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?

 

[Skinnattittar]

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?

In terms of "judging an unofficial piece of paper" I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt.

Unfortunately, it was a signed and sealed letter/package addressed to the town JHA.

Skinnattittar seems to me to be at least passably competent...

Aw, that's the sweetest thing anyone has ever said to me, thank you! But yeah, I hope so, there's about 800 or so buildings out there in the world with my name directly and indirectly applied to them, and nobody has said anything about it yet, so, fingers crossed!

his/her

Thank you for your conscientiousness; my pronouns are "High Eminent Hersir Imperator Magnus", but most people reduce it the acronym "he/him" which I've come to accept and appreciate. Official titles are so pompous these days.

...it sounds like the contractor was concerned and they're the ones who brought the engineering "package" to your boss - correct?

Well that is definitely a possibility. Typically how these sorts of things go, is the contractors want as little to do with the engineers as possible. I think the contractor showed it to us more out of intrigue than anything and they fully intend to move forward doing as little as possible extra work or waiting for us to do any engineering; i.e. they don't want to hold up the project because they'll get paid later rather than sooner and probably lose out on profit as they deal with complicated details they hadn't originally agreed to do, or the project could fold entirely as the client hires a different builder.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I JUST FOUND OUT: Literally while I was writing this response I ended up speaking to my boss about how all this went down. The builder originally suggested us for the project and that's how they got our estimate. The client's architect told client about this other engineer who would write this letter and for a small fraction of the price that would satisfy the town immediately. The firm that wrote the letter did so after two days of having the project (i.e. they got the plans on a Tuesday, the town had the letter that Thursday morning). We have the construction documents; there's no lateral design for this structure and the plans are dated to about a year ago. The "EoR" has done no engineering on this project.

 

[phamENG]

And a sense of humor to boot. I like it. I would have been even sweeter, but keeping comments as neutral as possible helps minimize inadvertent red herrings.

That's how it goes sometimes. There's an underbelly of our profession that skates by knowing that the likelihood of a design level event happening in the area, much less to the building itself, is sufficiently remote that they can cash in now for minimal effort and a quantity over quality approach, and hope to evaporate under a magical corporate veil if a project ever goes sufficiently south. If you feel like taking the time to check the calcs and see if you can prove him wrong, that's up to you. If you do and you think it's a genuinely unsafe condition, then take action. If not, then c'est la vie.

 

[phamENG]

By the way, your pronoun is confusing. Are you Norse or Roman?

 

[dik]

There should be a reqirement that all members of licensing boards have practiced 'active' engineering for more than 20 years before being allowed on the board.

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

-Dik

 

[Skinnattittar]

And a sense of humor to boot. I like it. I would have been even sweeter...

Thanks! I don't like to let my job get too heavy when it doesn't have to be; there's plenty of things to get serious about, like other engineers not caring about the reputation of the profession and the safety of the public. But I don't live for this job, this job is for me to live, and I chose it because I enjoy the science and mathematics, the working for my community and society, and I do take that serious, so its examples like this one we've been talking about that really irk me; it is an insult to my efforts and a betrayal of my community to be so flippant and lazy to make a quick, dirty buck.

 

[Rabbit12]

I asked earlier, but I'll ask again. Can you give us a sense of what changes they are making to the SFRS of the building? Is this a multi-wythe brick building? Are you in a high seismic area? What specifically with this job would trigger updating the structural systems to current codes?

 

[EnergyProfessional]

The client's architect told client about this other engineer who would write this letter and for a small fraction of the price that would satisfy the town immediately.

Well, sounds like the architect/owner will get what they paid for. Just sit back and watch it crumble.

BTW: am I the only one too stupid to use the quote function here? all manual process. Or am I missing the quote button.

 

[jayrod12]

BTW: am I the only one too stupid to use the quote function here? all manual process. Or am I missing the quote button.

 

[EnergyProfessional]

that quote button only gives me a pop-up where I have to enter a user name. It doesn't seem to let me quote unless I manually copy/paste. Other forums have a quote (or muulti-quote) button on each post that i want to quote and I can just select posts to quote.

 

[Skinnattittar]

Well, sounds like the architect/owner will get what they paid for. Just sit back and watch it crumble.

Maybe that is acceptable in the Mechanical field, but it is not acceptable in the Structural field, especially with multi-family unit buildings of 15-20 units. That is what I'm asking at; is there any system where someone can anonymously blow a whistle because of some realistic concerns of lack of actual assessment of a project.

BTW: am I the only one too stupid to use the quote function here? all manual process. Or am I missing the quote button.

If you are, then you're not the only one. I just see a "quote" icon in the text box format area, but I have to manually enter the referenced quote, then insert the actual quote manually (copy/paste).

I asked earlier, but I'll ask again. Can you give us a sense of what changes they are making to the SFRS of the building? Is this a multi-wythe brick building? Are you in a high seismic area? What specifically with this job would trigger updating the structural systems to current codes?

Sorry, I didn't see it.

The problem is that the building is 120 years old (or older) and there is no apparent SFRS system, nor was it in any way normal in this region to design for it at that time. The building is 4-5 stories (depending on the section and interpretation), 24" to 12" brick walled, granite block foundation. The region is not considered "high seismic" but state regulations require seismic considerations for large projects (which this would qualify as), mostly due to what follows: the buildings were not built to reliable levels of quality (this is well known); I have seen some walls that were built like bunkers with well laid courses and wythes, and others where the exterior and interior, exposed wythes are aesthetically well laid, but once you open the walls, its a hodgepodge of slop grout, waste brick, orphan and unconnected bridges, and full of large voids (when we did our walk-through for our estimate, they did not open or investigate any of the walls, so we can't know what condition they are in). It's a roulette of possibilities and high quality construction is unusual.

By the way, your pronoun is confusing. Are you Norse or Roman?

I identify as Potato-kin.

 

[jmec87]

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".

Not a compilation, but I've seen a couple cases (they seem to be for the same event) related to an engineer critiquing the work of another engineer and sharing the critique findings without prior notice to and review with the original engineer (see links below).

https://www.apega.ca/docs/default-source/pdfs/discipline-decisions/18-004-rdo.pdf

https://www.apega.ca/docs/default-source/pdfs/discipline-decisions/18-005-rdo.pdf

I think two ethical obligations come into play here. First, if you are aware of a situation that will pose a significant danger to the public unless you intervene, your ethical duty is to intervene. If there might be a danger but you don't have enough information to know, then it gets hazier. If there is no danger, then you just move on.

If you do get involved, the second ethical obligation related to upholding the dignity of the profession and related requirements for reviewing the work of other engineers comes into play. The main requirement here is to communicate with the engineer whose work you are reviewing and ensuring that your review is fair and accurate. If you determine that the other engineer acted in a way that is unprofessional or incompetent, this may trigger a requirement for you to report them to the applicable professional regulator. See sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 from APEGA's guidelines for ethical practice below for some ideas (obviously, check your own jurisdiction's guidelines before doing anything).

https://www.apega.ca/docs/default-source/pdfs/ethical-practice.pdf

 

[Skinnattittar]

@jmec87

Thank you! This is the sort of information I was hoping to hear about.

Yeah, this is an awkward situation because I would expect SOMETHING to be done to better secure the building, but it falls into this nebulous zone of "it might be fine, but do they know that?" The building HAS been around for 120 years and we've had a few shakers and some pretty bad storms, but how much damage did the building suffer? Where was the epicenter? The entire region is lousy with ancient faults, most have not moved in tens of thousands of years, but its random whenever one suddenly decides all these itchy humans running around need to get a shuffle! Its the sort of thing that I always check for, but then not much (if anything) is required to be done, but as I said elsewhere, with buildings like this one, you just don't know unless you try! and I don't think this firm tried in the least...

 

[EnergyProfessional]

If the contractor that showed you the documents is OK to be thrown under the bus, you can send that engineer an email and express your concerns and see how they react. Judging on how they seem to "design", they may not care. The problem here is, the contractor should not have shown you those documents if they want to stay in good standing with the entity that hired them.
But be prepared that no matter your true intentions, the other parties will consider you to be a sore loser . I believe you are not, but that will be their defense of their " design" .

You are right, in HVAC consequences are less severe. Not enough ventilation can be unhealthy, but doesn't immediately kill people. Part to my job is reviewing designs for my employer (who hires consultants to design) as part of commissioning. The most dangerous I saw was a design with a direct-fired make-up air unit in 100% recirculation mode, which would deplete all oxygen and introduce CO into the space. For that one I went very far up the hierarchy to get changed since that is an obvious danger. Other issues are wrong flowrates etc. That leads to lack of heating, but not killing people. I just write my report, and let them resolve (or not). I learned people don't want to know about problems. So my policy is to point out a problem ONCE and keep record that I did. In my younger years I did it more than once, and it got me in a lot of trouble. I also used to point out errors I knew about by chance (i.e. it wasn't my direct job to review). I also learned quickly (the hard way) to stop doing that. I sometimes let a lower level person know, but will not go to managers anymore. Sometimes there are code violations, and it turned out JHA was OK with that (for whatever reason).

 

[jayrod12]

Last post regarding quoting, yes unfortunately the feature here is rudimentary, you do need to copy paste the text you want to quote. On my laptop not a big deal, on my mobile it's a bit more of a frustration.

Regarding the issue at hand, I feel it might be worth a quick discussion with the EOR. I would take the path noted above where don't directly indicate that you were provided his package, but rather ask questions "how did you get x/y/z to work out? Are you concerned about the quality of the wall construction? How are you dealing with the new openings in the walls and the lateral system?" If you make it seem like you want to learn from him, as opposed to confronting him, you may get him to take a closer look all on his own. It's also better to do that sooner rather than later.

 

[Skinnattittar]

@jayrod12

That's a pretty good way of handling it. I'll see about getting their info. If nothing else, it might scare them into putting some effort into it, or best case, their letter was just meant to get the project going and they have some super incredible, space age analysis program where they just drive by and know all the structural intricacies of the building and by inspection assessed that the existing building would be able to handle all the forces and will provide proofs as construction is ongoing.

 

[Rabbit12]

I'd proceed with caution here. For all we know the other engineer may be an expert in this type of construction and can get a sense of suitability with minimal work. You or I may need or want to do a lot more backup calculations, but that doesn't mean the other guy is being unethical here.

You say there is no SFRS but it's a brick building....that is your SFRS. The allowable shear stress in a brick wall isn't what a modern CMU wall would be but it's not zero either. The fact this building is 120 years old and is still standing provides some pretty good evidence the construction wasn't awful.

I still don't understand what code provision is triggering a major structural rehabilitation/analysis in your mind. A company I worked for a few years ago had an office in an old brick warehouse (100 years old or more). I know for a fact a detailed analysis of the walls wasn't completed when they renovated it.

 

[Skinnattittar]

... ou say there is no SFRS but it's a brick building....that is your SFRS. The allowable shear stress in a brick wall isn't what a modern CMU wall would be but it's not zero either. The fact this building is 120 years old and is still standing provides some pretty good evidence the construction wasn't awful...

I was incorrect in saying "none", as you are correct, there is the exterior brick and granite walls. I should have said "incomplete" as there are many primary support systems that are not braced, especially now after they gutted the walls; the original partitions were 3"-4" of SOLID crossing layers of ~1" old growth pine, cemented with wire mesh, and nailed through with some honking nails. Really dense construction they used to do back in the day for finish work. So the exterior supports of the floor system are properly braced, but the interior supports, stairs, and platforms are not.

Also, in the calcs that were provided, they did not account for all the windows and openings in their calculations of the masonry walls.

 

[phamENG]

Skinnattittar - please correct me if I'm wrong here:

I think the look at the LFRS is less about a specific code requirement and more about Skinnattittar's engineering judgement of the situation. 120 years ago builders weren't really thinking in terms of vertical and lateral loads - they were thinking in terms of building a building. What they built worked for a long time, and nobody ever put much thought into why it worked. Now they're going in and gutting it, so the resistance of the building will change. Based on Skinnattittar's judgement from what he's seen on site, that change might be significant. It also might not be. It seems his point is that somebody should have checked, and the calculations appear to him to be inadequate in this regard.

I do a fair amount of work on buildings this old and older (oldest known was 1758, a few vernacular structures suspected to be much older than that), so I understand his thinking and agree in principal if not specifics (since I don't know them and haven't seen the building).

I agree with Rabbit12's cautionary statement - the EOR may have done 100 buildings just like this and can look at it and know roughly what it takes (or doesn't take) to get it to pass muster. But then he may also be a shyster out for a "quick and dirty buck" as you put so eloquently.

 

[Rabbit12]

phamENG, my point exactly. The OP's engineering judgement could vary wildly from the engineer on this project. That's why I discussed a code requirement. If these renovations don't make this building "less safe" ie, increased loading in some way, destabilizing changes, etc, there isn't much that is required by code for us structurals. In virtually every building if we dig deep enough we can likely find some things that are not "up to code", but a renovation likely doesn't trigger a requirement to upgrade all those things.

I'll say again, 120 years of load tests say something. I'm bothered by engineers that cut corners as much as the next guy because it cheapens our profession. I'd be really uneasy in this situation though because your knowledge of his experience is likely minimal. Approaching this engineer is likely to elicit a fairly strong defensive response.

 

[EnergyProfessional]

I also would be cautious when informing people of the issues. If you tell the EOR, fine. but if you tell the owner, or JHA and then it turns out you were wrong and you caused them to pause the project, or spend time, they could sue you for slander and damages due to you interference. I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea how realistic this is. But if you slow down their project or cause them expenses, they will be very unhappy.