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.

 

[swsengineer]

I don't see how it's plan stamping. The calculations can be redone by the certifying engineer in a matter a minutes, and if this note is put with the sealed letter then what specifically is wrong?

THE BEAM DESIGNS 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 FOR ANY SPECIFIC PROJECT. AS SUCH, THE USE OF THIS BEAM IN AN ACTUAL STRUCTURAL SYSTEM SHOULD BE CAREFULLY REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY A LICENSED ENGINEER.

 

[Lion06]

sws-

With that qualifying language, what EXACTLY is the purpose of the letter with respect to a specific project for which it would be "flashed in front of the building official"?

 

[UnneutralAxis]

swsengineer - I believe our paths cross routinely. I deal with glulam on a regular basis. I am on retainer with another manufacturer in the southeast. A company I used to work for was asked by this manufacturer to do some of the same type things you've mentioned. I was hesitant and discussed it with other engineers in the business and they all seemed to say that they would not do it. It is too much exposure to liability. If someone applies the loading incorrectly and uses that size beam and even just has some serious deflection problems, you might not be found liable, but at the very least you'd have a big headache to deal with.

I think you made the right decision and the other company is crazy for stamping that type letter for $300. I don't think it is ethically wrong to do it, for the record... I just think there is too much risk involved.

No, it's not plan stamping. Nothing like plan stamping in my opinion. All you would need is a quick beam analysis in your job file to prove it. Plus, you'd be writing the letter. So it is by very definition not plan stamping. Plan stamping, to me, is when someone lays a set of plans in front of you that they drew and you stamp them. Yes, there are some more subtleties to plan stamping, but that's the basic gist of it.

 

[swsengineer]

As far as the purpose, I can only speculate. How many of you engineer a simpson hanger before using it? Simpson does not engineer it for a specific job. If a building inspector questions the use of a specific hanger you can show him the simpson information. I see it as being similiar to this? Agree/Disagree?

 

[Lion06]

I don't see it as similar.

For the Simpson example, an engineer is using the Simpson information in their design that will ultimately be sealed by the design engineer.

The letter being provided is, by your own admission, allowing designers to pick off beams with no oversight or stamping. You also said that flashing an engineer's seal in front of a building official usually gets their concerns off the table, but the seal is not for that specific project. I think it's a disengenuous use of a seal to do that. Maybe if the person flashing the letter with the seal said something along the lines of, "...., but the engineer who sealed this letter did not design the beam for this specific project. A non-licensed designer with our company designed this beam".

I know my first question would be then why the hell are you showing me this letter if the engineer didn't design the beam for this specific project.

 

[Lion06]

I should disclose that I've never sealed anything.

 

[JAE]

The sealing question is meaningless if the building is a house that doesn't legally need a seal.

 

[Lion06]

JAE-
That's true. So why would they be flashing a seal in front of a building official other than to misrepresent the use of said seal?

 

[Lion06]

To me, it sounds like the intention is to mislead a building official by simply showing him an engineer's seal even though it's not needed for the project and is not specific to the project.

If this is being compared to a Simpson catalog - would anyone ever get questioned about a joist hanger and whip out a Simpson catalog? No, you would pull out the drawings and (whether sealed or not) show the building official the relevant information.

Even if a seal isn't required, drawings would be, right?

Also, in comparing this situation to trusses. I haven't done a ton of jobs that included wood trusses, but all of the truss jobs I've been involved in we've had calcs submitted with the job-specific loading, spans, spacing, wind loads, deflection criteria, etc.. signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer.

 

[swsengineer]

I got a little more info
These are for houses, and their are no plans, other than a floorplan and elevation. The spans and loads came from the builder verbally to the truss supplier. They generated a beam design with their software and basically want us as the beam manufacturer to seal that per the loads they used that the beam size is good and more importantly that the minimum bearing info is correct. I didn't seal it, but as I mentioned someone else did for us. Either way the info about it being a house or a commercial job, plans or not, E.O.R. or not are all irrelevant because the info we are supplied is the same regardless and they want a seal on it.

Either it's ok to seal with a qualification similar to this or not.
THE BEAM DESIGNS 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.

 

[Brad805]

What I dont understand here is what is the value of the seal? It seems the engineer would basically be sealing that a technician knows how to operate a computer program. This does not seem much like engineering unless he checks something else other than a piece of paper.

$300... Some engineers are sure good at math, but not good at risk management or business.

Brad

 

[swsengineer]

value is either:
to give piece of mind to the technician and his company or to misrepresent that the beams have been engineered specifically for a project to whoever will inquire. Their are several beams for more than just one house in the order.

 

[MiketheEngineer]

Lets make this a real good argument. What is the difference between a beam and the bolt I buy at Grainger or the nails at Lowes - all that have a rated value??

Used incorrectly - they will all kill you or someone else??

 

[TXStructural]

Sounds like any other pre-engineered component. In Texas, any use of a member spanning over a certain distance (over 24 feet) requires either an EOR on the project or pre-engineered components.

I designed repair of of a building with plate-connected wood truss and glulam spans up to 77 feet which never saw an engineer. But based on the design loads used, they would not have worked for the building use. They were designed for residential instead of 100 psf+ live for commercial (and 1-1/2" normalweight concrete topping.) Also bracing was inadequate, since it was not specified by the truss designer/supplier, and the contractor was inexperienced.

Nothing wrong with sealing it as a component, and obviously you are not going to seal anything without doing the calcs. The items will be "certified" to a certain load, but not for a particular use, just like buying a Simpson tie.

 

[a2mfk]

Lion- I think I see where you are coming from. You are concerned with the intent of the manufacturer to use this signed and sealed letter in a way that may be misleading to a building code official, architect, building owner, etc. Some engineering boards MAY interpret this action as assisting a non-engineer to perform engineering, which is a violation of most board's codes of conduct.

I personally see it as no different then any other pre-engineered component, as others have stated. How this letter gets used is out of your control, and if done the way SWS described with that language attached, to me it is OK and legal. Is it a good business decision and worth the exposure for 300 clams? Hell no! You did the right thing by saying no.

If you graduated in 2006 then you are pretty young, I am just a little bit older, and throughout your career you will see lots of engineers, contractors, and architects doing things that are questionable. If someone really crosses the line, turn them in. But pick your battles on this other stuff. Sounds like you got a good set of ethics and balls enough to tell your company no. Good for you!

What really bothers me about this whole discussion is it seems there are MANY areas of the country where you can build a pretty good-sized and complicated structure without an engineer doing the design. That is what I would like to see changed...

 

[Brad805]

a2, "...complicated structure without an engineer doing the design..." I couldn't agree more. The other concerning thing is the lack of concern from the $300 engineer. I have been arguing for two years with a professional association about looking into a fairly common commercial building in our area that is lacking a proper lateral restraint system. Its been like pulling teeth to get anything done.

Brad

 

[a2mfk]

The Florida Board has actually used the fee in a project as evidence of plan stamping. And as backwards and southern as I think things can be down here, in most urban areas anything you do outside of a deck or doghouse needs a permit, and I mean in residential. Now, I know in residential most of the "design", if you want to call it that, is done by CAD techs. Then some architect or engineer signs and seals a whole set of house plans for rock bottom prices. I have done residential additions for reputable contractors and architects who wanted it done right, and I am sure my fee was much greater than a lot of people were charging for entire tract houses... Not to mention, reuse fees for pennies on the dollar. Not worth my liability.

Generally in Florida plan reviewers are not engineers or architects and I have had very few comments made on my drawings in my entire 13 year career. I like to think it is because I am just that awesome, but the only thing they seem to pick on is if you missed something really obvious like calling out an importance factor or Exposure Category. Unfortunately, there is a large reliance in my experience on the seal. If its there, they trust that you did your job.

I guess my point was you can have strong codes, you can have good inspection enforcement, but if the plan review is weak, there are unscrupulous A and Es out there who will sell out their seal.... To the lowest bidder too...

But requiring signed and sealed plans would at least be a good start. I'd be curious as to what states you guys have experience in where you can build houses without sealed plans?

 

[FSS]

Welcome to residential engineering. The wildest frontier in plan stamping.

 

[MiketheEngineer]

In my state - while we have officially adopted IBC 2006 or 2009 or whatever - a couple of things come to mind:

Only the larger urban areas are code enforced. So about 85% of the state is NOT covered and you can build just about anything - and I have seen it done.

Many of the building officials are not PE's or Architects - one "tony" city even hired an outside firm to do the reviews - but they have no engineers or architects on staff. I challenged that and I think that finally got changed. If you challenge anything - you are on the "black list" One city used to charge an "extra" $25 if you didn't pick the I-beam sizes - they would do it for you.

Each locality can and does adopt and modify the code (which ever one they pick) as they see fit. They all add their two cents worth. Some are using IBC 2009 and one still accepts BOCA 99 I think. One small town mandated 2 layers of 1/2'' drywall on all interior walls for the longest time!! Recently - I was working with 4 or 5 different "codes" within a 100 mile radius. Now I think it down to only 3!!!

If things are slow - permits take forever and get nit picked to death. When business is good, drawings on toilet paper seem to suffice.

When any complaints are made to the state - they just shake their heads and collect their salaries.

Just had to rant and rave - sorry.

 

[a2mfk]

Mike - what state? So I never move there or practice there...