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.

 

[Atomic25]

Greg,
Structural engineers for buildings use standard "off the shelf" components that meet ASTM requirements, an industry standard. I'm sure it's much different than automotive engineering where you have a much wider array of bolt sizes/materials/etc. We sure aren't running a FE analysis on typical A325 3/4" diameter bolts when AISC dictates allowable shear and tension values. It would be atypical and uneconomical for a building structural engineer to design custom bolts.....but if I had to for some reason I could.

I dont fully understand how automotive engineering works, so I cant comment much more than that....sorry.

 

[Atomic25]

In addition... I think the EOR is illegally practicing by not having full supervision over the design, So Steve1, if you go to the board I would be aware of this.

I recommend you check out a few of the states' licensure websites and take a look at their disciplinary actions.

For example

http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/l_enforce.htm#disciplinary

 

[GregLocock]

So... you either can't or won't explain why /ethically/ there is a difference between taking preengineered parts out of a catalogue, and assessing their suitability, and taking parts designed by a different third party, and assessing their suitability.

I'm not saying either is wrong, I'm just saying I find it astonishing that you think there is an ethical difference.





Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[graybeach]

Steve1,
I have the exact same problem as you and think you should stick to your guns. Typical example: one of our designers detailed a maintenance platform that was totally stick built, to be built over existing machinery, about 15 feet up in the air. The thing was supposed to be galvanized and was riddled with field welds. I told him to redetail it with prefabricated units. He refused saying that he spent enough time on it already. I made a quick sketch showing how it could be done easily. He screamed (like I was stepping on his turf) and went to my boss. My boss seals the drawings, and I am supposed to sign as the checking engineer. My boss said that if it works structurally we should just leave it as is, but I did not back down because what was detailed was just plain dumb. Eventually the designer revised the design to the point I felt ok to sign the drawing. When something really needs to be changed (and is not just my preferrence), I do not give in. If I lose my job over it - bub-bye!

 

[sundale]

There are many right answers and infinite wrong answers to a structural design.

If what the CAD draftsman is coming up with works, then it is up to you as the SEOR to either approve that design or come up with another (better) one based on your professional knowledge and experience. You are the PE and he is a CAD jockey; he may be very knowledgible or he may be unable to engineer his way out of a wet paper bag.

I always tell people here that: "If it is my PE license on the line, then we can either do it my way or we can do it my way". That being said, you need to question your ego in order to justify redlining a design that does indeed meet the code and does provide an economical design for the client. On the contrary, you are on thin ice ethically and legally if you do not have the authority within the firm or willpower within yourself to demand that something that is "wrong" be redesigned until it meets the code before you will stamp it with your license.

If the structural design is essentially "good", then I would let it go for the present but politely ask in writing to get involved in the schematic decisions earlier on the next project. If he or management do not have the respect for you and your license to grant such a polite and reasonable request coming from the SEOR, then I would start to find another firm.

The Board will likely ignore any claims of "plan stamping" if the engineering work is being prepared and stamped within the same firm. "Plan stamping" to me means the low life unethical engineers who will "review and stamp" someone else's drawings prepared external to the firm.

 

[swearingen]

As a data point, I looked up the law and rules in my first state of licensure, Louisiana. The definition for Responsible Charge in the Law is written:

"... shall mean the direct control and personal supervision of engineering ... service or work ..."

The definition of Responsible Charge of a Professional Engineer as stated in the Rules is:

"a. the work performed by a professional engineer duly licensed...
b. the work reviewed and approved by a professional engineer, duly licensed ..., who is authorized to direct changes to the engineering work, or
c. the work performed in accordance with a system of engineering practices approved by a professional engineer, duly licensed..."

Greg - to answer your question - "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?"

The answer is simply because the nuts, bolts and I beams are approved for use by our codes. By default, we are not required to check them because they pass the standard of care. We are required to meet codes by law (not usually an issue with machines unless you're in something like aerospace or boilers). The prescribed law accepts the pieces we use (there are tight specifications listed for them in our codes), but their arrangement and sequencing must be under our direct control for us to be able to ethically and lawfully stamp the drawings.

Your statement about re-engineering from the ground up is covered by clause c. in the rules. An engineer may approve a process whereby duplicates with slight, approved variations can be made without direct supervision.



If you "heard" it on the internet, it's guilty until proven innocent. - DCS

 

[IRstuff]

An engineer may approve a process whereby duplicates with slight, approved variations can be made without direct supervision.

This looks to be pretty similar to what the OP originally posted.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[swearingen]

IRstuff, I don't agree with you because of the OP's statement, "(the designer) 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"."

This is not pre-approving a work process and having someone else do it. He didn't pre-approve anything. He only sees it on the back end...




If you "heard" it on the internet, it's guilty until proven innocent. - DCS

 

[namdac]

Here we are stuck in the crack. We all work together and I believe that people need to quit reading "into" things. We all have a common goal in what we do as a "Team" if the designer creates a "wigget" and these are construction plans that are to be used for constrction purposes, then the Engineer who stamps the "Plans" has to be responsible for making sure that those in thier charge have done things correctly. This is why we have a system of checks and balances.
If there is an error, the engineer finds the error then red line the plans and give it back to the designer for correction before you sign the plans. SIMPLE!
Regards,
Namdac

 

[Atomic25]

I think the states' ethics codes read pretty clear. If you're a team, then the engineer should be providing input up front.

"Section 1. Definitions. (1) "Conflict of interest" means any circumstance in which a licensee’s personal or financial interest is contrary to the interests of the public, his employer, or current or past client.

(2) "Direct supervisory control" in the practice of engineering means that an engineer licensee shall directly supervise and take responsibility for consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, design and certification of an engineering project and includes only that work performed by an employee as defined herein."