Other People's Business 1

[Skinnattittar]

Recently my boss sent out an estimate for a project and we did not get it. He knew the contractor that was going to be doing the building and they were concerned with the size of the engineering package; three pages and a letter. The project is a 26,000 sqft apartment building retrofit of an existing 120 year old school building (it has never been updated to any code). I got a glance at the calcs package; hand written, single topic for each page, very superficial calcs. This will be a total gut and rehab job, they've already started and the town just approved them to begin construction. It is a very extensive project.

My question is; is this any business of mine to be concerned about? Should I be reporting this to anyone that there has been no appreciable engineering done? The plans they're using are only going to be addressing aesthetics; no structural modifications are proposed being made. No seismic or wind retrofits are being made. Etc.

Is there a point for us to be bothering to do any calcs on projects when nobody seems to care if you do or not?

 

[dik]

are there any professionals involved with the reno? If so, I'd leave it to them... If not, there should be...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[hokie66]

Sounds like just finishes, fixtures, and fittings. If no structural changes are involved, why the need for a structural engineer? There will doubtless be HVAC, plumbing, and electrical work, but if that impacts the structure, then is the time to consult a structural engineer.

 

[EnergyProfessional]

Who was concerned? Your boss, or the contractor? and what are you, a design firm? Or a contractor?

and what did the owner bid out? the design, or the actual construction? and what calcs? HVAC? Structural? or just someone's child's math homework? why do they show you the calcs? The only one really to see the calcs is the designer and JHA. If JHA is satisfied, then that is up to them. You are not the JHA.

Ultimately you didn't get hired. If they really screw up, the owner can hire you later to fix it. I wouldn't tell anyone. Especially since you didn't get hired to be in a review position and you may not have seen what they submitted to JHA. How do you know their design is wrong, and what their design actually is?

Do you have an actual issue with their design? Like you could proof in court that what they do will hurt someone?

Even if your concerns are valid, you will sound like a sore loser who didn't get the job and is bad-mouthing the competition.

 

[phamENG]

A potentially difficult situation. Based on your previous posts and the content of this one, I believe you're a structural design engineer - correct?

Unless you are otherwise contractually obligated, you only need to do enough calculations to a) prove to yourself that your design meets the building code and any additional performance/reliability requirements and b) prove to the AHJ if they ask. The first one can be augmented by engineering judgement or long practice. For instance, I can look at a set of plans and pick out the worst case window header in a building. If I so choose, I could design that one and then apply it to all of the openings in the building. I don't need to do calculations for every single one. On the other side of all this is if something goes wrong - it's a lot easier to point to a robust calculation package in your file to back up your work when a judge and jury have to decide who pays for what than to say "well I used my judgement."

So the ethical dilemma, I think, is whether or not you have an obligation or a duty to report some sort of wrongdoing. Based only on what you've said, I would say no, you don't. You said you saw the calculations, and they looked a bit light, but you didn't say anything about them being wrong. If you saw them and noticed that they were removing the central bearing wall on the first floor and replacing it with a beam and they had undersized it, then yes - you would have a duty to report that (though I would contact the EOR and bring it to his/her attention before calling the City - professional courtesy and all). Perhaps that school building was a standard design and the EOR has done a similar modification and was able to reuse an old project? Did they reduce the scope of work to limit the structural modifications that your firms fee was based on? It's hard to say, and without proof of negligence there's nothing for you to do. It would also be foolish of you to blow a whistle about it. If what you saw was only a part of the submittal to the AHJ, or the engineer's deliverable really is sufficient for the scope of work, the other engineer may have grounds to sue you or your firm for libel since those complaints and the investigations that follow are typically public record.

If you genuinely believe that people are going to be at risk, you could contact the AHJ and let them know of your concern and ask them about the permit. They may or may not talk to you about it. If it's turns out to be a legitimate concern, I wouldn't be too worried about being seen as a sore loser.

 

[dik]

It's a little more interesting. If he has a valid concern and does nothing, but he has mentioned this to others and something does happen, there's a potential for something nasty. If he's a professional, he could be in for a bit of grief, if it were to come out that he had prior knowledge. That's the reason for my earlier 'glib' response.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[phamENG]

dik - agreed. I wonder if anyone has compiled investigations into similar cases from the various boards to see if there's a reliable place to draw the line between "concerned citizen who's also an engineer" and "libelous dog". I doubt it, since the shear number of licensing boards and associated regulations (all similar, none quite the same), and the varying levels of enforcement probably makes that a herculean task just to attempt it, and the results would likely be dubious.

 

[EnergyProfessional]

I think the OP left out a lot of information and assumes we know the missing bits. Which is ironic, since OP complains about another engineers calcs being incomplete. I hope that other engineer's calcs have more complete information than the OP

How do you guys even know this is structural? The OP doesn't mention anything. Calcs are used for all disciplines.

 

[MintJulep]

he town just approved them to begin construction

The town has a building department then. Approval only comes after review.

The town is satisfied. Why shouldn't you be?

 

[phamENG]

EnergyProfessional - check his posting history. Everything is structural. He also just had a thread going in the structural forum last week, I believe.

MintJulep - where I practice, approval from the building department doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be structurally sound. Often times they check the code sheet from the architect, go through the drawings to make sure there are no glaring issues with the general code compliance issues of life safety, fire protection, etc., and then verify there's an engineer's stamp and that the engineer's license is valid. I haven't met a single reviewer in this area with a background in structural engineering sufficient to really challenge anything that is submitted. Quite possible that it's the same where the OP is.

 

[MintJulep]

@phamENG
Do you feel that the building department's process is inadequate? Do you feel that it puts the public in danger?

 

[EnergyProfessional]

phahmENG: when I start a thread, I try to include the relevant information into the OP, and don't let people research all my other posts for relevant information

I also wouldn't judge a design based on how many pages of paper it is. 100 pages of gibberish is worse than 3 pages of actually correct results. Sounds like OP is making a LOT of assumptions, or at least OP doesn't reveal if they have more information that confirms the SUSPICION the design would be bad.

Op also writes no structural modifications are made, only aesthetics. so why would there be an elaborate calculation if no structural work is done?

 

[Skinnattittar]

Wow! Okay, I didn't mean to start a lot of bickering here, so I should elaborate and hopefully that will settle some of the tensions. First, though, I would like to point out that this isn't supposed to be a question specifically about this project and what I should do about this project in specific, but a general question about what should engineers do when they suspect another engineer, who is not in their firm, is working on a project and they do not believe they are performing responsible designs? For normal use loading, this will hopefully be apparent before anyone gets hurt, but when it comes to wind and seismic, you might not get a warning before the building either collapses or suffers catastrophic damage, and in a project like the one I am covering here, its an existing building that is unlikely going to see any retrofits in the future if they are not done today.

Yes, I am a structural engineer and this concerns the structural elements of the project. I guess I assumed this was implied, because I was talking about the structural elements in my OP, and I did sort of forget that Mechanical Engineers also includes the guys that do the HVAC and other building mechanics (very rarely do I see an actual Mechanical Engineer working on the projects I am involved in at that level, it is usually a design professional working for the manufacturer/installer unless it is a particularly specialized piece of equipment).

I'll give a quick rundown of the four pages, since I guess I'm not trusted enough here for folks to assume that when I say I think they're insufficient, they might possibly be insufficient, since this is a forum about Ethics, and not about nuanced interpretations of the building codes: page one - typed letter saying "its all good". I'm barely paraphrasing there; page two - hand written, very basic wind load calcs that only conclude a total lateral load based on ASCE 7-05 (local code is 7-10 and IBC 2015 which are dramatically different); page three - hand written, very basic seismic loading using suspiciously low dead loads (5-10 psf), a conclusion that it controls, a calc for the perimeter of the building (side A + B + C + D = P; which were incorrect dimensions, BTW), and a calc implying that the existing 120 year old brick masonry is sufficient for the shear force (no calcs for moment or geo amplifications); page four - handwritten, very basic calc, for flexural strength only, of a single floor joist, using incorrect dimensions and spacing of the joist (calc used full dimension 3x12 timber @ 16"o.c., joists are actually 2.5"x11.5" @ 24"o.c.). That's it, end of design calcs. 26,000 sqft, 15-20 unit residential apartment complex renovation in four pages. According to the contractor, there are no engineer stamped drawings. The architectural drawings predate the letter by almost a year. There will be no retrofits for wind or seismic. 120 year old brick building that has never been brought to any modern building code. By comparison, my calc package for a stair handrail bracket is as long and more comprehensive. Oh, and before I forget again; suspicious, old, mix of wrought iron and rolled steel, welded and riveted roof trusses will be seeing new RTUs. Also, for some reason there's a bunch of brick walls supported by timber walls in the roof space. They don't appear to be structural, nor a former exterior wall, they're a bit of a mystery to me, other than perhaps being a old attempt at fireproofing a space for some reason? This wasn't covered in the seismic design done by the EoR.

It also seems some folks think I/we are bitter about losing the bid. I can't speak for my boss, but I most certainly am not anxious about a lack of work. I don't know what everyone else is experiencing, but for the foreseeable future we are flat out booked and that's probably not going to change, and this project would be a huge time sink for me, not something I would be looking forward to dealing with on my own.

In my region, except in the big city(ies), there is no professional or formal review required, nor performed, for construction projects. They usually require either an Engineer or Architect's stamp, or the appropriate paperwork filled out for buildings that follow certain prescriptive guidelines (this project would not fall under any prescriptive guidelines). i.e., the public is entirely relying on the private engineer/architect for their safety.

 

[EnergyProfessional]

Isn't there a section in the ethics code about not reviewing someone else's work without their knowledge? So if you feel like reviewing their design, you should contact the designer.

It sounds like they didn't hire you to review. So you just look at that as a private person who seems very interested in that project?

The fact that JHA doesn't require a review is on them or the legislature where you live. So ultimately their responsibility. If there is a design professional stamping this, and a JHA accepting it, I really don't see a reason to spend time on this unless the owner hires you to do so.

Would you have looked into this issue if this was a random project, and not one you had bid on? There are probably a 1000 such projects around you, are you looking into all of them?

I'm not a structural engineer, so I don't understand the examples. But did you actually perform calcs yourself and can proof theirs are wrong? Or is that just an assumption?

2 options I see here:
- the owner hires you to review: then you let the original designer know what you are doing and do the work the owner pays you to.
- no one hires you: you work on your own projects.

 

[ImminentCollapse]

How did you get their calc. package? Is it available publicly or was it provided for formal review? Or behind the scenes from the contractor your boss knows?

At an absolute bare minimum, and I'm not sure you should even be involved, if you choose to take action a first step would be to approach the designer as a professional to point out your concerns. His/her first question will be "how did you get my calcs?" and I sense that may not have a good answer. Going straight to the Board or jurisdiction when you are not involved in the project in an official capacity and having not talked to the designer is bad form to me. I think this route has been suggested many times over the years in these forums, talk to the designer first.


IC

 

[phamENG]

MintJulep - it certainly has the potential to, and I've seen issues arise as a result. But the system generally works itself out in the end before people get hurt. When it doesn't, a new rule gets written. As licensed professional engineers, we're part of that system. If we see something that doesn't pass the smell test, we take a closer look and act or don't act as appropriate.

Energy Professional - I agree. I'm just trying to help the discussion along.

This is from the NSPE Code of Ethics:

III. 7. Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action.

Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
Engineers in governmental, industrial, or educational employ are entitled to review and evaluate the work of other engineers when so required by their employment duties.
Engineers in sales or industrial employ are entitled to make engineering comparisons of represented products with products of other suppliers.

And this from ASCE:

5. Peers
h. comment only in a professional manner on the work, professional reputation, and personal character of other engineers; and

Neither one is the law of the land, but check your state regs as many have ethics requirements modeled from one, the other, both, or something else entirely.

On the other hand, assuming you are a licensed professional engineer or are aspiring to be one, the safety of the public should be the foremost priority. If you reasonably suspect a design is faulty, then the first stop should be the EOR. Be sure to think about it as if you were the one being confronted, or even better, like the most cantankerous and nasty boss you've ever had is the person your confronting. "Hey, I saw you designed building X. It looks really great. I like this that the other about it. Oh by the way, I noticed this thing that looked a little off. How'd you get that to work?" If they dodge or ignore you, come back a little more forcefully - "hey, I really don't think this looks right and I ran these calculations to show that it needs to be Y where you specified Z." Keep chasing it only as long as you genuinely believe there's a risk to life safety. If it's serviceability or comfort related - let the owner's lawyer deal with it in a civil suit later.

 

[EnergyProfessional]

sure, for the benefit of health and life we should say something when we see something wrong. But the following needs to be done:
We have concrete proof there is something wrong and dangerous. Then we let the designer and owner know. If they don't react and we are really sure it is wrong and dangerous, we can let JHA know. That way we give them the chance to rectify the situation and protect the public.

That would normally be based on our own design and calculations. Not just judging an unofficial piece of paper. How do we know what the OP saw is what was submitted to JHA or even an official design document?

 

[phamENG]

EP - I agree with you, though my bar may be a little lower for taking some action.

In terms of "judging an unofficial piece of paper" I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt. Was the initial post a little light? Perhaps...I just re-read it and tried to forget the fact that the user name was familiar, and more info could have been included. The second post rounded it out quite nicely and the description of the calcs set off some alarm bells in my head as I read it - so I get it.
Skinnattittar seems to me to be at least passably competent, so I'll trust his/her judgement of the document until there's good reason not to. Where I practice, we have a regulation that indicates all final documents produced by a PE must bear his/her seal, and all documents that are preliminary or draft must be clearly marked as such. If Skinnattittar saw a signed and sealed letter that was not marked draft, it's quite reasonable to conclude that it's what was submitted. Could there have been follow on revisions? Possibly. But it still seems to be enough of a reason to ask the question.

Now back to the OP...in rereading the first post...it sounds like the contractor was concerned and they're the ones who brought the engineering "package" to your boss - correct? If so, then that contractor could hire your firm to review the design, in which case you'd inform the other engineer of your engagement and then proceed to eviscerate the bad design (assuming you're correct) with facts.

 

[Rabbit12]

In the OP's second post it seems this is an old multi-wythe brick building. Is the renovation substantially modifying the brick shearwalls (new holes, large portions removed)? Based on your description of the calculations is seems the engineer is checking the shear stress in the existing brick walls. If those stresses are really low I'd have no issue saying the walls are adequate. The shear strength of brick shearwalls isn't zero and the fact that this building is old means it's stood the test of time. Now if this is a high seismic area and the modifications are extensive enough to increase stresses beyond the 10% rule you may have a point, but since the AHJ blessed the construction you may have a tough row to hoe.

Just because a building is gutted and repurposed doesn't necessarily mean a full structural analysis needs to be conducted. Can you give us an idea of what changes to the structural systems are occurring?

 

[EnergyProfessional]

phamENG: where I'm there are 2 types of documents:
- the official package that goes to JHA for approval. That also includes calcs (or results of those). This is basis of the permit.
- the bid documents for contractor that include all that contractor needs to know and form the basis of the contract between owner and contractor.

Those also are the only legal / liability documents that certify anything or are the basis of a contract. A design should be judged on those official documents only.

Who knows, maybe what OP saw was some initial sketch and the official package to JHA is different.