Question about sealing

[swsengineer]

Local press-plate truss company designs glulam beams and other engineered wood beams to be used in their truss packages. They develop the loads and generate a woodworks report analysis for the beams. They then send that report to an engineer and he seals it. This engineer only has the woodworks analysis. He seals it and attaches a letter saying that it is based solely on the data sheets provided that he cannot verify the loading is correct. He has no clue what it's actually being used for and how it's being loaded. He's just sealing that the beam is good for the load used in the analysis. Is this ok?

I see both sides of this.
1.) He doesn't have plans so how can he verify the loading that was used in the analysis.

2.)on the other hand, he's just certifying that the beam can handle the load on the page, he's not sealing that it can work for a particular beam, on a particular job.

I ask this because it seems inherently wrong to me, but I'm seeing this done a lot by many engineers and I have been asked to do just this for a beam order. They want a letter sealed by me that says the beams in the analysis are good for the loads in the analysis. They are fine with me qualifying that I am not able to independently verify the loads.

 

[a2mfk]

This is no different than any other manufacturer produced table. They are only certifying that the beam is OK for XYZ loads and that is based on the following assumptions (bracing, pin-pin, etc etc). It is up for the EOR to determine the loads and then select a member from the table that meets the assumptions and the given loading requirements.

I wouldn't do it because how am I fairly compensated for my liability (unless I was an employee at said company)?

In Florida this is spelled out in our Laws and Rules.

 

[Lion06]

I'm not quite following this. Is this a generic letter that is handed out to anyone the truss company does business with?

If he is sealing the calcs, he has a responsibility to ensure the design criteria (which includes the loading) for the project is met.

It doesn't sound like the submittal is a very good one. I'd call the engineer that submitted it and ask if he wants you to send them back "returned not reviewed" or send you a set of calcs that is project specific that doesn't require you to select members based on the actual loads, because he doesn't know what the loads are supposed to be. I'd be a little more diplomatic on the phone, but I would get the point across.

 

[swsengineer]

it's more like this, they will use these beams in several houses in a particular state. The letter will basically say that beam x, with span Y, can adequately support # plf roof dead load, # plf roof live load. They then show this info to any building inspector that occasionally questions the beam size being used. The sealing engineer isn't sealing the specific beam for the specific application, just the generic beam size for the theoretical load given. Evidently they get by with this all the time. I've seen this exact same thing done with other suppliers and other engineers in my office have sealed it. Now, I have the state they want and they have asked me to seal the generic letter.

 

[Lion06]

I don't know that I see much value in a letter like that. You can use design tables from a manufacturer to that end.

What good is a letter stating that beam X can support Y plf for a span of Z ft, if you don't have any verification that all of those conditions are met?

It might not be your problem if you're sealing a generic letter, but just for my own edification, who is verifying that the loads on the project don't exceed the loads in the letter? What about point loads? Are the members always simple span or can they be continuous?

I guess I'm failing to see what the benefit of the letter is above and beyond a manufacturer's load table.

 

[swsengineer]

The benefit is:
The supplier gets by cheap and the building inspectors generally don't question it. The suppliers feel confident that their in house designers (not engineers)design the beams properly. They flash an engineers seal on a generic letter in front of a building inspector it gets approved and on to the next house.

 

[Lion06]

Who is on the hook if something fails?

 

[swsengineer]

That's my concern, but arguably if higher loads exist, then the beam was not used as it was designed for. Not my fault I would argue.

They have since presented me with numerous examples all sealed by engineers at Truss Joist. Company A designs, they send the calc to tuss-joist and they stamp the design with a qualification that the beam size is good for the loads provided in the analysis.

I told them I would not seal it, and my company is about to loose a $30,000 beam order.

 

[Lion06]

The scenario you present at Truss Joist sounds like a single seal for a single project. Not a blanket seal that essentially gives designers an engineering license.

You're company is being offered $30k to seal a letter? Nice.

 

[swsengineer]

My company manufacturers glulam beams, we got a $30,000 order for the beams. The company that designed them sent their beam calcs and wanted us to seal it. They claim this is how they do it with other manufacturers and the other manufacturers just qualify that the seal is based on the loads presented in the calcs only. As they put it they just want an engineer to seal that the beams per their calcs only are good. They provided me with examples from other companies qualifying it that way.

 

[JAE]

Some comments/questions on this:

1. If this is a house, does an engineer or architect need to seal anything at all? In many states, residential construction is not required to be designed by a licensed professional. If so, your seal is essentially meaningless in terms of satisfying a requirement to have an EOR over the whole structure. You could then very easily simply review the calculations/designs and seal them with the necessary qualifiers as they suggest.

2. If the structure requires a licensed engineer, and that required EOR is NOT YOU, then you as a beam supplier can simply provide similar sealed calcs/drawings that again claim that the designs are based upon X, Y and Z and the EOR is ultimately responsible for checking the applied loads vs. the actual loads.

3. If the structure doesn't require a licensed engineer, and that EOR doesn't exist...i.e. there is some loosely held assumption out there that your sealing of the beams consitutes some level of responsibility over the structure, then you WOULD have a concern in my view.

 

[woodman88]

"They claim this is how they do it with other manufacturers and the other manufacturers just qualify that the seal is based on the loads presented in the calcs only. As they put it they just want an engineer to seal that the beams per their calcs only are good."
This is the standard way Wood Trusses are sealed. But, Wood Trusses are a fairly involved design. Doing this for a beam, I have to wonder why the building designer didn't design it (I always specified the size and grade for my glulam/LVL/PSL/etc. beams) or at least be willing to seal the beam calcs.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[JStephen]

The problem you run into is that you can put all kinds of qualifications on a drawing and they tend to be ignored.

A PE seal on a drawing can be taken to mean different things, which may or may not be spelled out in the state engineering rules. It may be taken to imply conformance with project specifications or with building codes, and if used in a more generic way, you have a problem.

Where I have run into this issue is sealing a standard detail drawing once and for all, which is a perfectly reasonable step. But then a draftsman makes a copy of that drawing, puts it in a set of shop drawings that I know nothing about, and what's the status then?

 

[swsengineer]

I don't know if it's house for sure, I don't know if their is an E.O.R., they just want me to stamp the calcs as good for the loads on the page. Simple as that. This is very similar to the way press-plate trusses are done. A designer, not an engineer, puts all the span and load info in a computer program, The analysis goes off to the plate manufacturer who provides them with the software. They get a truss design back stamped. The design is for a truss with span x, spacing y, and loads z. Like it or not this is the ways it's done and how it's been done for a long time.

I won't stamp it, but their is plenty of evidence to suggest that this is acceptable to do just from the fact that so many do it without issue. Doesn't make it ethically right, but if no one is getting in trouble for this then by whose authority does anyone say this is wrong?

 

[JAE]

swsengineer,

Keep in mind that your seal and signature only do ONE thing...they certify that YOU were the engineer that designed the item indicated on the plan. Nothing more.

Secondly, as a licensed engineer, you have a duty to protect the public welfare and safety. Given that, I might suggest this note on your sheet:

THE BEAM DESIGN REFLECTED ON THIS SHEET IS FOR SPECIFIC, INDICATED LOADS AND REQUIRED LATERAL BRACING. THE BEAM DESIGN HAS NOT BEEN INTEGRATED INTO A ACTUAL STRUCTURAL SYSTEM. AS SUCH, THE USE OF THIS BEAM IN AN ACTUAL STRUCTURAL SYSTEM SHOULD BE CAREFULLY REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY A LICENSED ENGINEER.

 

[a2mfk]

I think I understand the entire dilemma.

You don't even know what the beams will be used for, and JAE summed it up in his #2:

2. If the structure requires a licensed engineer, and that required EOR is NOT YOU, then you as a beam supplier can simply provide similar sealed calcs/drawings that again claim that the designs are based upon X, Y and Z and the EOR is ultimately responsible for checking the applied loads vs. the actual loads.


I agree. Like I originally said, this is no different than any other manufacturer produced table or calc. We all use these, do you independently run your own calcs on everything in AISC, for metal stud in LGSEA,Simpson connections, steel joists, etc... No, we rely on standardized tables produced by the MFR.

Now, you are THAT engineer doing the tables. I would be OK doing this, since it sounds like why your company hired you (to be their engineer), but I would insist on a nice box of CYA notes that must be next to my seal of my assumptions (specific loading info, load cases, load factors, deflection, bracing assumptions, bearing conditions, etc.). I would NOT rely on anyone else's calcs, which I know you aren't, I would do my own, and use their calcs as a check for mine.

If this takes a day of your time, for a $30k order I am sure your boss would be OK with that. Do what you need to do as an engineer to ensure that whatever you are signing and sealing is correct and limits your liability. You are keeping yourself and your company out of trouble, which I would remind your boss of the liability his company is incurring if you don't do this the right way.

 

[swsengineer]

Good advice guys

Our sales dept. to spite me found an engineering firm willing to seal a letter for $300. Fine with me.

I still feel it's ethically wrong, as I feel strongly that's it is being used to convey something that it is not to a building official or whoever ultimately wants to see the seal.

As many of you have stated whats really the purpose of having a seal on a design chart or generic table. Their is no good purpose that I can think of. It's a guarantee of nothing.

 

[Ron]

swsengineer...check with your state board. Might be bordering on "plan stamping". If so, report them.

 

[JAE]

Ron - you mean that the firm sealing it for $300 is plan stamping right?

 

[Ron]

JAE..yes. Sorry I was unclear.