ChorasDen, thanks for clarifying. I get it now. It's not a "bug" it's a "feature."
I'll be extraordinarily candid for a moment.
I don't know, but as to there being a lack of a formal complaint, most of the U.S jurisdictions I know would refuse to investigate. It's actually nice that they've exceeded the "scope" of whatever complaint they actually got (informally) to look for similar structures by the same engineer. Now that's Health, Welfare, and Life-Safety being taken seriously.
(side note, last I heard a few states still lack the authority to investigate "unlicensed architects" as their explicit authority is over licensed architects....
I really think in the U.S. "blind" complaints from non-engineers get taken more seriously to a far greater degree than "I'm an engineer and this is done wrong." The sheer existence of this opinion, inside me, is a problem for the U.S. boards. The States all seem particularly uninterested in these kinds of issues, ("cat fights between engineers", if you would, considering things differences of opinion versus actual errors....) and I have some actual basis for this opinion, it's not arrived at randomly. (e.g. "he withdrew from the jurisdiction, so it's all good, we aren't investigating, thanks for calling." Meaning don't bother sending anything in formally, because we won't investigate anyway. Thematically I think there's a lot in common with what's going on here, i.e. if you don't know what calculations you're supposed to be doing, you won't do them on repeat projects, and without a "senior" looking at your work or a peer review, or formal training, the calculations you do that are wrong you will continue to do wrong, whether there are flaws in your homebrew spreadsheet, or you are setting up calculations incorrectly in off-the-shelf software.
Although in the "case" I was tangentially involved in, it appears the individual had catastrophically messed up the design of something they'd never done before (which goes to competence, (Buildings are not coffer dam repairs), i.e. Harbour Cay, a first-time design by some NASA folks who bought the ACI 318 and started a design project, and which collapsed during construction due to a combination of design errors and an aggressive pour schedule, lack of reshores, and shoring deficiencies, weight of wet concrete), so there aren't multiple buildings YET, but there's nothing preventing them from doing another building with the exact same problems, it just won't repeat itself in the jurisdiction, so it's all FINE.
Not even a formal reprimand or a warning, they withdrew their license so "we're all good." But they do like to send off their $1,000 fines for not renewing on time or without the appropriate number of continuing education units, which are somewhat subject to their discretion as to which ones are acceptable.)
This case it seems rather they did multiple buildings incorrectly enough that they limped through construction and haven't yet seen their design loads (sounds like the situation here).
I think it's almost better not to lead them to a specific flaw, here in the U.S. if you think something is deficient, you can call it in, the burden of proof isn't on a member of the public with a concern. Anyway, with an engineering report, if you hand the board the one flaw you found, and some commentary on other things that should be checked but you didn't perform (you don't OWE them a full structural analysis, the public doesn't), they may not necessarily bother looking for any other flaws, and if they don't look, they won't find flaws you didn't find, i.e. independent review.
SO, for Harbour Cay, bad depth of reinforcement, slabs too thin and deflection checks not in the calculation package, no punching shear calculations, column reinforcement beyond the area percentage limit, .... These calculations at one point, existed, and now seem to have vanished into the garages and personal effects of the investigators who are now retired and in poor health, (or are in some warehouse next to the Arc of the Covenant). I know I'm going to hear from others that you can calculate whatever you please, if the contractor deviates from the plans you'll have a difficult time knowing, but that's a false argument. That's on the contractor. If the design actually works on paper it's a lot more likely to work during construction if the contractor is sufficiently skilled and careful. Many, MANY of the OSHA collapse reports involve the contractor asking the engineer about issues and getting a formal or informal brush off. (FIU springs to mind, particularly).
I can only hope that these buildings and their calculations eventually become public record so the engineering community can learn from the errors that were made, if there were any. And further, that any future engineering articles on the flaws are written by people who actually have the calculations and aren't basing them off the say-so of the parenthetical comments from an OSHA or NIST report.
