Residential Design. To notify BCO or not? 2

[EngineeringEric]

A client (friend of a coworker) walked in and wanted us to analyze a proposed deck that the county rejected. The deck is not typical. Carbon Steel W10 beams, Stainless Steel Columns, Cold Formed Steel Joists, concrete-gyp panel decking, heavy finish tile... all on a steel slope and up to 10' tall on a hillside. Oh and the deck is supporting a suspend spa and 6' deep swimming pool!.
-
Now the issue: The county only rejected his plans because he didn't have steel calcs. He wanted only steel beam clacs. We moaned and said that this deck requires a lot of Engineering. Since he was a friend (!!!!) we decided to analyze the beams and write a report stating we only looked at the beams, nothing else. We noted in the sealed letter that we did not evaluate the structures's connections, lateral, footing sizes, slope stability, steel interaction, the deck, the joists, all these things are of concern. We wrote the owner multiple times stating what is wrong and that it needs to be engineered and that an engineer should analyze it. He has some overloaded 4'x4' with a column located 8" from the corner, and so many problems.
-
He took our letter and submitted it. The county approved it with no questions.
-
I want to contact the county but my boss feels we are safe from our letter stipulating everything we didn't look at. What do you all have to say? Are we correct that it is out of our hands? Is is appropriate to notify the county from my personal email to remove my company?

 

[msquared48]

I think that a letter to the head building official at the county is in order stating your surprise at the approval, stating the reasons why, again, noting the limitations in your analysis, and putting all of the burden of any personal or professional liability on the county should there be any structural problems with the deck. If you have a lawyer for your firm, you should get his advice. If not, get one.

By the way, how do you know for sure that the calculations ere submitted with your limitations included? Just asking here... Your friend telling you that he submitted them is no guarantee in my opinion.

If you find out that he did not submit them in full, I would write a letter to have your firm removed as the EOR on the steel. You may be on the hook for the whole project. Seen stranger things happen for $$$$.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[EngineeringEric]

The friend is a coworker so he wouldn't lie, but the person submitting it we placed our seal, our findings, and what we didn't look at all on the same page, for that reason. (11 size font to make it fit). We did not provide our calcs, only a statement that we performed calcs on these based on these requirements of steel....

We have a lawyer, haven't contacted them but i see their opinion is worth it.

We are not the EOR since it is Residential and an EOR is not required for a deck. The county is treating this project like a prescriptive wood deck that the average person would have... not this one. But since we have our letterhead associated i guess we are now liable. I hate these projects!

 

[EngineeringEric]

I have no way of knowing that the HO did not submit the calcs... i worded that previous part poorly. We only did the job because the HO is a friend of one of our employees. I didn't like the situation is why i formatted the report in such a way that it couldn't be separated.

 

[IRstuff]

"Your home is your castle" doctrine might be at play here. There are lots of laws that stop at your doorstep.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[msquared48]

IR:

NO, NO, NO!!! Not according to the IRC for additions of this magnitude. The homeowner cannot do whatever he wants.

Possibly what you are thinking of is additions under 120 square feet that do not have to be permitted, decks under 18" high off the finish grade, and temporary structures. This is hardly any of those.

I would be real worried is this is in a high seismic or slide prone area considering the description of the OP above.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[EngineeringEric]

Not high seismic, but swampy clayey soils somewhat near tidal waterways... slope stability was the first thing i thought of when a photo and being familiar with this region.

Area is some 1700-2000 sq ft.

 

[CELinOttawa]

Sounds like an imminent construction collapse... Hope the CBO stepsin before the ministry of labour is investigating a fatality or near miss.

Then again, none of us can *know* that these plans are flawed. They could be just perfect; I'm sure someone pressed a button on a computer... That's all we have to do anymore, right?

 

[Ron]

EngineeringEric....you need to think a bit more clearly about this one.

First take this one....

We are not the EOR since it is Residential and an EOR is not required for a deck.

Not True!! When you submit a signed and sealed document to a public agency, you become the EOR for that task. Just because residential design does not require an EOR; you, admittedly, got involved in a specialty design that required engineering evaluation.

Next, you provided only a partial analysis for a specific portion of the project. That portion, from your description, has no meaning without the remainder of the project for which you did not provide a necessary analysis because of cost considerations. You did provide explanations as to what you did and to what you limited your efforts; however, you signed and sealed a page that the plan reviewer (likely a non-engineer)would see as an overall engineering evaluation and approval. This could be construed by an engineering board as misleading (and in fact it was...the project plans got approved). In many states that is a violation of engineering law to provide misleading statements or information that might lead a non-engineer or an engineer to rely (erroneously) on your document.

This needs to be immediately cleared up with the building official and with your client.

 

[IRstuff]

"NO, NO, NO!!! Not according to the IRC for additions of this magnitude. The homeowner cannot do whatever he wants. "

I was referring to any need for a PE or licensure. You still have to pull permits, and you still have to pass inspection, but your drawings do not need to be signed or sealed.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[woodman88]

Ron; I have to disagree with you on what makes an engineer an EOR on a project.
If what you are saying then every residential house with wood trusses on them would have the truss engineer being the EOR for them.
If you look at the IRC (2003 is the only one I have at home but should be the same in the others) section R301.1.3 clearly states these limitations.

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.

 

[Ron]

woodman88....an engineer can be the "EOR" for a task on a project, not necessarily the whole project. This is common for delegated engineering work, where the project EOR, while having overall project responsibility, can rely on the delegate engineer who take the responsibility for that particular task. One common example is pre-cast work or post-tensioning work. Trusses would fall into this category as well. If there is no designated EOR for a project (such as residential) then the "EOR" is a task oriented function.

Residential construction is sometimes more loosey-goosey about that, but I've seen engineers get tagged in litigation so that was my point in bringing it up. As for the protection of engineers, be sure to clearly delineate your scope of involvement so that you are not charged with something in which you had no involvement.

 

[msquared48]

That's why, whenever I did only a lateral for a residence and not the vertical analysis, I would say " Lateral Only" right under my stamp on the affected plan sheets. Limiting your involvement and exposure...

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[woodman88]

Ron;
Not per this STRUCTUREmag article

http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=442

The article clearly states that the EOR is the overall designer of a project. Any engineering tasks done by others are to be designed per and reviewed by the EOR. And I agree with this article.
If I design a just a beam or lateral for a structure I am just an engineer and not the EOR of the project or a task.

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.

 

[msquared48]

Woodman:

I have to disagree strongly here. If there is no other engineer, which there frequently is not, you are the EOR for that portion of the project, not the whole project unless you are contracted to do so, or one is required by the local jurisdiction. In that circumstance, there is no EOR for the rest of the structure - it is frequently prescriptive, or not being touched. You are not responsible for that which you are not contracted to do. That being said, if you find a structural problem somewhere else in the structure outside of your scope, then things may change...MAY change, depending on the situation.

Structure Magazine does not set legal precedent or engineering standards. It gives opinions and makes recommendations for discussion. However, the applicable codes, the courts, and professional practice do.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[woodman88]

msquared48:

"Structure Magazine does not set legal precedent or engineering standards. It gives opinions and makes recommendations for discussion. However, the applicable codes, the courts, and professional practice do."


Cool
Where is the EOR call out in these applicable codes, the courts, and professional practice? I ask because it is not used in the IBC/IRC. The IBC uses "Design professional in responsible charge" the IRC has next to nothing about it.

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.

 

[OHIOMatt]

Forget the EOR issue and apply a simple test my first boss taught me. Pretend you are on the witness stand testifying after a collapse. An attorney will ask a version of this question

You, as a professional engineer provided calculations for a portion of the project, which, you knew had serious design flaws with the intent of aiding in obtaining a building permit? (Your only truthful answer will be yes).

Why would you provide aid if you knew the remaining portion of the structure was inadequate?

Now I am not an attorney, but this screams potential litigation. In my opinion your firm and the engineer sealing the calculations are being exposed to great risk for what is likely little or no reward.

In addition to this, I am not sure that you are being completely honest and forthright in your letter to the building official regarding the calculation. You state "we decided to analyze the beams and write a report stating we only looked at the beams", but then your further state that a second letter "We wrote the owner multiple times stating what is wrong and that it needs to be engineered and that an engineer should analyze it. He has some overloaded 4'x4' with a column located 8" from the corner, and so many problems."

So, did you only look at the steel as stated in the letter to the BO or did you look at the entire project as stated in the letter to the HO?

 

[Ron]

OHIOMatt....EXACTLY!!

Mike...you said it better than I.

 

[EngineeringEric]

Seems like this one got a little heated, but professional.
- In response to Matt, I agree with looking at it from a lawsuit. Although i would not respond with aiding in the design. We were requested to verify the steel beam plan. While having the plans we completed our agreed upon scope fo work. We informed the client (HO) of numerous concerns we had with the design intent. These concerns were given in writing and we were not seeking any additional compensation nor requesting that we analyze it, only that it should be analyzed. In our letter to the BO we stated clearly what we did and what we did not do. In an Engineering state i only looked at the steel, in a curious dilgent state i glanced it all over provided my concerns to the HO.
- As for the EOR aspect, it isn't a concept in the IRC as far as i understand. One can design and build a house without any seal, they will require a contractors license but no seal (as long as they themselves are not a design professional).
-
- In the end, my boss is still standing his ground that we are safe. I may still contact the BCO for peace of my mind and since it is what i think is best.

 

[OHIOMatt]

EngineeringEric, you started this thread in the "Professional Ethics in Engineering Forum". I suspect, that if you felt 100% confident that what was done was ethical, then this thread would not have been started and you would not be contemplating over ruling your boss and contacting the building official. Use your gut, sleep at night.

I suspect that it was thought that by providing a lengthy disclaimer list to the building official it would trigger a more thorough review. It did not, now you are stuck trying to get out of the hole that was dug. In your original post, you indicate that coulmns

I understand that your scope was limited to just the steel, but from everything you have seen wrong, how is that possible? I assume your analysis for gravity loads normally take into account 2nd order effects, if there is no lateral design, how can you say the columns are adequate.

The second letter to the home owner is what is opening you up for problems both legally and ethically. The first letter should never have been sent until the issues raised in the second one were addressed by you or someone else.

One other item, you cannot turn off your "engineer" in this case. You saw something that obviously raised red flags, you can't just ignore it and go on.