Engineering ethics question 1

[ChipB]

I went to a house a contractor was building. The garage area had about 5 feet of backfill with gravel present. This is where he was going to pour his slab. The wall cracked while he was tamping it with his track hoe sitting in the middle of it (imagine that). The wall was constructed out of 12" masonry units. He reinforced it per the building code as he intrepreted it which was #4s @ 32". The corners were not reinforced. The placing per code for the steel is 8.75" from the soil side. That's where he put it, 8.75" from the soil side, 2.875" from the backfilled side (oops). Therefore it's significantly overstressed.

Additionally, the way I read the code, the reinforcing is based on equivalent fluid pressures based on active soil pressures (partially rigid floor system). Obviously, you don't want your garage slab to settle, therefore, it should be based on at rest pressure and rigidly restrained by the concrete slab. Per ASCE 7-02, for gravel, this should be an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 psf, which additionally blows out the footing. Again, per code, anything over 4 feet of backfill should have a "permanent" lateral restraint, otherwise, engineering design is required. To me, this means a concrete slab. Am I missing something?

Anyhow, here is the ethical delima:
When I stated all of this above, he said he was going to pursue another engineering buddy of his to come up and state that it was alright. I feel I have an obligation to let the building department know my findings on this wall in writing. Therefore, when something happens in the future, I'm covered. Is this wrong?

 

[AlohaBob]

It might be beneficial to sketch the wall section and footing. After you run the loads and check the stresses, if they indeed show overstress, discuss this with your "friend". I would investigate a couple fix solutions beforehand if it does turn out bad. If he doesn't cooperate with you when you review the facts with him, I would let it go for now. Then discuss it with your lawyer friends as to what would be the next best move, bring the gang with you to confront your "friend". Then if he won't listen to the entire group, he was not a friend. He must be deported. Call Aaahnold, and have him terminated. Of course this is a textbook scenario. It's really a tough thing. You deserve all the support you can get.

 

[OkieDokie]

I have to agree with AlohaBob. You need to try to get your friend to fix to problem. I am not a Engineer myself but I am working and have become very good friends with the Engineer I work for. Many of times I am doing calculations, inspection, drawings or other task for him and the only thing on my mind is to protect his license. If a situation comes up in like you have gotten your self into, the one thing we both will talk about is "we have to keep making a living for our family's". If your friend goes ahead with this wall and slab as is, then the poor unfortunate fool that buys this house finds out that you looked at it and did nothing, Will you be in trouble? If the answer is yes, will you loose your license? If so will your friend keep paying you your salary for the rest of your life? Can you count on that? I can only say to you is that you have worked long and hard for your lincese to be a Engineer (I know, my son is in collage to be a Civil Engineer now) and I personally would not let nothing take that away from me if I had a engineering license. If a friend that is willing to jeopardize the hard work that I have applied my self to and is will to take away my means of doing what I enjoy and the way I support for my family is just really not a friend at all.

I guest to sum this up is to say "Think what you have worked for to get were you gave gotten and are you willing to throw that away should this get out of hand?" There will be other friends in your life but will there ever be another engineering license for you? I know all to well that life is a b__ch. Good luck in your decision.

OkieDokie

 

[ChipB]

Well, he's not a friend. He's already paid my consultation fee. Now he says he doesn't want my report. The wall is definitely overstressed and the F.S. against sliding is <1.0

I think I'll call the building inspector, who is a friend of mine, to have him go by and make an impromtu (sp?) visit. Hopefully the slab isn't poured yet.

There are too many contractors in this world that are dumbasses. IMHO, I feel the differential fill foundation wall section in the code book should be based on the worst case scenario and not spell out, "if soil is this classification, reinforcing is this, if it's that classification, do that, and if it's the other clasification, do the other." They make a vertical cut in the soil to put in their wall, and then reinforce it for granular soil. In less soil has somehow changed since I took classes, cuts in granular soil can't get too vertical. Clay has a lot more soil pressures associated with it. They leave it up to people with little to no experience, classifying soils. Stick with clay and go with it. If it's too much steel, hire an engineer.

 

[JAE]

ChipB - without getting too far into the details of this situation, I first thought, upon reading your post, "what's an engineer doing involved in a house anyway?"

For most residential work, the "code" is not the UBC or the IBC but rather a CABO code or the IRC (International Residential Code). Your quoting of the ASCE 7 just got me thinking. Make sure you're looking at the legally, adopted, appropriate code.

Secondly, are you an Engineer of Record here? If so, your solution to call the building dept. is correct if you have your name on the plans. If the contractor hired you to just check out his work, or if the owner hired you, you still have an ethical duty (since you were on-site and paid) to first go to the client, report the problem, and then, should the "client" refuse your recommendations, turn to the building official assuming the problem is one of public safety/welfare.

 

[boo1]

ChipB are you working to the FBC?

 

[ChipB]

JAE
Isn't ASCE 7 the ruling code when the situation doesn't fall under the normal building code?


boo1
Working with NC residential bldg code which is based on IRC

 

[JAE]

No - ASCE 7 is a source document that adopted building codes refer to. Unless the governing agency (city, state, county, whatever) specifically adopts it as a code, then it is only applicable if it is referenced by the truly adopted code.

In fact, ASCE 7 is not intended to be a stand-alone full-blown building code. It is only dealing with loads on buildings.

You would need to call the local permits department to find out what building code is applicable to a house at that location. Then review that code and any references within it are applicable.....and specifically, the references are designated by the actual edition of the reference.

So you might have ASCE 7-95 as the applicable version as opposed to 7-02.

 

[boo1]

ChipB
The North Carolina Residential Code (2002) for new construction went into effect as of December 31, 2002 is based on the 2000 International Residential Code and 2002 North Carolina Amendments,
See it at:

http://www.ncdoi.com/OSFM/Home/Mars...Code&PARAMCategory=cidResidentialBuildingCode

301.1
"When a building of otherwise conventional construction contains structural elements that exceed the limits of Section R301, those elements shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice."
403.1
"All exterior walls shall be supported on continuous solid or fully grouted masonry or concrete footings, wood foundations, or other approved structural systems which shall be of sufficient design to accommodate all loads according to Section R301 and to transmit the resulting loads to the soil within the limitations as determined from the character of the soil. Footings shall be supported on undisturbed natural soils or engineered fill."
404.1
"Concrete and masonry foundation walls shall be selected and constructed in accordance with the provisions of this section or in accordance with ACI 318, NCMA TR68-A or ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 402 or other approved structural standards. When ACI 318 or ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 402 or the provisions of this section are used to design concrete or masonry foundation walls, project drawings, typical details and specifications are not re-quired to bear the seal of the architect or engineer."

Since your analysis determined the design faulty, the question is an ethical delima (Do you contact the building dept or not). Does the design pose a hazard to people or the comunity? If it does report it.

I have faced simular cases, there may be political reprocusions or impacts if you are in a small community.

 

[jcali]

Chip,

I agree with you. Let the building official know. Screw the political repurcussions, if any.

-JCali

 

[Ron]

ChipB....I would NOT contact the building official "unofficially" for an impromptu inspection. That could expose you to a variety of legal issues. You are the engineer and you have a responsibility to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the public, not the contractor. It is your "engineering judgment" that says it isn't good. This same judgment is required for code compliance...therefore it doesn't comply. Notify the Building Official in writing and let the chips fall (no pun intended!).

 

[Focht3]

I had a similar dilemma about 20 years ago, with a twist: my employer (a licensed P.E.) told me to forget that I had seen a dangerous condition on a job site. A tower crane footing was being constructed over the basement of a long-demolished home. And the basement was vacant - no gravel, rubble fill, concrete, whatever. To make matters worse, I raised the issue at a staff meeting - so everyone heard his response!

I was not yet licensed, so I was not legally bound to do anything. But I felt a strong moral obligation, and "made a few calls." A close friend contacted a buddy with the building department, and an inspector promptly visited the site and looked at the excavation before the contractor had covered it up. The site was red-tagged immediately. And I am convinced that a major construction accident - and several deaths - was avoided.

Most jurisdictions require licensed engineers to "protect the public health, safety and welfare" - but don't tell us how. Surely you can find a friend to make the contact for you without exposing yourself to your "friend's" legal wrath, yet still meet the legal requirement of your license.

Do the right thing and make the contact. It could even be by anonymous letter-

And keep a copy for your file...



Please see FAQ731-376 for great suggestions on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora. See faq158-922 for recommendations regarding the question, "How Do You Evaluate Fill Settlement Beneath Structures?"

 

[AlohaBob]

If it were me, I would write him a letter to describe the problem. I would clearly let him know that the construction in my opinion doesn't meet code requirements. I would inform him I'm sending a copy of this letter to the building department for the express purpose of removing myself from all responsiblity in regard to the poor construction. I would inform him that I'm available to help determine a course of action to bring the problem within code prescribed limits if he chooses to do this and I would be willing to write a letter to the effect that after these actions are implemented that the structure then meets code requirements. Good luck.

 

[bylar]

Did you realy mean "That's where he put it, 8.75" from the soil side, 2.875" from the backfilled side (oops). Therefore it's significantly overstressed. " I would think the soil side and the soil side were the same?
The reinforcing that you mentioned is for a basement wall which must have the floor on before backfill. When you do a garage attached to a house and are using the garage floor to support the floor you have to brace the wall untill the floor is poured and tied to the wall to create a basement wall and not a retaining wall. I don't think I would contact the building department but send a registered letter to the builder. If another engineer approves it, you may want to bring it to the attention of the licensing board. I can also tell you from experience that you open another can of worms and you better be prepared to defend your opinions.

BRL

 

[AlohaBob]

Just for curiosity I checked the load and conditions you describe. The reinforcement is okay for the restrained wall. The problem comes in compacting the ground under the slab. At that point, the wall acts like a cantilever. The reinforcing is inadequate for this sequence of construction. Whoever disigned the wall may have neglected this, or figured the contractor must assume responsibility for bracing the wall during constrution. That's not a good thing. It can even be dangerous. Many do it.

There's mitigating factors to lessen damage though. The wall behavior after the slab is in place, closes the cracks that form during construction. But the steel may have yeilded beyond elastic limits. I suspect nonetheless, as a restrained 12" CMU wall it will pass code without steel. In fact, the IBC allows 6 ft unbalanced fill in poorly graded silty clay soil for plain 12" CMU...solid grouted f'c=2000 psi below grade.

It would be good to double check everything.

 

[Joecandraw]

ChipB you are wise to make a report on this problem and to even go to the point of having it recorded by a notary that is for your protection. But in no way sign off on this project until you are happy with a repair for the problem.
The contractor errored that is easy to show. If you file a report with the city engineer you will black ball yourself.
But a cup of coffee with a old frined may go far if you know what i mean.

 

[CAOranger]

ChipB,
I wondering why are you arguing with the contractor about the rebars?
My first question would be: Was there approved plans and details prepared for the project? If yes, then another question is whether the contractor has followed the approved plan. If the contractor has followed the plan, they the contractor is not to be blamed.

I am not clear why you are there? Are you the new (replacement) engineer-of-record? If yes, then you as the EOR must file a report to the building department.

Another factor is who hired you. You need to report to him/or her first.

Any retaining wall 4' high measured from the bottom will be outside the scope of conventional construction (IRC). Such walls must be engineered.

You should not be taking the issue lightly.