Engineer wanted splice on middle post 9

[hgcdesign]

hello guys , this may be a dumb question but I'm going to ask anyway. The engineer of record on a house I'm building wanted a steel beam spliced on middle post with a concrete pad of 24x24" . I built it with a 34x34 concrete pad and just left the post solid because it came that way and seames to make more sense not to cut it , I still supported it on the middle post . Now he is telling me I have to redo it because the pad needed to be 36x36 for a solid beam . This makes zero sense to me but I guess I could be missing something. Beam is 50' Thanks

 

[r13]

Please re-exam the op's statements, and dhengr's comment. The order redo the work to make up the difference obviously was issued by the inspection engineer (a junior), not the EOR, the OP has yet to reach out to the "good guy" EOR as he has claimed in his earlier response:

.. if I could actually get the EOR I think I would be fine, he's a real good guy, ..

Why attack/question a fellow engineers' competency without knowing the whole issues behind. And does anybody know how many problems the un-notified change/deviation may trigger? No matter what happens in the end, the OP will be paid for the price in his bid (no increase, nor deduction, as long as for now), but the EOR might not be able to recoup the additional design works caused by OP's mistakes on not following the original design, and made field changes based on his experience rather than communicate through the EOR first.

Down to the bottom line, while I full heartily respect those experienced contractors, and had embraced many ideas from them, I couldn't stop myself to question the desirability and acceptance of OP's behavior, if it is your project, and you are the EOR.

 

[Tomfh]

It is actually 25% total IIRC.

It’s actually slightly less than that in this case as the contractor has changed from two two-spans to one four-span.

 

[hgcdesign]

You mind friend are the definition of what's wrong in this industry, I was asking a simple question to learn something for my own benefit because I like to learn from these situations. Not to piss and moan to the EOR to try and get out of doing something. If you bothered to read any of my replies the EOR will always be compensated and I pay for any time overages out of my profit . 9 out of 10 engineers love working with us and call me every week. I pay everyone involved in the projects personally and recoupe the money from the bank through draws. sometimes I have a million out of my own cash. We all know we are beholden to you guys on these projects. To speak to me like I'm a fool just shows your ignorance and your unbelievable ego. This is probably the highlight of your week posting a scathing comment to a simple question because no one wants to do business with an asshole like you.

 

[Tomfh]

We should probably try to avoid letting this thread degenerate this way.

OP, it's an interesting case, and it would be good if we could hear the EOR's justification. Perhaps it's nothing more than the engineer being annoyed design was changed, and they feel they need to put you back on the leash. It's an unfortunate part of the builder/engineer relationship. From an engineers point of view, builders often test engineers at the start to see what they can get away with, and engineers often have to push back to establish a line in the sand. Sad, but true. Maybe that's all that happening here - The engineer is just asserting themselves. Or maybe there really is a deeper engineering concern that's being overlooked. Sometimes engineer doesn't have the time or inclination to discuss the finer points with builders.

 

[XR250]

It’s actually slightly less than that in this case as the contractor has changed from two two-spans to one four-span.

Ahh, did not catch that later in the post.

Seems silly... but why would anyone use a 34x34 footing in lieu of a 36x36?

Why is that silly? It will likely be dug with a 24" bucket so having a dimension based on "even" feet is meaningless.
I do odd footing sizes for decks all the time as they are dug by hand commonly and it is less work and less concrete to dig a smaller footing.

 

[r13]

Nothing wrong with odd dimensions, but experience tells it often causes mistakes.

 

[nac521]

As an engineer with years of residential construction experience, I take the side of the contractor on this case. If I pushed back and made a contractor do extra work because a design was changed, I would have zero clients. I would ask for a formal calc package an tell them you are getting it peer reviewed, that would get the attention of the EOR.

 

[XR250]

I too want to side with the contractor on this one.

Nothing wrong with odd dimensions, but experience tells it often causes mistakes.

Tell me about your experiences, r13. What increments in footing sizes are appropriate?

 

[r13]

3" increment will be fine. For footings, I usually go for 6", easy to remember, and measure.

 

[Rabbit12]

The numbers really don't make any sense to me as to why the engineer is asking for 2" to be added to the footing. The 36" square footing has an area 225% larger than the original 24" square footing. The added vertical load by making the beam continuous at that column isn't anywhere near 225%.

 

[r13]

I think there are more untold stories behind.

 

[hgcdesign]

If I'm leaving anything out it's not intentional. The only thing I can think of is that my foundation company and the training engineer got into a pretty heated argument because he asked for us to pull the rebar out and cut off a 1/4 " in 3 spots before he would sign off on the pour . I made my guy do it and got on his ass about disrespecting the engineer but maybe the damage was done.

 

[r13]

If the concrete hasn't poured yet, try to reach the EOR and obtain directive in writing. Otherwise, try to remediate the strand relation the best you can, and stick to the plans/details as exact as possible. Third party mediation (by the EOR) will help greatly, but don't expect him to criticize the junior in front of you, or fire him out right, which I don't think it will occur. As addressed before, be calm, and factual. Good luck.

 

[hgcdesign]

I would never expect that. Everything will work out I'm not worried about that , I really think you guys are missing my point here . I just couldn't understand and my math wasn't even close to theirs so I was just looking for outside information so I knew if I was way off base or not and if so get more information and understanding of the situation . Beside the fact I should have just spliced it. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't losing my mind.if he wants us to do it to prove a point then that's what we do . If not then great it's no big deal . Just wanted and outside opinion on the math.

 

[hgcdesign]

I got a little more than I bargained for but also got a lot of good information and for that I am appreciative of most responses.

 

[r13]

I understand your wish, but that's not the function/purpose of this forum. If you really want to challenge the engineers calculation vs your math, you need to formally request a design review internally. If the request is turned down, then you might involve a third party and conduct peer review. I personally prefer not to jump on the latter approach before trying the former.

 

[mtu1972]

My two cents, albeit late to the game.

Because I can not read the drawings, I looked at a four-span beam with 12.5' for each span.

With a uniform load over all four spans, the continuous beam shows a 24% increase for the column and footing loads at the center post. The footing provided has a 100% increase in area, so it should be OK.

With patterned live loading ((i.e., load spans 1,2,and 4; load spans 1, and 3; and load spans 2, and 3) - the last one governs this column and footing), I see a 52% increase in live load from the original design's intent. Again, the footing should be much more than required.

I concur that something else must be going on behind the scenes that has caused the friction between the OP and the EOR.

gjc

 

[r13]

By the way, I do think you have provided all information the best you can from your view point, however, there could be something going behind the scene, and many other factors that you were not made aware of. All the comments/suggestions here are only opinions made without solid footing, IMO, therefore, shouldn't be used to against/advocate anybody's cause. When you send RFI, cc to the owner too.

 

[STrctPono]

hgcdesign,

I think that your original question regarding the math not making sense has been addressed by many Engineers on this forum. There certainly does not seem to be a mathematical justification for requiring a 36" x 36" footing when your 34" x 34" footing seems adequate. Based on the information you provided, I agree with you on that point. All other non-quantifiable information is merely helping us to understand how the situation transpired. FYI, from now on when describing a beam to an engineer, refer to the amount of spans and not the posts. It was confusing when I was trying to understand your description.

It's possible that Mr. Junior Engineer stormed back to the office to complain to EOR about how he was treated by your foundation Contractor and EOR is certainly just making an example of you now. I once witnessed my boss successfully get over (60) 50-ft long prestressed concrete piles thrown away once since he wanted to make an example of the Contractor and Ready-Mix-Company. Savage! But sometimes that's the way it works. Contractors do it to Engineers to. One small mistake on the Engineers part and Contractor is filing for a large sum change order.

 

[dold]

Good heavens this thread is an absolute trainwreck. Some folks just like to sit around with their knives out...

My take is that OP never had a chance to tell EOR that the footing was bigger to begin with, on account of the quarantine, and EOR was just thinking 'next size up' after getting the panicked report from the EIT. I suspect OP's next conversation with the EOR will go something like this:

OP: "so the beam is continuous and installed"

EOR: "oh bummer, in that case the footing will need to be a '30' instead of a '20'."

OP: "will a '2.83' work? It's already poured."

EOR: "why didnt you say so? Thats plenty. Have a nice day."

So, OP, as best I can tell, the reason the footing "needs to be 2 inches larger" is because of COVID-19.