industry rumor mill is alive, well and active. This posting is an effort to clarify events from the meeting on Tuesday. I was there, this is my report. [David Miller]

Tuesday Nov 14^th, FBPE Aluminum Structures Design Sub-Committee

Synopsis

3 rules had been proposed prior to the meeting: 2 of the rules were similar and were entitled “Chapter 61G15-31 Responsibility Rules of Professional Engineers Concerning the Design of Aluminum Structures”. One of these rules (really, 2 versions of the same rule) was submitted by Randy Kissell, the other edit of this rule by Do Kim. A third rule was proposed by the “AFC” (Larry Bennett, AL Engineering et al) concerned “master file” rules and processes.

1. the committee and attorney made it clear to the attendees that the sub-committee would establish a proposed rule for “aluminum structures design”, not “aluminum structures design manuals”, and thus, the proposal by the AFC would be transferred to another committee, the “Master Plans” Committee (which had just recently been created).
2. After much discussion, the sub-committee adopted the Do Kim version of the rule.

This rule will be proposed to the full FBPE in December and will probably be adopted. Then, it will be published for public comment or challenge. Assuming that this rule is implemented as proposed, its implementation would be sometime in 2007 at the earliest.

The 3^rd submission on Master File was then referred to the Master Plans committee (this committee would not meet until January, at the earliest) and the meeting was adjourned.

Please be advised that nothing immediate nor alarming affecting the aluminum patio industry was enacted. The text of the proposed rule follows:

 

RULE TEXT AS ADOPTED

Proposed Rule for 61G15, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

CHAPTER 61G15-31 RESPONSIBILITY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF STRUCTURES

61G15-31.010 Design of Aluminum Structures
(1)     The engineer of record for the structure is responsible for all structural aspects of the structure’s design including the design of the structure’s components and connections, and structural engineering documents.

(2)     The structural engineering drawings shall include
(a)     The project and its location on plan and elevation drawings for a particular site.
(b)     Drawings which show all structural components and connection details and/or alternate details.
(c)     Material specifications for all structural components and fasteners, including tolerances.
(3)     Supporting structural engineering calculations and documents shall include
(a)     The nature, magnitude, and location of all design loads and the load cases for the structure.
(b)     Material specifications for all structural components and fasteners.
(c)     The support conditions assumed in the design.
(d)     The location and magnitude of the structure’s reactions for each load case. 
(e)     Calculations showing the maximum stress, allowable stress, and span to deflection ratio for each structural component type, and calculations showing the maximum force and allowable force for each connection type.

[adam]

I would like to get any engineers opinion on the above rules
proposed by the FBPE. I feel that if that is enacted every screen
enclosure would need the values on every connection for every enclosure
submitted for permit. I find it disturbing that the person that
proposed it was Randy Kissell with Jude sitting in the audience. That
if this is passed they will both profit as they are both officers of
Aero Consulting. The way I intrepid the rule is that every enclosure
will have to go through 3d finite analysis which they just happen to
have a program for the screen industry. I sent this over to a reputable
engineer and he wrote me back the following.

As far as the FBPE meeting agenda goes, I have only one comment. Randy
Kissell is proposing that the responsible engineer should report the
stress and load in each member and joints throughout the structure. As
a professional Engineer, It is my opinion that this would be a waste of
time and not improve the safety for some structures. Simple structures
could easily designed and analyzed with the use of "standard"
tables and the engineer could confirm that the adequate margin exists
without knowing the exact load and stress in each of the joints and
members. This judgment should be left up to the responsible engineer.

David I posted this on your site to get the engineers opinion on
this and I feel that if they pass this than you can not have a manual.
If every enclosure needs to be analyzed than how can you use any
manual. I know they have a committee working on the manual but they can
not pass the above with out getting rid of the manuals. I will also
post the emails of Randy Kissell to the board attacking the manual you
are rewriting. I feel we in the AAF have to get the above changed to
different wording. We need to get every member involved or the price of
engineering will go through the roof. I will post this on the
contractors site so the conversations can continue there

Adam