How to reference "generally accepted engineering standards" 1

[DTS419]

This question is specific to paragraph 4, subpart F on page 4 of 9 of the administrative complaint below where the prosecuted engineer was charged with failing to "reference any generally accepted engineering standards". The way I interpret this charge, simply referencing the building code was not enough. So to help the rest us stay out of trouble, what are some examples of sufficiently referencing generally accepted engineering standards beyond the prevailing codes?

https://fbpe.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Alberto-Cardona-Filed-Final-Order.pdf

 

[JStephen]

The way I interpret their finding is that he didn't properly apply the building code(s), but then didn't reference any OTHER generally accepted engineering standards to support his decisions.

 

[slickdeals]

What was an electrical engineer doing review of windows?

 

[slickdeals]

It looks like he has multiple restricted endorsements. Don't know what the basis for the board granting those are.

https://www.myfloridalicense.com/LicenseDetail.asp?SID=&id=593501B6C755C3C26BCCC7D0CC079ADD

 

[cliff234]

Here is more information on this case,

https://fbpe.org/cardona-pe-alberto/

 

[gte447f]

All of that paragraph 4 (parts A-G) seems a bit out of bounds on the part of the FBPE if you ask me. To me, it reads as nitpicking. Everything after paragraph 6 is of course bad, because the engineer admits to lying and practicing outside his area of competence.

 

[ChorasDen]

Gte, I completely agree. I'm on the opposite side of the country, how is window recert expected to work? They check the design of the windows against the grandfathered code used at the time of original construction? If that's the case, what is even the purpose of the calculation at all? Either it was acceptable originally, or it was not, and the discussion should be with the building department, or whatever was the per-curser at the time of the original construction. I'm sure there is a ton I am not understanding, anyone able to help paint the picture here?

 

[DTS419]

This is pure speculation on my part, but my take on this is the insurance company threw a temper tantrum when an engineering report recommended every window and door be replaced, no doubt to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollar. The report was then scrutinized with efforts to discredit, leading ultimately to a complaint filed with the board. Once the board decided he was practicing beyond his area of expertise and was acting unethically, they then went after him which led to the nitpicking. Some of those charges like not applying a permissible (not mandatory) increase factor Cd and what screw length to assume are more matters of engineering judgment than compliance with the law. But they were examples to substantiate the fact he wasn’t a structural engineer. Again this is complete conjecture on my part but it’s how I imagined this unfolding.

I’m also a bit confused by being prosecuted for using the modern code. I know that there are situations when you can justify using the code that was in place at the time of construction, but that is usually because it is favorable to do so. I’ve never heard of someone being penalized for not using the latest and presumably more conservative code. And if the modem codes aren’t better in the sense that they are based on more data and research, then why are they constantly changing the codes?

Again I don’t know any of the details of this case but my hunch is that this guy ticked off the wrong people and they went after him. How many of us could be found guilty of similar “errors” like not using Cd > 1.0 if someone tried hard enough to find something wrong with our work?

 

[Richard_Honne]

What's the accepted engineering standards for glass doors and windows if the current state building code is not enough?

 

[JStephen]

It sounds to me like he was extra-conservative, which would be okay in a lot of cases, except that his result was "you have to replace every window in the place" when in fact, that was not the case.

 

[lexpatrie]

If you aren't reading the "whole" story (which we don't have, fundamentally), but there's more detail that's outside the content of the disciplinary action on the FBPE summary. That off-the record (?) commentary on the FBPE website gets into exposure category, which I don't recall seeing in the actual disciplinary action.

As a side note, (not to divert the discussion) my current favorite board for disciplinary actions in New York, because you can search by engineer specifically and they include a little synopsis of the issue (so you can skip over the DUI convictions).

https://www.op.nysed.gov/enforcement/enforcement-actions