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?

 

[skeletron]

@JoshPlumSE:

Just curious, who is tasked with organizing/creating the calculation package? Is there a technical writer or junior eng. that does the assembly and documentation? Or is that on the EOR/designer? It seems like it could turn out to be a bit of a time-task, and I'm wondering what is done to either (a) reduce the time investment, or (b) standardize the process.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Skeletron -

Put together by one of the junior engineer. Supervised and reviewed by a senior engineer or the EOR. It takes some time to do for sure. Definitely takes time getting used to it.

Some quick thoughts on the process and such:
a) In California, we're submitting our calcs to the building department no matter what. So, putting together a calc package isn't much of a burden. Organizing them and adding a table of contents are part of what's generally expected.
b) We used Blue Beam Review to mark up our drawings which helped with the drawing review process. We also used the regular Blue Beam to help organize our calc packages. We standardized a number of the small calcs with Excel spreadsheets or such. So, our office had an organizational structure to a lot of our calcs that helped to speed things up.
b) It's making sure the calcs agree with the drawings that is really what really made the difference with the OSHPD projects. A lot of this could be added / modified after the original calc package was put together. We kept a part of our standard "header" that referenced a detail or drawing page. Editing this section in the PDF was relatively easy if the drawing page or detail number changed.... But, man it was great once it was done. If you had any questions about a particular detail, you could immediately compare it to the calculation and vice versa.

Honestly, the best part of this was how much easier it was to check / supervise other engineers working under you. Plus, it taught the younger engineers a lot about how the drawings are put together and relate to their calculations. Something that is often not taught very well in the University.

 

[dik]

Just make sure you thank them for their review...

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

-Dik

 

[dold]

Not quite on OP's topic, but:
Where I work (Utah) we submit calcs with every single project, no matter how big or how small. If you don't, the plan reviewer will ask for them anyway, so its a now or later type thing. And in our contracts we specifically state that our product includes drawings AND calculations.

pvchabot and JoshPlum might be familiar with WC3, a 3rd party plan review firm (they have a staff of PE/SE's) that is more or less contracted with the AHJ for all plan reviews. It is interesting to see how the process works. I've had the same individual review multiple tiltup warehouses I've designed. Each time they will try to come up with some obscure code reference that they haven't used yet and I'll either refute their claim or revise my design. But rest assured, on the next project they will come back with something that hasn't been discussed before.

No hard feelings towards them - that's their job and I think it's an important part of the process. In fact I think it helps keep some of the...less scrupulous...designers in check, and therefore allows us to stay competitive.

@skeletron: I'm sure you've used ATC hazard / USGS / etc. websites to gather load criteria (wind / seismic / snow / whatever)? So a guy in our office developed a "spreadsheet" (VBA monstrosity) that automates much of the process. You enter in the job number and it looks up the project name/client/other data for the coversheet. Enter the project address and it will automatically: geocode the location (get coordinates) and pulls an image of the map off of google maps and pastes it onto one of the sheets, accesses the ATC website for wind and populates the respective cells, accesses the UT snow load website for...snow and populates those cells, and accesses the USGS website for seismic data and populates those cells. It saves quite a lot of time, and standardizes it for the whole office.

Beyond that, it's kind of up to each engineer as to what the calc package looks like/contains. Personally, I'm of the mindset of "here are the important calcs, if you want me to show proof that a 3/4" Titen HD can resist the 150lb reaction from this canopy, just ask, and I'll punch in some numbers showing that it's 5% stressed - thanks for wasting our time."

When it comes to software output, I'm kind of torn. Half of me wants to drown them in 1000's of sheets of detailed member reports, the other half of me feels bad for doing so.

But what I've had the best results with is the "narrative approach". I'll just type out more or less what my thought process was while doing the design and providing a few of the important calculations. That way it's much easier for them to follow along and to see that there is sound reasoning in the design, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, much easier for the next engineer who comes behind you a year later to make a revision or whatever...to figure out what on earth you were thinking. That's usually how I try to instruct newer engineers to do their calcs: "tell a story and make it easy to follow". Hell, sometimes I have a hard time figuring out my own calcs from a year ago...

 

[CELinOttawa]

Hello All,

So, we've had a reply from our licensing body (Professional Engineers Ontario). I'm including it here in its entirety.

[start]

Dear [CELinOttawa],

Hope all is well.

Please refer to PEO’s practice guidelines:

https://www.peo.on.ca/knowledge-centre/practice-advice-resources-and-guidelines/practice-guidelines

Especially, the “Peer Review” guideline:

https://www.peo.on.ca/sites/default...d by Another Professional Engineer (2011).pdf

Here is some relevant text from page 11:



Clients or regulatory bodies might ask authoring engineers to submit design calculations and other information that is not normally considered part of the final documents. Unless there is a contractual or legislated obligation to do otherwise, authoring engineers should not provide documents generated during commission of the engineering services. However, it is acceptable for reviewers to request any data defining design or study parameters, client requirements communicated to the authoring engineer, equipment specifications or other information that would reasonably be expected to be needed by the reviewing engineer to carry out the review. Authoring engineers should consider whether these documents are necessary for conducting fair reviews, and provide them on an as-needed or temporary basis.

[/end]

Emphasis mine; I thought the reply quite helpful.

 

[dik]

I had an old contract juju man inform me that you never underline material or bold it in a contract. No one line is more important than another in the agreement. Thanks for the great reply... and, pretty much what I've done.

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

-Dik

 

[dik]

If AHJs were clever, they would ask the engineer submitting the project for a peer review to be provided by the engineer submitting it. I'm not a lawyer, but suspect strongly that by doing it themselves, the are putting themselves at risk if something goes wrong. If they want the 'control' there is a price to be paid.

You always thank them for their review. If they reply that it's not a review, you don't acknowledge it... your statement is on record.

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

-Dik

 

[3DDave]

The problem with doing that, on the customer side, is that unless they are very carefully reviewing the assumptions that back those calculations they could very well just confirm that excellent math was performed on the wrong problem. The FIU bridge collapse comes to mind.

If they wanted the stress results, that would be better as they would have to independently derive the assumptions and independently create the math to see what the stresses are and then, if there is a problem, it won't have been by inheriting a bad start (not saying there is one, but finding them is the whole point on their part.)

Now if they come back and say, we got a different answer "here" then you have a spot to discus. Both can can confirm if the assumptions are the same and if not, what effect that has, and so forth.

 

[Smoulder]

The AHJ takes on no additional liability. They are the Authority, approver and deepest pockets already.

 

[NorthCivil]

I used to work in a jurisdiction with very rare peer review. Now, I work in an area with required peer review, where the AHJs collect calcs that become part of the public record.

When i issue documentation, I like it to be readable, presentable, neat and easy to follow. Calcs included. this takes time, if i am only doing calcs for myself, they dont need to be very formal.

I wouldnt turn up to a meeting in my pajamas, the same way i wouldnt give scrap paper to a client and present it as "my calcs". if they want calcs, you can have them, but thatll be an extra for me to put together for you