Risk to engineers designing for non-compliant companies 1

[Preeng1]

Would anyone care to hazard a guess as to what the potential risk might be to an engineer who designs or stamps pre-engineered building systems for manufacturers that are not A660-10 certified as required by the NBCC and all the provinces in Canada ?

I ask because we are seeing a lot of fabric structures coming down in western Canada the past few weeks due to extraordinary snow - wind and I think some of the owners are going to find themselves out in the cold when their insurance companies deny coverage because the structure did not meet code. I've also seen a number of buildings manufactured by off shore companies, mostly Chinese)going up in commercial - industrial settings that should never have been imported much less approved, if they ever were. many of these same junk buildings are coming down due to the weather here so I would suspect someone is going to end up with a large lawsuit down the road.



Bob
MBC International
Pre-engineered Building Systems

 

[CELinOttawa]

If the engineer has taken responsibility for the whole design, this is as per any other structure that fails and the pre-engineeeing does not entre into it...

If they have taken responsibility for the foundatios and sighting only, the failure of the owner to source a compliant structure does not stick to the engineer, unless they are complicit in some way through knowingly overlooking a non-compliant structure.

If they were to certify the product as suitable and did not verify the design, review construction as if a site build, exercise due diligence, and follow the appropriate guidelines while exercising due diligence and the standard of care expected of a competent professional engineer facing a similar problem, THEN they are likely in pine for discipline, sanction, lawsuit(s) and a whole lot of heartache.

Just my two cents... But the use of a non-compliant tent does not automatically stick to the local engineer...

 

[ztengguy]

If its designed to code, what is the issue? In the US we have alot of buildings destroyed by Tornados....winds excess of the code. No risk that the engineer will be sued.

If the area has seen heavy snows...above the code requirement, add some safety factor to the structure you care comfortable with.

If designed correct, and built incorrect, make sure you document that.

 

[rb1957]

if the engineer is responsible for the design, and stamped his drawings, isn't that the limit of his liability ?

as noted above, if the coditions exceeded code then that's not the engineer's fault. if his design properly met the requirements i thin he should be ok.

assuming someone else made and inspected the structure. and if that person/company isn't properly registered and that makes the structure not to code then that sounds like their problem (for erecting a strcuture without the appropriate approvals/certifications).

now if that company has disappeared and the engineer is the only one around i think he can expect to have to defend his design. I don't think it's his responsibility to make sure the company he's working with is properply approved; but it could be.



Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[SteelPE]

The same thing happened in the north east almost exactly 3 years ago. We were having heavy storms every few days and then it warmed up slightly and we began to get rain. From what I remember, structures that were the most prone to having problems were metal buildings and structures with wood truss roofs.

I seem to remember something about a very large metal building collapsing soon after it was erected. There was a big lawsuit against the metal building company from the insurance agency. In the end the metal building company won the suit because the erector did not install the building properly (I remember hearing something about flange braces not being installed).

Other problems were around improperly designed additions (creating snow drift on existing roofs), snow drift around the now ever popular solar panels. How many of the buildings do you think were properly installed? How many of them do you believe were modified by the owners after construction was complete?

 

[Preeng1]

The issue is the designing or stamping of structures for manufacturing companies that don't have A660-10 as required by code. It is a requirement both in the NBCC and virtually all provincial codes that all prefabricated steel building manufacturers, including fabric covered buildings, have the A660-10 certificate, no exceptions. If an engineer does the work for a company that does not have A660-10 what are the potential liabilities associated with doing that - knowingly or not ?




Bob
MBC International
Pre-engineered Building Systems

 

[rb1957]

i'd ask your local engineering association.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[Latexman]

I know nothing about Code requirements of structures. By "fabric structures" do you mean tents? I do know from experience that tents are used as temporary project and maintenance offices/shops. They are especially useful if they are near, but not too close, to a process with explosion risk. They give (flexibility) with the pressure wave and broken structural members and fixtures do not fall on people and kill them. People inside these tents have about the same odds of surviving an explosion induced pressure wave than someone out in the open. There are valid safety reasons for these structures. Is it possible some have gotten exemptions to Code to use "fabric structures" for safety reasons?

Good luck,
Latexman

Technically, the glass is always full - 1/2 air and 1/2 water.

 

[dcarr82775]

Sounds like a question for a lawyer. I wouldn't think the engineer would be liable.

 

[Preeng1]

The buildings I have seen were mostly Chinese in origin and don't even come close to meeting codes but a lot were also manufactured by local companies who refuse to get the A660-10 certification claiming it's just another cash grab by the certificate issuing authority which is the CWB here in Canada. Some just don't know the A660-10 standard exists - an engineer should so would likely be expected to advise their client of the standard.

By fabric structures I mean steel frames with welded components covered by fabric covers, often called tents although that is inaccurate. These buildings range from 24' wide up to as big as 250 feet wide and are almost always touted as temporary buildings but most codes require permits for buildings over 100 sq ft in size regardless of whether it's temporary or not. In our industry, building erection, we have a saying: "There's nothing so permanent as a temporary building"

Most of the buildings are used for either cold storage or maintenance shops of some kind but a lot are starting to use them for other purposes such as fabrication shops which brings in the issues of high human occupancy and those requirements as well.

I find a lot of permit issuing authorities don't know many of the standards even exist or are part of the code so does some of the liability fall on them ?



Bob
MBC International
Pre-engineered Building Systems

 

[SteelPE]

I think would be hard pressed to find an example where a permit issuing authority assumed even a small portion of liability.

 

[Preeng1]

Yup, think you're right !

Bob
MBC International
Pre-engineered Building Systems

 

[JedClampett]

In my mind, it sounds like AISC certification. It's nice to have, but there's no legal requirement (at least where I am) to require it. However, there is a legal requirement to follow the code and have the design sealed by an engineer.
A lot of these industry certifications are competition restricting, money raising, publication selling nuisances. While the companies that go to the trouble to get certified are almost always good, there's other ones who don't want to bother who are good too.

 

[GregLocock]

"If its designed to code, what is the issue? In the US..." Yes that is the funny thing about design to code.

However, the bureaucrats have decided that at least with some cars that they may have to meet legislative standards that did not exist when they were designed, or even made. This is obviously a lucrative field of endeavour for idle lawyers, perhaps you'll start to see more of a design for function requirement in the USA.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[charliealphabravo]

What are the specific requirements of A660 that are relevant to the engineer's practice? Is the mere lack of a certification necessarily more than an administrative error on the fabricator's part. I've ordered a copy of A660 for another project and will look it over when it comes in.

It's hard for me to see how a certification for the builder/fabricator would affect the engineer unless the engineer was working inside the company. How should the engineer know if the builder is up-to-date and compliant with licensing, workers comp, certifications, etc? In many cases the fabricator is not even known when the engineering documents are issued.

I think the engineer's liability should be limited to his/her own practices and the contents of the engineering documents issued.

 

[Preeng1]

My original question was about engineers designing or stamping for a company which does not have the A660-10 certification, which assumes the engineer knows the client - employer does not have it. Why an engineer would not know about A660-10 which has been around for more than a few years is questionable. In Alberta where I am that is going to be a big issue going forward as the code states anyone involved in the design, manufacturing, and or selling and or erecting of prefabricated buildings is responsible for knowing & following the rules. The CWB makes a ton of money establishing an audit procedure which costs the manufacturers a bunch money to do annually along with the original cost to set up the A660-10 program in house.

As an erector we face the prospect of limiting ourselves to only those manufacturers who do have the A660-10 - thankfully that is a lot of companies.

Bob
MBC International
Pre-engineered Building Systems

 

[Preeng1]

Here's a link to the CWB outline of A660-10

http://www.cwbinfo.org/sites/cwbinf...PSBooklet_ManufacturersOfSteelFinalOnline.pdf

Bob
MBC International
Pre-engineered Building Systems

 

[jayrod12]

In response to the original question, I can't see the engineer being at all liable for whether the manufacturer is keeping up with his association memberships/certifications or not. We design and review what needs to be installed versus what is installed. what happens between points 'A' and 'B' are less of a concern to me.

That would be like telling the engineer they're liable for the installation techniques of the workers on site. We generally do not specify how, we specify what.

 

[BColeSafety]

Your design is good, and proper, and DOES meet a code for design, and its the company that is not compliant with a (660) code? this has to be the question, its nonsense to be asking if you are liable for designing in violation of a code. The question, though, can be read two ways.

In USA, my answer, as a risk manager/insurance and safety expert, is that the engineer would be measured against his duty to design. The design, will work well, and to code, if done (manufacturered and installed) by anyone, even a non compliant company, right? A group of monkeys could make and install a building, that if done to your plan, it would work for the design limits the code or the design calls for.. correct? If you don't have a responsiblity to check the install, check the manufacturers, check the quality of the materials but only the stamping of the design, then you would be liable for ONLY the design flaws. And, technically you'd have to show some nexxus for the failure, proximately, to the design flaw. For instance if it was found that you misdesigned a flashing waterproofing detail, and the building was snow loaded and the roof caved in, the nexxus to your flaw is not made to the collapse. IF water infiltration at the window caused a short, and a fire, yes, you are on the hook.

The duty to properly take the design and have it used and made in a factory that meets certain codes, that practices certain quality assurances, and have it put up/erected and finished by trades and contractors that meet other safety and quality and operational, licensing and training certifications and other levels of standards of care, is not resting with the engineer that stamped it, but with some other entity that uses the design, or trades and sells with the design. His fraud, or violations, and quality and certifcation issues, would be a question and certainly discredit him in some respects but he still has the defense for the collapse of him doing it exactly as designed, and just as well as the standard in the industry calls for. Then he might not be liable for the collapse, just for some arguable civil or staturatory or regulatory violations. Its like driving a car without a license, and/or doing CPR on a person that is dead/dying but your CPR card is technically expired... and doing either of those things just fine.... certainly no one cares if you save the life, or if you never have a crash. similarly, if you don't cause a wreck, and are wrecked into, you still get your car paid for by the other guy, since he's the one at fault.

Unless your country/province has a 'strict liability' rule that states that ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS to a building built by a non-compliant contractor, or sold by a non compliant manufacturer, is the sellers/contractors' fault, (and that would be crazy), then the actual cause of the collapse will be the key issue.

Unless the Engineer has reason to be in the chain of auditors, or supervisors or quality control checking persons, well beyond the design stage, then the lack of certifications, and quality and licensing, or whether they pay proper wages, or any other aspect of the downstream work regarding a building would not come back to him.


We had a lot of snow several years ago, and a 'cookie cutter' design for ccorner drug stores was used, and the alignment of the front of the store where a large e story facade mansard was located for looks, facing southwest caused severe drifting, from a Northwest/North east storm. The one's on different corners around the same area, facing different directions did not collapse. the losses were approtioned, since there were legitimatte arguments about who used the same design for a different exposure, whiel at the same time, some fabrication and some construction flaws may have also contributoed to t the severity of the fauilure... (i.e. I designed it wrong for this exposure, but it wouldn't have completely failed if the web stiffeners on the central beam had been put in, or the end welds on the joists hadn't failed like a zipper,,,, etc. ) But likely non of it would have mattered if the snow was snow overwhelming as to be beyond code. In this case the drifts and weight of snow was within the desing code.

 

[JLNJ]

If the structure requires a P.Eng seal and the design of the structure bears one, then what is the question? Do these structures not require a P. Eng seal?

Is it just that you feel the deisgn might not be safe? Is it the Chinese part you are worried about? I have no idea what the recourse against some Chinese engineer or firm could be. Probably none. Maybe that's why the Canucks are so absurdly protective about who can be registered in Canada.

If the structure is "temporary" and therefore skirts laws of public safety, then you might need to take that issue to the AHJ and the legislature. We have had quite a few issues with temporary structures falling and killing people, and I'm surprise that there isn't more outcry.

One thing is for sure, that ourcry isn't going to come from the Chinese. Individual rights are not exactly their thing.