Releasing Structural Calculations 8

[CELinOttawa]

We've been asked to release our structural calculations on a project. The client has been told by the Architect that we had to redesign a number of elements (this is false, and I believe occurred because the Architect had issued drawings with incorrect sizes, which we insisted be revised), and we are now told that the client has "lost all confidence in our engineering" and wishes to have the calculations reviewed.

I've looked back, and there was a thread discussing release of calculations back in 2004:

https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=263793

Fundamentally, having practiced in jurisdictions where release of calculations is the norm (ie: Design calculations going into the authority with the drawings), I don't mind, but I do worry.

I wanted to hear opinions, etc. I think in North America (this being Ottawa, Canada), releasing calculations is a possible source of liability, and perhaps unwise.

High level: I am confident in the design, happy with the sizes, and my objections to the release are based on liability and legal concerns. Thoughts?

 

[GC_Hopi]

I thought the client owned the calc as it is part of what they paid for and generally you are required to release calc to the building department.

 

[JLNJ]

Some jurisdictions almost always require calculations. Some almost never. I’ve been sealing drawings for almost 30 years and I’ve submitted calcs just a handful of times.

It also depends on your contract. If it’s not in your contract, then why go through the time and expense to create, organize, and submit calculations? Just to give them a stick to beat you with? No thanks.

 

[fel3]

GC_Hopi...

Ownership of calcs, plans, specs, etc. depends on the contract between the design professional and the client. As I recall, ASCE, AIA, EJCDC, etc. consider these documents to be "instruments of service" and recommend ownership remain with the design professional. For the little bit of private work I have done, we retained ownership and the client was given copies of plans and specs, but usually not calcs even when calcs were submitted to the AHJ for review and permitting. Governments, on the other hand, take a different approach and they typically claim ownership or at least an ownership interest in these documents. For my state and federal projects, calcs were always submitted to the client.

============
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

 

[dik]

Not in my books... unless agreed to before. My calcs are 'proprietary'. When I say that stuff is available (mostly photos) on request, I don't mention that it may take a 'court order'.

The only time I had a request for calcs was from a building official for a precast structure outside Ottawa. The project manager didn't believe that rock anchors were required to resist the seismic forces, so he asked his buddy the building inspector to get the calcs. I sent them on, and thanked the building inspector for the added review of the design (liability issue, and he was not pleased).

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[GC_Hopi]

oww... my neck. Got a little backlash on that. haha

Yes, I agree there is always the in's and out's if you go down the legal path but why cause friction with a client. Here is an old post. Link

 

[Canuck65]

Asking for the calcs to be provided in this situation is odd in my experience. What normally happens is that the client informs you that they are going to provide the design drawings to another engineer for a peer review. In Ontario the engineer completing the peer review needs to inform the original engineer that they have been engaged to do this work. The peer review engineer then does their own independent calculations and provides an opinion to the client that could fall into three general categories A) the design fails to meet code requirements or B) the design is satisfactory or C) the design meets/exceeds code requirements, however there is possibly a more efficient solution.

If there is disagreement between the professionals, often at that point there is direct communication between the two engineers to try and discuss and resolve. I have seen calcs released between the professionals at this point a couple of times. I have only had to release calculations a few times over many years, and that was to satisfy building department requests.

 

[phamENG]

I don't know that there's any liability risk beyond what you're typically exposed to, but that would be a good question for your insurance carrier.

I'd go for requesting a meeting with the owner to discuss their 'loss of confidence' and how that came to be. Be prepared with progress drawings that show the development of your design over time and that you didn't have to redesign things after the design was finalized.

If you can't assuage their concerns that way, then give them the option to 1) provide your drawings to a third party of their choice to review the design and conduct an independent analysis of the structural system or 2) give them a fee to convert your archived calculations into a presentable submittal document (assuming doing so is not part of your SOP) that can then be reviewed by a third party that you agree to, since you did not contractually agree to it in the first place and you don't want your instruments of service that fall outside of what would have been public record to get into the hands of your primary competitors.

I typically find that number 1 is a better review anyway. After all, the question isn't (or shouldn't be) your methods, but rather the suitability of the final design.

 

[dik]

There have only been a few times that I have done a peer review. I preface the report noting that other professionals might evaluate things in a slightly different fashion and that the building code is a minimal standard. The Ontario association cautions engineers not to be 'picky' in their peer review. The only review I did that was 'picky' was for a presentation on forensic reports, and the document was an engineering report on the collapse of the Algo Mall, in Ontario. The report was terrible and seriously flawed. The review was strictly internal and not published. In accordance with Ontario guidelines, the engineer was informed of my review... not the results of it. I do that anyway; if I review anything, I inform the other party of my involvement just as a common courtesy.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[Rabbit12]

Seems like this is a rabbit hole.

 

[dik]

a waskelly one, no doubt...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[MIStructE_IRE]

I don’t like releasing calculations but have begrudgingly done so a number of times. Once I came up against another consultant, the reviewer, being a d1ck, telling my client where he would have saved money on rebar had he been the engineer.. There used to be a code of ethics engineers maintained!

 

[Rabbit12]

Good one dik! lol.

I've stamped calcs for building departments several times in my career. Mostly just a check the box thing for a permit.

I've also thoroughly reviewed another engineer's calculations. It was a weird project where he was working under me and I had responsible charge. We had meetings often during design but following his calcs was difficult.

In this situation if the reviewing engineer wants to be a pain (dik), it'll get messy.

 

[JoelTXCive]

For our state projects (TxDOT) we turn in all calculations. Depending on the engineer, sometimes these are highly formatted beautiful calcs; and sometimes they are 'chicken-scratch' written on a post-it note. I do not think they are ever looked at by the state. We have never received a comment on them. My guess is that they just get filed away in case a bridge falls down.

For the private projects; we only release calc's in rare circumstance. I cannot think of an occurrence, but I'm sure we have a few times over the years.

 

[dik]

I almost never review calcs... generally faster to do a quick preliminary design. With reviewing calcs, you can fall into the trap of following calculations and not following the design... I don't recall ever finding a faulty design that I've reviewed... have after the fact, though... with collapses.

I do a lot of connection design for a metal fabricator and often find 'things' on other drawings. The most common, I think is reference to the latest version of CSA S16.1... which was about 2000. when it was done... Another often 'misthought' is designing for the full strength of the member... CJP welds for everything?...I often enounter specs that were withdrawn decades back... using same specs/notes that they have for decades. When I was with Lavalin, in the Winnipeg office, I modified all the structural dept specs to refer to the current version unless a specific version was referenced.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[JedClampett]

I don't like reviewing calculations done by others as part of a design review and I always get hinky about turning them in. But we do, quite commonly.
Whichever external entity (building department, client, etc.) is receiving them doesn't have the time, patience or knowledge to review the calculations. If they did, they'd be doing what I do. I think they just like the security of knowing we toted that barge and lifted that bale.
And regarding internal calculations, I'd much rather eyeball the critical elements of a project (45 years gets you focused on them) and do my own back of the envelope calculations on them. Trying to follow someone else's calculation work just eats up too much time. It becomes a number review exercise, not a design review.

 

[SJBombero]

Calculations are an essential part of the submittal to the AHJ in CA. And they are always scrutinized. The depth to which they are scrutinized depends on the jurisdiction. Third-party reviewers are almost like a peer review. The good thing for those of us who do a lot of the same types of projects, our process and details are fairly well refined.

 

[MotorCity]

I have no problem giving calcs to anyone who wants to see them. However, I do question what the client's reason is for asking for them, especially if they are not the technical type and have no idea what they're looking at. If you publish drawings for all to see, there should not be an issue in publishing the calcs that determined the drawing content. I think that engineers are nervous about releasing calcs because they are worried someone may pick them apart, find an error, etc. Nobody reviewing calcs (or drawings) should expect them to be 100% perfect and error free, be it technical, mathematical, or otherwise. I have never checked a project where there was not a single error or where something could not have been done better or differently. Have you ever placed your seal on a set of construction drawings and never made a correction in a bulletin or addendum? I am not advocating that errors are ok or acceptable, the point is we as engineers should strive to be error free and correct errors we do make......be it on calcs or drawings. Show us your calcs .

 

[CELinOttawa]

While I am fairly confident MotorCity's "Show us your calcs." isn't actually a request to show our calcs to the thread, it does make me think...

At the outset I stated that I don't mind releasing calcs, and have practiced where it is the norm. When it is not, however, I must ask the proverbial "When in Rome.".

Without good reason, I'm not going to release the calculations. I will permit a review, at our offices, by whomever the client may wish to have review, but our calculations are not leaving this office without significant fee or another reason we find motivating. This is a fee for service profession, and our time has value.

Thank you all for your time, and your thoughts. I'm still hopeful that I may get some guidance from my professional licensing body, and will make a point of updating the thread once received.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Calculations are an essential part of the submittal to the AHJ in CA. And they are always scrutinized. The depth to which they are scrutinized depends on the jurisdiction. Third-party reviewers are almost like a peer review. The good thing for those of us who do a lot of the same types of projects, our process and details are fairly well refined.

I'm also in California and I agree. On any project I've ever worked on, our calculations were part of our submittal (sometimes to the client, sometimes to the building department). We strove to have the Calculation package easy to understand with a table of contents and such.

Later I worked on some OSHPD (hospital) projects and this was elevated. Not only did our calcs have to be clear, but we had to make sure they referenced the drawings and details directly so that the OSHPD reviewers could go back and forth between the drawings and calcs with ease. The more I think about it, the more I realize that I should have been doing this all along. It makes things so much easier for a reviewer. And, anyone who looks at it can see how much more "profession" it is.