Questionable Calculations 12

[Greatone76]

I have a situation where I’m monitoring a project as an owner’s rep. We have encountered a situation where the owner is requesting structural calculations to ensure an installation is acceptable. In doing this it has come to light in writing that the designers on this project took another project’s design documents and did not evaluate the original design. Along with that comment in writing when I reviewed the calculations produced I am seeing glaring errors in the calculations. I am asking about roof diaphragm blocking and the designer calculated the uplift forces on a truss and compared that reaction to the shear diaphragm capacity of plywood out of the code. They did not reduce the value from the table as required either. So I am seeing clear deficiencies in the small amount of calculations provided. I’m a licensed Structural Engineer in the state I’m working in. Knowing the Structural Engineering Statues in the state and knowing it is illegal to not evaluate a design you stamped for and seeing the glaring issues with fairly simple calculations…..

Do I have an obligation to report this to the state board as a complaint?

Can a complaint be made anonymously and are they reviewed in the same manor?

 

[woodman88]

Is that the detail in the plans or what was done at the site?

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.

 

[Greatone76]

The gable detail on this particular shelter did not exist. The owner questioned the installation. These Calcs were the result of the question.

And yes the corrective action is a couple dozen Simpson A35 angle clips and an afternoon. I just have what appears to be a situation where the cm who highered the designer is pushing the designer to approve the installations as done by the contractor.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

It sounds like you're questioning when this becomes big enough of an issue to go to your engineering board. I would say that this paragraph of the engineering code of ethics answers that: "Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required."

So, yes, if you feel this person has no business performing this design then you should notify your board.

That said, I agree 100% with the general sentiment here that this should be discussed informally with the other engineer prior to escalating this. I've seen both sides of this situation and nobody wins.

And, as far as I know, you can report to your state board anonymously but will probably be required to provide supporting statements and respond to comments by the engineer you're bringing the complaint against.

Maine Professional and Structural Engineer.
(Just passed the 16-hour SE exam, woohoo!)

 

[msquared48]

There should be kickers at the rat runs, but there probably are not any rat runs either. Is there at least one at rat run at mid span?

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[BAretired]

In my opinion, you have a duty not only to alert the owner to the problem but to ensure that corrective measures are taken to remedy the situation. It is not mandatory to report the EOR to his professional association unless he displays unwillingness to accept your recommendations or shows reason why his calculations are adequate.

If you decide to make a complaint to the professional association, you will be the complainant and you may be required to attend and give evidence at a hearing of the Discipline Panel to decide whether or not disciplinary action is appropriate.

BA

 

[dcarr82775]

I gotta ask Mike, what is a rat run?

 

[msquared48]

dcarr:

It's a flat 2X member laid across top of the truss bottom chords of the trusses near panel points to hold them at the desired spacing. They also give some lateral stability to the truss bottom chord if connected to the end walls.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[parapetguy]

For what it is worth, I'm on a licensing board and this is an easy call. As a professional licensed in the state, you have an obligation to protect the health safety and welfare of the public. If you suspect incompetency (which it appears that you do from your 15:08 post), this should be reported. Let the licensing board review it and make the call. Put your name on the complaint. It will make an investigation faster and easier for the board if more information is needed. Anonymous complaints often have no backup information and are then dropped for lack of evidence.

In my state, the respondent is not even aware a complaint has been filed until an investigation is complete and a decision has been made to prosecute. Even then, the name of the person filing the complaint is never reveled to the respondent but they will probably be able to figure it out anyway. Other states will be different. Feel free to call the board and discuss the complaint process.

Engineers need to protect the public and the profession by weeding out incompetency. This will never happen as long as we stand back and let things like this continue because we are afraid of offending someone. I know the engineering / construction business can be a close knit group and flushing out the weak and incapable may not be popular but it is the moral and ethical thing to do.

 

[msquared48]

Well, at the risk of stirring up a hornet's list, I will have to disagree in part. I believe there is a big difference between an honest mistake, with a willingness to correct the situation, and repeated demonstrations of incompetence with no willingness to change. I cannot assess what is the true situation unless I know the individual and situation. Until then, I am one to give the benefit of the doubt, and not be so quick to condemn.

That should get it going...

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[Greatone76]

Yes there is one rat run down the middle. The ceiling of the structure at that intersection of the gable truss and framed wall provides reasonable stability to the joint in the out of plane direction.

It has been my observation through my interactions with the design group that they are not equipped to do structural design on buildings. When we first asked about diaphragm blocking requirements they repeatedly informed us that the truss manufacturer would have been the one to require or not require blocking in the diaphragm. The lateral analysis and diaphragm forces are clearly the responsibility of the EOR and have little to nothing to do with the truss manufacturer. We have previously requested structural calculations and the EOR will not produce the calcs, so the contractor has on multiple occasions highered their own Structural Engineer to produce and provide structural design for the errors made in the construction of the project. We can't even get the EOR to send a letter stating they agree with the contractor's structural engineer. We had a situation where it was determined that the foundation walls were placed out of the plumb. The design grouped used the head architect to respond via RFI that the foundation walls were out of plumb, but not enough to be a problem without producing an amount they were out of plumb or an amount that was acceptable. The architect should not be making that statement when a structural engineer stamped the drawings. It would be my guess the engineers I have participating in the project are PE engineers with civil backgrounds and are not qualified to do structural design of buildings. There has been many indications throughout the project that the design group is not acting in a professional manner. When I received in writing that the design group took some other projects design from another design group and said they did not verify the design I truly began to understand the underlying problem with the project and why we continued to run into problem after problem. The owner would find error in the installation the CM would say everything is fine and sometimes produce random e-mails or half answers from a variety of sources to tell the owner it is acceptable. The lack of original design and resistance to produce revised design is the underlying issue. We are all assuming when a change is request via submittal or RFI that the EOR is checking it and we are learning that this never happened and the more we check the more problems and questions arise.

 

[BAretired]

The word is hired, not highered.

BA

 

[BAretired]

Retained would be more appropriate.

BA

 

[woodman88]

parapetguy
As you are on a state board what do you think about the below thread?


thread765-368896

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.

 

[parapetguy]

Woodman88 I read the thread and kind of got lost in the details of needing three public copies but got the gist of where it was headed regarding the board's involvement. I can appreciate the board unwillingness to intervene and become the referee to settle a difference of opinion on interpretation of a code provision. I'm not familiar with Arizona law but I suspect the building official has the authority to interpret the code and has final say for acceptance of the plans. As was suggested in the thread, contacting ACI for the proper interpretation would be a better approach to resolving the issue especially if the difference of opinion is a technical nuance that doesn't affect the adequacy of the structure. However, if it does, the board should be contacted and a well constructed argument presented to indicate the seriousness of the problem.

Msquared48 I generally agree with you. Engineers are expected to adhere to the generally accepted standard of practice. I don't like to make blanket statements but no plans are perfect and small errors in calculations or details are not reasons to file a complaint. As Greatone76 noted in his 4:09 response, there appears to be a competency issue much larger than just a couple bad details. From what he has described, it sounds like the engineers in question are practicing outside their area of expertise.

 

[woodman88]

parapetguy
It is simple, in Arizona "ALL referenced codes have to be part of the public records" for the public to be able to review. As only the IBC is in the public record only the IBC is the building code for the Building Official to interpret. All reference engineering standards in the IBC are under the State board rules, not the city.
I am sure that the state you are in have the same requirements. If you will tell me the state you are in I will look up the laws, that you apparently won"t do yourself, to give you. Why you are on a licensing board without looking up the laws for your state concerning the engineering laws is beyond me.


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.