Practice of Engineering 8

[steve1]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this question/comment so if it belongs somewhere else just let me know.

I was renewing a PE license online today and had to certify that I would abide by the states ethical requirements. This was a new item so I decided to look up the pertinent law so that I knew what I was signing for.

One of the standards of conducts states, "Not delegate responsible charge or direct supervisory control to a non-licensed individual to provide professional services".

The firm I work (consulting engineering firm in the power business) for has set up the organization such that we have a chief designer who is responsible for "drawing coordination". I have no problem with that, however in practice this is the way it works. He decides what the framing layout should be, what type of lateral load resisting system should be employed, and indirectly the sizes of the members all on the basis of "that's all the room we have available".

I have spoken with my supervisor (the firms engineering manager) about this. I claim that the chief designer is doing structural engineering without a license. The engineering manager states that since I am the one doing the calculations then I'm doing the engineering. I claim that all I'm doing is certifying someone else's design over which I have very little control, and that this is getting awfully close to plan stamping.

I am considering contacting my states licensing board to get their take on this but thought I would like to hear from some practicing engineers who may be able to shed some additional light on this.

Thank you for your input.

 

[IRstuff]

Who stamps the drawings and calculations?

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[steve1]

I or someone on my staff does.

 

[whyun]

The chief designer, a glorified ex-drafter with years of experience, may be under direct responsible charge of the guy who ultimately stamps the drawings. Actually this may be happening in the background and you don't realize it. Just find out from the guy whose stamp will be on the drawing.

If the SEOR does not exercise his responsible charge and "allows" the designer to make ALL the decisions on that project, and you can prove it, you have grounds to report this to the board.

 

[JAE]

whyun makes a good point - the EOR has to have control over all decisions relative to the design.

What this means in practice is that as the EOR, if you are continually placed in a position where the "designer" has the power to over-rule your decisions on beam sizes, connection types, etc. then the designer has direct control, not you.

And that is a bad thing.

Preliminary layout of framing and bracing schemes, etc. is not necessarily an issue. If you then do calculations that show the concept won't work and the designer tells you to go take a hike, you are not in direct control of the design.

I've had architects come to me with a building concept and have indicated to me their idea of what the framing will be - that isn't practicing engineering.

 

[steve1]

I agree with the comments that have been made, however there is an underlying issue here. What constitues "drawing coordination" and what constitutes the practice of engineering. I claim that under the guise of "drawing coordination" structural decisions are being made that I am forced (by the upper management of the firm) to live with. Typically these decisions involve the amount of space available for structural members, the framing system chosen, the connections required (espicially gusset plate sizes), etc.

As time goes on I am getting more and more frustrated with this situation. It may be time to move on.

 

[Ussuri]

I claim that all I'm doing is certifying someone else's design over which I have very little control

What do you do if the calcs show it wont work?

We have designers at my work who, using their experience (which is based on what they have seen done before), will draw up layouts, arrangements etc. They will select the members, draw up connection details etc. This is basically just copying.

We then do the calculations and actually design what they drew. If it works its all well and good. If it doesn't work then we change it. Generally though what the designers draw up is OK because they are copying stuff that has been designed properly in the past. The sections were good enough then and they are still good enough now.

I have learned that it is usually good to listen to these experianced guys. There was a reason an engineer came up with the design way back in the day, the designer may not know it though and you couldn't see it. I have changed stuff in the past to suit my engineering preference, and it was a preference, only to find out it didnt work as I expected and the unchanged arrangement would have been better. Other times, the change is so non consequential all changing it really does is use up draughting time for no real benefit. If they want to use a larger section than is needed and its not detrimental to the design then I will leave it (Economics/Efficiency generally are not a consideration where I work).

 

[FSS]

If you just sign off on what you are given, then it is plan stamping and shame on you for not being more assertive in your role as engineer. I don't see anything wrong with designer laying things out for you since hopefully you be calculating/checking/verifying everything (which is your engineering responsibility).

 

[steve1]

I believe that structural engineering consists of more than just verifying someone else's concepts. Under the system that I find myself in I am nothing more than an automaton whose function is to justify other peoples wishes. With no input beyond providing calculations I don't feel that I am actually doing engineering.

Just for the record I have thirty years of structural/mechanical engineering experience, I am a registered PE in a dozen states, and I have earned six college degrees. I have never been so frustrated in my life.

 

[EddyC]

I think that if someone presents a design to you, you do the mathematical calculations, and the calculations show that the design works, then you are OK. What you are describing went on in some of the places that I worked. I suggest that you focus on the end result (a safe design) rather than on the particular work method that led to it.

 

[whyun]

steve1, if your current firm does not give you the appropriate authority/responsibility/paycheck commensurate with your experience, either ask for a promotion or move to another firm that will provide what you want.

 

[IRstuff]

With no input beyond providing calculations I don't feel that I am actually doing engineering.

True, but then, neither is your designer, since he's simply pulling cookbook designs.

While there's something to be said for creativity, standardization of design practices is one avenue to profitability.

How well would your company do as a whole, if each engineer used different approaches to their designs, resulting in massive NRE for each new build, because your contractors have to use different procedures and materials for each job?

Seems to me that you're simply not in the right company, and you're lashing out in your frustration. You're doing what appears to be a medium experience level job and well below your stated qualifications. But the problem is not this designer, it's you in THIS job.

Let's take it to the next level. Say you get the guy fired/prosecuted. Will things change? Sure, some PE, possibly you will get the designer's job to do EXACTLY the same thing that the designer did before. If you don't get the dot on your forehead to replace the designer, your job will remain EXACTLY the same, and, you'll get some other PE REALLY frustrated, because he won't even get to do ANY calculations, just picking from existing designs.

Why? Because that's the business model of your company. The company is comfortable doing essentially variations of some minimal set of basic designs. They're not looking to break new ground.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[steve1]

Thanks for all the great replies.

I may not have articulated my point as well as I would have liked. Let me try again.

Is there an ethical question related to the structural engineer not having control over the design in the sense that he has no input into how the basic framing scheme, including lateral resistance, is selected? Further, does it suffice, in the sense of responsible charge, simply to meet a set of loading requirements without regard to some finer points of risk management such as cost effectiveness (design alternatives), human comfort (stair layout, vibrations, etc), longevity (coatings, additives, maintainance provisions), psychological effects (depth to span ratio, slenderness ratio, deflection limit), etc. that an experienced engineer will consider important to the design?

 

[IRstuff]

Not knowing the specifics of your particular company, it would be difficult to say. If all your company's designs are variations on a basic theme, then the answer is no.

I don't think that "responsible charge" necessarily means that you have to do a brand new design from scratch every time. That would seem to be pandering to your own sense of power.

Since you mention cost effectiveness, wouldn't you think that maximizing reuse is a cost effective solution, at least for your company?

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[GregLocock]

Badda badda bing.

As they say.

The professional has a duty to both his client and his employer. Giving the client a cheap, cost effective design, may appear to be ethical, yet, if it is not robust, may expose the client to costs down the track.

Rejigging design #004 to meet contract #1005 may not be a wonderful intellectual achievement, but if it works, that may be a better solution.

I sympathise with the desire to re-engineer from the ground up, but frankly, I don't redesign nuts and bolts unless I have to. (and I have)



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[whyun]

EOR has full authority over the project. Any junior staff, project managers, senior engineers executing the work are acting under EOR's behalf and shall follow his orders and direction. If EOR wants a "cheap" design, it it his prerogative.

If a project engineer finds faults in the EOR's approach that "endangers" the public, it is only ethical to address the EOR. Authority is still with the EOR. As difficult as it may be, if EOR "decides" to place the public in danger, it is only ethical to report him to the board.

All in all, engineers working for an EOR really only have authority over "minor" engineering decisions.

 

[Ashereng]

If in the final analysis, you are not comfortable putting your stamp on the design, you don't.

How you got there really isn't important. What is important is the final product.

Many companies have non-PE's doing a lot of valuable work. Yes, they can make calculations, decisions, recommendations, all that - and yet, no stamp. The stamp is with the EOR. No single EOR can do all the work - he/she has to depend on others, including PEs and non-PEs.

I don't see anything unethical in this type of arrangement, as long as the EOR stamps the design he/she believes in.

"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?

 

[IRstuff]

Oh, and if your company is charging for a custom design, but is simply rehashing old designs, one could certainly argue price gouging, which is unethical.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[Atomic25]

Is there an ethical question related to the structural engineer not having control over the design in the sense that he has no input into how the basic framing scheme, including lateral resistance, is selected? Further, does it suffice, in the sense of responsible charge, simply to meet a set of loading requirements without regard to some finer points of risk management such as cost effectiveness (design alternatives), human comfort (stair layout, vibrations, etc), longevity (coatings, additives, maintainance provisions), psychological effects (depth to span ratio, slenderness ratio, deflection limit), etc. that an experienced engineer will consider important to the design?

A lot of posts in this thread are dead wrong. An engineer must have control over the design from start to finish. There's no arguing this. A design is made up of items you can and cant calculate. Just because you're providing calculations doesn't mean you're providing a full design. If you were working side by side the senior designer and providing layout directions along the way then it's a different story, but checking someone else's layout and "just being happy with the final product" is so wrong. Checking a design is so much more cursory than doing the design from scratch. Some people may be comfortable with their designers, but when it comes down to it, its a cost savings move by the firm to substitute an engineer's hours with a cheaper designer's hours.

I would flat out disagree with your supervisor and contact your board if it doesn't go anywhere. I'm not sure why it took you this long to become worried about it though.....didn't you feel like you were acting like a puppet before you read the ethical requirements?

 

[GregLocock]

So please explain the ethical difference between approving the use of off the shelf components which meets your design criteria, engineered by someone else (Nuts and bolts, I beams) and approving the use of a design which meets your design criteria that is drawn by a designer?

Or do you design your own nuts and bolts?





Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.