Engineering Ethics, Regulations and Laws 5

[kxa]

Here is a situation that while I would like to help out, I don't think it is the right thing to do. A client that did not ask me to supervise the foundation construction and went ahead and completed the work without the inspection by the town bldg. inspector, can not get his foundation approved. Supposedly, the inspector wants him to take out the foundation or get a letter from an engineer that everything was done according to the code. This client is now asking me to look at his digital photos and produce that letter.

For this situation and perhaps others, is there any reference guides out there that set the legal or ethical limits on what engineers can do or for that matter, should not do?

Thanks,

 

[zcp]

Just to continue an interesting topic into a hypothetical........Isn't there some margin in residential foundations? Could you test for rebar in critical areas or possibly load test a critical area?

I am faced with similar situations in industrial plants where I may be able to see the foundation / footing, but don't know anything about its insides. What are some possible out of the box solutions.

ZCP

http://www.phoenix-engineer.com

 

[archeng59]

I've been asked several times to "certify" that the foundation was constructed in accordance with the drawings AFTER the concrete was poured. sometimes the foundations were designed by me but mostly the foundations were designed by someone else. I always refuse to write a "certification" letter for something I did not observe.

I had a long-time contractor client get mad at me for refusing to believe his word that the foundation was constructed properly. I told him that I might get sued if the foundation had a future problem. I asked him if he would be willing to take a similar chance based on someone's word. He said no.

I always recommended minimal testing to verify size and placement of reinforcing. If the testing was performed by a qualified testing lab, I would consider writing a letter based on the test results. If the testing is not done, no letter.

I would never use the term "certified" in a letter.

 

[BigInch]

Sorry to be blunt, but are you nuts or what?

Tell him you will be happy to "Stamp the plans", but that's where it ends. What he can do with stamped plans and the inspector is his business alone!

Going the Big Inch!

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

 

[jike]

I agree that, generally, if I did not observe the construction directly, I would not write a letter of certification.

It sounds like this is a residential project. Could one simply review just the outside dimensions and then calculate to see if the foundation wall and footing work as an unreinforced structure? One would also want to observe the soil conditions. This cannot be done by photos.

 

[BigInch]

In Texas a PE is explicitly prohibited from certify anything that did not take place under his DIRECT supervision.

Going the Big Inch!

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

 

[TDAA]

Offer your client a proposal to write a "I'm a PE that looked at your photos, which show that the portions of the foundation shown appear to be similar to the design, but I can't tell for sure" letter, and charge him at least 10 times what the total inspection fees would normally be.

Or, just dont do it.

 

[AsianEngineer]

Hi, I'm just an EIT, but was wondering (as mentioned in some of the post above) if the owner had a testing company come out and do a sound test or x-ray of the foundation to see what the area of steel in the foundation is would any of you stamp off on it? If it had the minimum steel required and dimensions per IBC Table 1805.4.2 for say a one or two story building.

 

[Ashereng]

If the testing company did the work, then shouldn't they be willing to stamp their own work?

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[Ron]

Ashereng...yes, they should be willing to seal their work; however, the report will say something like....

"The existing thickened edge slab was checked at three locations for the presence of reinforcing steel based on the design by the engineer of record. Using a magnetic locating device, we found the reinforcing steel locations to be consistent with the provided design sketch."

That's it. While compliance can be inferred, there will usually not be a statement of compliance nor an "acceptance" of the slab. Then the EOR can take their report and claim specific reliance and write a letter based on their findings. That's usually sufficient for the rebar gestapo. What that process does is to share the blame and allow finger pointing in the event something goes wrong!

So now we have ample opportunity in the event of a latent problem (or perceived problem...it doesn't have to be real!) for an attorney to bring in the EOR, the testing lab, and the municipality in an effort to squeeze a settlement. Odds are that at least one of the three will have professional liability insurance, maybe more, and they'll settle to keep their defense litigation costs down.

Are we havin' fun yet?

 

[Dinosaur]

I would tell the guy that I would need additional testing done to verify the location, spacing and size of the reinforcement, and probably cores of the concrete to verify the air content, placement without voids (good vibration, etc.) and strength. All this would cost a lot of money and you might find someone else to do it for less.

Basically, I would try and tell the guy to "pound sand" but in a gentle non-confrontational way so he doesnt't lose any self esteme.

I think he has violated the ethics of your original professional agreement when you started the project as his design engineer. If he hired you for the project, he should have coordinated with you or someone to do the inspection. If he hired you for the design, he has a design and you can't act on anything you didn't do. In my opinion, he is playing you.

 

[kxa]

Well, the client finally got the message that it would be against the law for me to write such a letter. He now wants me to give him another letter. This time he wants the letter to only say that the design/plans were prepared in conformance with the local code. I don't see any problem with that. He is also trying to get a letter from his concrete guy certifying that the he did his part in accordance with my plans. He is hoping the town inspector will buy that.

 

[Ron]

kxa...watch it with that second letter. You've already prepared the plans and specifications, they were submitted to the municipality for review and issuance of permits, and now he wants you to separately state their compliance with local code. That's implicit when you sign and seal the plans for submittal. To say it again in a separate letter constitutes a certification. If there's the slightest deviation, you might have an issue you hadn't intended.

Tell him that your seal and signature is your statement of compliance (it is). Check your state law...you might be precluded from issuing a "Certification". In some states that is not allowed.

 

[kxa]

This is getting to be more complicated than I thought. Thanks Ron. I'll look into it before doing anything.

 

[archeng59]

I agree with Ron. your seal and signature on the drawings already attests to satisfying the local code requirements. why does he need both a set of sealed and signed drawings plus a letter?

 

[Ashereng]

This also sounds strange to me.

A stamped drawing is a PE's statement that the contents are as good as you can make them, observing all pertinent and governing codes, regulations, legistlations, laws, etc.



"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[kxa]

I am not having much luck finding the part of state law that says I should not be giving a certification letter. I also have the following questions:

1. Who can issue such a letter. A code certified person?
2. If a PE designs as per the code, why shouldn't he be able to provide a letter in addition to sealed plans?

 

[JStephen]

" your seal and signature on the drawings already attests to satisfying the local code requirements."

"A stamped drawing is a PE's statement that the contents are as good as you can make them, observing all pertinent and governing codes, regulations, legistlations, laws, etc."

Those two statements actually go beyond what PE seal implies, at least in Texas. Consider the following:

"§ 1001.401. Use of Seal
(b) A plan, specification, plat, or report issued by a license holder for a project to be constructed or used in this state must include the license holder’s seal placed on the document.... A public official of the state or of a political subdivision of the state who is responsible for enforcing laws that affect the practice of engineering may accept a plan, specification, or other related document only if the plan, specification, or other document was prepared by an engineer, as evidenced by the engineer’s seal."

§137.33 Sealing Procedures
(a) The purpose of the engineer’s seal is to assure the user of the engineering product that the work has been performed or directly supervised by the professional engineer named and to delineate the scope of the engineer’s work.

IE, the point of the seal is to show that a certain registered engineer did the work. That being the case, it's assumed the work is in conformance with necessary codes and standard of care, etc. But that's true regardless of whether the seal is on there or not.

 

[Ron]

kxa...in what state is your project located.

JStephen...you are right; however, the seal is also an attestation of protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the public, the primary function of the Building Code. Further, an engineer is not precluded from deviating from code requirements, although in most instances that would also constitute a deviation from the standard of care so his liability would increase.

Codes are generally written as minimum requirements and apply to engineers, architects, contractors, and the public. Further, the codes are written for general application, so on occasion, specificity is required that the code doesn't address. That's where "engineering judgment" overrides and the engineer's seal trumps the code.

In short, the codes and engineering law are so closely intertwined that in most instances, the seal is going to affirm compliance with either the stated code or engineering validated interpretation and application of such.

 

[archeng59]

again I ask: why does he need the letter in addition to the sealed and signed drawings?

 

[JAE]

archeng59 - This isn't a case where an engineer simply supplies a design, seals the plans, and then is asked to add a letter of certification to the plans.

This is, rather, a case where the plans were sealed, but the construction proceeded without the necessary inspections.

Now the inspector is asking the same engineer to look at the foundation and somehow perceive whether it was done in accordance with the original sealed plans and then supply a letter certifying it as such.

Its sort of like two separate engineering tasks, one the design, two the post construction inspection.

I agree 100% that certification letters in addition to the plans is ridiculous. We should never certify a seal.

This is different - certifying construction based on the sealed plans. I also have difficulty (as I've mentioned above) doing this as the engineer would have to do a lot of investigating (local destructive testing and opening of the concrete) to fully be able to certify the constrcution.

In a way - the contractor should be forced to remove the footing if only to emphasise the importance of getting the right observations/inspections done. Let them get away with this now and they'll do it again.