Delegated Engineer's responsibility to the rest of the project... 1

[PMR06]

We have a project in house to design steel stairs for a building that was designed by others. The building is a school located in a high seismic region: SDC D, special moment frames, site Class E, and high importance. As I've been looking thru the structural drawings to figure out what our stairs will attach to, I've noticed several things I am not immediately comfortable with:

-Spread footings are not tied together directly or with any kind of detail to the slab on grade (RE: IBC 1805.4.2.2)

-Except for the RBS details, the connection designs were delegated, yet none have an axial component

-There are no details of diaphragm collectors. The only load path I see from diaphragm to moment frame would be thru joist seat rollover of the few joists in the frame bay, yet no load is given for the joist manufacturer to design for. This also presumes the last few puddle welds on the joist are enough to transfer that load.

-There are no diaphragm chords I can see. Perimeter edge angles are interrupted by columns, no add'l reinforcing added in slab, etc.

-Multi-story exterior CMU walls are called out “Per Arch”, do include a cookie cutter reinforcing schedule, but no detail of how they are tied back to the building

I'm not saying any of these things don't work, but there are enough red flags that make me wonder if the load path of this structure was really designed or just thrown together from a bunch of low seismic, standard details. I would love to send a simple, professional email to the EOR asking. I am not sealing our stair work, and the engineer who is reviewing/sealing this work (my boss) has instructed me not to pursue this. We are simply noting in our calcs the limits of our scope. He also jokingly asked that I remind him not to enroll his kids in this school…

Jokes aside, what responsibility/ethic/professionalism does a delegated engineer have when looking back thru design documents and seeing things that might not work, but are not related to the limited scope he was hired for?

 

[CELinOttawa]

YOU have responsibility to the Public first as an engineer. Where you see this is potentially dangerous to members of the public, you ARE to pursue it, regardless of what your boss says.

My steps would be: (NOTE: There are as from your current position, I would start as you did - with a chat with the boss/P.Eng. responsible at your firm)

1) Check to see if I can make the building work. Discuss with colleagues if I cannot.
2) Where it fails my checks, potentially post to Eng-Tips with all info strippedto be CERTAIN I am right that there is a problem.
3) Should I now be 100% certain that the project has serious Structural problems, I would now bring this to my boss.
4) Regardless of the boss' response, you now contact the EOR to give them a chance to defend their design.
5) After three business days, if the EOR has not responded, call them.
6) If the inquiries with the EOR fail, you MUST AND SHALL contact both the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and the board, in my case this would be PEO or IPENZ.
7) Face the consequences of doing these things like a professional. You have no choice, unless you want to think of yourself as a technician and not a Professional.

NB: At some point after step 3 you should be talking to your lawyer and insurer, I hope with your boss in support. Both will likely try to discourage you, and you cannot listen to that crap. You should frame your questions to them in terms of the fact that this is moving forward and get council as to how best deal with the issues that are likely to arise.

 

[Ron]

As a delegated engineer, you are not expected to re-design the building if you see issues. You are; however, obligated to bring up points to the EOR that you might consider deficient with respect you that which you are "tieing" to. As an example, if you feel that the reactions you need cannot be accommodated by the EOR's design, you are obligated to tell him or at least get clarification.

Limiting your scope of involvement will not necessarily limit your liability; particularly if the errors are egregious and obvious.

 

[CELinOttawa]

Ron: The moment he had doubts, it was too late to not verify. This isn't about what another person can prove or stick you with (ie: liability) it IS about ensuring the ultimate safety of the unsuspecting public (ie: Professionalism).

 

[JAE]

I think you have an obligation to the public. The issue really is how you respond to that issue.

You state a number of things that give you the willies but unless you poke deeper into the design you can't be sure there really are issues.

I think CELinOttawa's suggestions are a bit over the top unless you know for a fact that there definitely IS something unsafe.

For example, your reference to IBC 1805.4.2.2 requires ties for spread footings ONLY if you are BOTH in a high seismic category AND in a site class E or F (this is the dirt - not the seismic class). I'm not sure if you know what the site class is for stair design.

I think what Ron suggests - start with issues that are directly associated with your own design effort and communicate those issues in writing.

 

[CELinOttawa]

JAE: How is my process over the top if followed step by step?

Honestly curious as I respect both Ron and yourself...

 

[JAE]

Based on the general items that the OP listed, following through with all your steps immediately, based on just those items, is premature in my view.

I pointed out how one of the items wasn't really an issue if the structure wasn't on a site class E or F.

We can jump to conclusions when we see things and not entirely understand the full design mechanism or the issues.
Jumping through your list would be "flying off the handle" before you really knew all the facts.

I would be more inclined, initially, to do what Ron suggests and call the EOR with perhaps one or two specific questions that relate to your own role in the design.
This can develop a relationship where further questions might be posed if possible, where details don't make sense in other areas.

Your first step: [blue] "Check to see if I can make the building work."[/blue] requires, really, a complete engineering design of the structure.
The ethical standards of most areas I'm licensed in don't require me to run around and re-design every building I see to make sure that it was done correctly.

 

[PMR06]

Thanks all for your input. JAE & Ron, I agree with your more relaxed approach. @JAE, according to the structural notes for the main building BOTH conditions exist: the structure is classified SDC D and the Site is Class E; therefore I think the tied footing clause would apply.

I mainly wanted to hear discussion of where to draw the line, based upon US laws and ethics (CEL Canada plays by different rules). I can open about any set of plans and find details I might not have done myself. I mean no offense to my peers, it's just an example of how we all approach structures differently, and there are nuances to design that I may not have learned yet. With many of those details I can "see" how they would work if the EOR really "sharpened their pencil" and rigorously researched/calculated it. For this stair project, I cannot show any individual piece we will attach to does not work (short of the whole building shaking down.) However there are enough global load path issues that make me too uncomfortable.

I know what I need to do. Even though I am not sealing this work, I am a licensed SE in the state the work will take place (IL) and I am honestly concerned. I'm going to finish sipping my coffee then go tell my boss that I am going to contact the EOR and ask a few questions. I will try to relate them to our stair work and hopefully have an informative, professional discussion.

 

[CELinOttawa]

I am surprised to hear your opinion JAE, but respect it as a view from a well qualified peer.

I doubt, however, from the read of the initial post that the job as drawn is sufficient to satisfy your code.

 

[PMR06]

@CEL: I do not have access to, nor will I take time to recreate, the full analysis of this building. As such, I cannot say with certainty that any part of building is going to fail. I have shown the drawings to my boss and other engineers here, and they also do not immediately see how the structure works or meets code. However, there may well be calcs and/or code justifications to each of my concerns, in which case I will learn something in this process. Most important, nothing has been built and there is no immediate danger to anyone. Therefore we have time to work through this in a reasonable manner.

I think the appropriate starting point here is simple phone call and professional discussion, and we'll go from there...

 

[CELinOttawa]

Good - You're doing the responsible thing, and looks like you'll be stopping at my point three... Fingers crossed for your phone call!

 

[JAE]

Yes I think we all agree that if you see something that is obviously wrong you should at least respond in some fashion.

It is just the method of that response that can be varied.

 

[rowingengineer]

old war story: My old boss was an the EOR for a small but important project. The roasting my old boss gave this consulting engineer is folk law in my office, I won't go into details of the roasting and reason but basically the other engineer had missed a few important details that changed the structure from unsafe to safe. We did get a written retraction but the damage was done to the consulting engineers creditability, such that he moved his practice to another town.

http://www.nceng.com.au/

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

 

[CELinOttawa]

Rowingengineer: I can't follow your story. Did your boss catch another's error, or did another Engineer complain about your boss? Sorry, but the safe & unsafe bit is either the wrong way round, or I am not able to follow...

Sound like it would be a good story!

 

[rowingengineer]

the other engineer made an offical complaint to our board, however once all drawing were supplied he understood his error. my boss gave him a phone call to reminded him that a phone is very light to pickup and ask.

http://www.nceng.com.au/

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

 

[CELinOttawa]

Yup: NO question, you can never go to the board or any other party prior to giving the P.Eng the chance to defend/explain their design... Very unprofessional of the other engineer.

 

[Qshake]

So in the original post I didn't see where it said the plans were final and the poster is responsible for stairs and would need to see a layout before final plans....if the stairs aren't in them, how can they be final?

So, given the hectic schedules we all deal with, is it possible these plans simply aren't finished yet? Incomplete plans should be stamped as such but I bet since the old rubber stamps are out the window, plans may not always get the stamp or the layer turned on when printing etc.

Just a thought....

Regards,
Qshake

Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

 

[PMR06]

@Qshake, sorry I didn't clarify that. The plans are definitely "final." The stair layouts and member sizes were included; the connections were delegated to the fabricator. We have copies of the "final" rev0 set, as well as couple uprev addendums. Nothing in the SFRS was updated. We are still working thru this, but I will try to follow up if/when I can...

 

[dik]

When was it designed, and was it in compliance with the codes at the time? Is that an issue in the jurisdiction of the project?

Dik

 

[PMR06]

It was designed within the past year, per IBC 2009 according to the General Notes.