Residential Engineering 8

[xkcstructural]

So I've been posting on here cause I came from commerical and started at a residential firm.

And things are happening that I wouldn't do in commerical or design that way. I am having a hard time understanding where the disconnect it. At first I thought it was my understanding of residential design so I took the year to learn how things are done and after that year I still have the feeling that it's not up to par. Anytime I bring up something not being built to code like rebar at 3" clear cover or bolts not being installed properly (at an angle, not flush with base plate, wrong size....etc) it's "It's probably fine, it's residential loading" but then I have to write a letter saying it was built per plans and specification with out including the deviations from plan or code.

Is this normal?

 

[dik]

I worked with a consultant that specialised in residential stuff for a couple of years... it was no fun...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[jayrod12]

Well unfortunately the crap contractors are in fact normal. Your frustrations are also normal. Some people have made a good living off of being extremely diligent about making sure the contractor's do what is proper, but I'm also certain those people are saints who have the patience of Gandhi.

If you can get into the high end residential market, the contractors generally improve and therefore so does the quality of work and attention to details.

 

[XR250]

I worked with a consultant that specialised in residential stuff for a couple of years... it was no fun...

Once you get used to it and comfortable with the local standard of care, it can be fun and very lucrative.

 

[xkcstructural]

Yeah that's what I've seen as far as contractors skill level, but even the high end contractors are providing welds that don't meet aws and are over welded and they too can't install proper bolts. My problem isn't that they aren't doing it properly, it's that we are writing a letter saying it's built to code. There's no documentation and path for who ever owns the project to hold anyone responsible because they get a letter saying yep all to code and correct.

 

[jerseyshore]

Is it normal for residential contractors to botch the construction, definitely. Anyone that does a lot of residential is asked to write a lot of letters. How many letters your write is up to you and what type of liability you want to assume. Some guys will write a letter approving anything and some will be very strict to have things built exactly to code/ the drawings.

The real answer is somewhere in the middle and is part of good engineering judgement. For me safety issues, critical design members/ connections, non-redundent elements, things I've seen fail/ in disrepair many times etc. are things I almost always hold my ground on. I'm looking close at the anchor bolts for a house on the beach that just got hit by Sandy 10 years ago, but miles inland, I'm happy they even put anything for anchorage on a basement column.

 

[xkcstructural]

That's seems so ethically wrong

To just write blanket letters saying everything is good when in fact it deviated and was accepted. That's how that letter should go. I can see why residential Engineering is devalued.

Anything goes.

 

[XR250]

Sounds like you may want to consider sticking with commercial.
As JS said, engineering judgement is the key.
If you hold your ground too much or not enough, you will go broke.

 

[xkcstructural]

There's no engineering judgement when it comes to meeting code minimums or writing a letter of what was observed.

 

[haynewp]

I would be concerned with protecting my license, if these residential projects are getting stamped. Something fails and the homeowner goes after people. But even if it's not stamped, I think it is likely a civil case against your company and possibly you if there is an injury. Do you know what the insurance coverage is for you at your company?

At some point it could be criminal negligence whether anything is stamped or not. I had similar concerns about all this when I did some residential over 20 years ago.

 

[xkcstructural]

Exactly. Sounds a little "industry standard" in residential to say something was built to code when it wasn't. Which is a big yikes. And I don't think that's what JS is saying above. We all took the same PE exam and are held to the same ethics that are given to us by obtaining a seal.

 

[jerseyshore]

Just because something doesn't meet your local building code exactly doesn't mean it's unacceptable. Engineering judgement does exist and things aren't as black and white as you're making it out to seem.

If you think residential is so sketchy, don't look that closely at your commerical projects then either. Building officials ask for letters on residential more often because not only are there more residential projects out there, but also because most have absolutely no clue what they're looking at when it comes to commercial projects.

I look at it this way, most structures don't fall down. That's even more true for wood framed houses. I just went to a small accessory house yesterday that's 150+ years old with like 5 wall studs, no foundation, no ceiling joists or rafter ties. Shouldn't be standing upright after all these years but it is. Wood structures are resilient and redundant (for the most part). The not so redundant areas I'm especially careful with (cantilever balconies, etc.) and will not waiver on. But you have to be realistic with your designs and as-built assessments of how things are constructed.

 

[xkcstructural]

I 100% agree and I think your missing my point. I think it's engineering judgement to say what is acceptable or not. Not built exactly but still meets design demand and is acceptable. But to write a letter just saying it was all built to code with out any exceptions is where I have a problem.

 

[jerseyshore]

I've never written a letter before that exactly said it was built to code when it wasn't. I say "I have reviewed the as-built conditions and it satisfys the design intent/ is acceptable to remain" or something along those lines.

Even wording that says something is built in accordance with the code is different than saying it was built exactly to code. The code can't cover every situation or scenario. There are many ways to be code compliant that aren't explicitly written out in a particular code book. I think the wording becomes important in those cases.

 

[kissymoose]

xkcstructural, to be clear, and I believe everyone here would agree on this, lying on a report is unethical, not condoned, and not a normal part of residential engineering. I've written a number of reports giving my opinion on a scenario (eg this roof doesn't appear to deflect and has stood for 75 years so I think it's sound, without crunching numbers), but I have not ever had to say something was "built to code" or qualified something I didn't know or couldn't see. It sounds like you may be fulfilling the task of residential framing inspections for the AHJ (which doesn't happen around me as these AHJs do it as part of permitting and often quickly), and in such a case, I too would be very resistant to stating that the construction meets code if it doesn't or I don't know if it does.

However, one of your most valuable assets as an engineer is your opinion. If a component were not to meet code (e.g. a missing sill anchor) and I didn't think it was a big deal, I would certainly call it out as such and state that, in my opinion, the deficiency is acceptable. You could also have ended up at an engineering firm, as many others on this forum have in the past, that dealt with the difficulty that is residential engineering by eroding away their standards and adopting unethical practices. If that is the case, the only option is to leave. But take your time to figure out what's actually going on and be open to learning and understanding your firm's practices before judging too quickly.

 

[Greenalleycat]

I've done 3.5 years in residential and 3.5 years in commercial. I have experienced the same challenges as you in residential.
What I have learned is that the majority of residential builders are just shit. It's not that "it's just residential" it's just that they're lazy, bad at their jobs, and can't be bothered reading plans.
There are good builders out there in residential - from low-end to high-end architectural to renovations - and when you meet the good ones, you realise how shit the shit ones are.

So, it's up to you to decide where to draw your lines.
Something not being 100% kosher is common, but that doesn't always mean it's a problem
We signoff these elements as being 'in accordance with the design intent' if it's clearly a minor issue
However, there are other things where you need to be very clear that they have crossed the line
Sometimes that's because it has structural implications, other times it's because the workmanship is simply poor... though the latter case is hard because it's not our job to critique workmanship outside of our specific scope
It's a frustrating game and one that certainly our firm consider needs an overhaul in our country

 

[milkshakelake]

I've had to sign off and make letters about buildings that were wildly not following plans when it came to residential. It's just a risk you have to take, which comes with the residential market in general. It's part of the reason why I don't do a lot of residential. I could probably make a lot more money if I had the stomach for typical residential and its numerous problems.

That being said, at least in my area, the building department oversight for residential buildings is much lower. The scrutiny is mostly for things like support of excavation and protecting adjacent buildings. Nobody gets in trouble for using 1" concrete cover instead of 3" for residential (like 1 or 2 story).

 

[NorthCivil]

I worked in residential for a while, there was no money in it, except if you churn insane volume.

Constantly dealing with homeowners, inexperienced contractors. hourly rates of 110$ (granted this was ~8 years ago). being expected to churn out designs for a 3 level custom home, including foundations, and all kinds of weird seismic designs, for 3,000-5,000$. Site visits carried out at 250$ a pop, meaning you only did well if you arranged to hit 3-4 in a row.

Now im in a more commercial industry where rates of $280 are normal, site visits are on hourly rates and include travel time and report writing time. i have enough time to do my job properly (be professional), and the clients/colleagues i deal with are professionals as well.

 

[Greenalleycat]

Low end residential is frustrating to be involved in because the contractors don't give a rat's arse about you and just get annoyed when you make them not be shit at their job, and clients don't care at all about you, they just quibble over a few hundred or thousand dollars in your fees despite shelling out more money than that on their kitchen benchtop without thinking twice

 

[dik]

It was tedious and boring... I stuck with it for a couple of years because I needed the work.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik