Scope creep into Architectural

[JStructsteel]

How do you folks handle scope creep when client wants/expects architectural work done?

Say you engineered a small addition to a house. No architect involved. Should engineer know what the energy code requires? Should we know what slope a roof needs to be to use shingles (i know, but is it my job to recommend roof finishes?)

When hired as an engineer, is there expectation we should advise a client on architectural items?

 

[phamENG]

Expectations depend on the client and how you handle them. Small house addition - expect them to have no idea who you are or what you do. Somebody at the permit office said they needed an engineer, they called you, and here you are. It's up to you to educate a client like that on the expectations.

As for how you educate them - I tell them I don't do architectural. I'm not an architect and I won't do architectural. I'll put a note on the drawings that says "code compliant roofing material by contractor" or something like that. But I won't specify the insulation, the roof material, or anything else like that. I usually don't even show non-bearing walls on my plans.

 

[XR250]

I stick to structural on my plans. I will give customers advice though and it usually is prefaced by, "ask an Arch. or the building inspector".

 

[JStructsteel]

Thanks, good suggestions.

more and more I do this, I am done working for the small guys. Yea they need help, it can be good money, but they are pieces of shit when something doesnt go right on their end, and im the only one to blame. I will funnel them to my architects I work with, and if they are stand up contractors, they will hire the architect, who in turns hires me (hopefully!)

 

[phamENG]

I'm very selective about the contractors I work with. There aren't many. One qualification is that, every time I give them a design, they ask if they can use a bigger/stronger/stiffer beam instead. The guys who would rather overbuild something and aren't going to cut corners. Most of my clients are architects.

 

[milkshakelake]

If you're at a certain level of business and aren't desperate, you can choose your clients. It sounds like you're at that level. Personally, I throw out clients that I perceive will be a headache by saying no, this project is too small for me, or charging an exorbitant price. If I end up getting the project anyway, at least the high price will cover my headaches.

A lot of setting client expectations is done at the beginning. I think it has to be in writing, not just verbal. I usually send an email of all the people they need to hire (like architect and expeditor) and potential issues that can come up, like shear walls and moment frames. People doing small additions generally don't expect shear walls because they've done it their way for decades. If they can't accept it, they find a different engineer.

 

[dik]

They're like Rodents of Unusual Size... they don't exist.

I have, what I call 'Extra Services Work Orders' that stipulate the change to the project, the work required and an estimate of the added cost and added time, if necessary. With any significant change or after too many revisions, the first one goes out. They are issued for each change.

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

-Dik

 

[lexpatrie]

Are you explicitly on the hook for compliance with the energy code or specifying it? Not unless your contract says you're going to do it.

Is it wise to show an energy heel on a truss that will actually work with at least one kind of insulation for the energy code? Sure. But you don't actually have another discipline to coordinate with, but yeah, provide a heel depth, and maybe mark it "G.C./Owner confirm heel depth with truss supplier for energy code requirements and air flow/ventilation."

Wall thickness (studs) plays into energy code as well, most of what I see uses 2x6 to get adequate depth for the batt insulation, but will a typical engineer's wall detail show exterior continuous insulation on a house? That I don't know.

As to roof slope? I wouldn't design a roof with a 1/12 pitch and put shingles in the dead load calculation, because that slope doesn't work with shingles. Could you put "3"/ft. min roof slope"? Sure. "Roof slope per manufacturer installation requirements"? I suppose, but a low slope roof to me suggests a need for a different detail than a detail that shows a steep slope. Do you show ice barrier and how far it needs to extend? Flashing? You could, you could also mention it, not dimension it, and add notes that some of the items you've shown are not designed by you somehow.

If you design a roof for sprinkler load and 2 5/8" layers of gypsum board does that mean you're designing a fire-rated assembly and practicing architecture? I don't really agree with that.

But what if you design a flat roof for ballasted EPDM and they put on single ply fully adhered and the roof uplift is more than the truss clip you provided?

If you graphically show a flat roof and don't note the minimum 1/2" per foot slope needed for typical low-slope roof did you make a mistake?

A few states have rules on incidental practice of architecture and incidental practice of engineering, but I can't say which ones they are, offhand.

There's a difference between showing stuff on a drawing, saying "G.C./Owner verify" or "energy code compliance shall be confirmed by a qualified professional" or some other language, and showing an ADA ramp with turning circles and landings and egress path distance calculations and occupancy loads and selecting type of construction and door widths and daylight requirements, etc., etc., etc.

I think a lot engineers are comfortable showing quite a few things on their details they did not design, particularly when there's an architect involved, and I don't see a huge case for having two sets of details, one of which shows basically nothing and another that shows a ton of things and notes "see Arch" on all of them.

Now, I've seen a fair number of structural drawings that DON'T show gypsum board, and I really dislike that. First off, the gypsum board generally a) contributes to structural strength, braces studs, stabilizes roof truss bottom chords in uplift, etc. b) demonstrates you know it's there, so you probably accounted for the weight in your design, c) it's going to be there, why not show it? Another reason to show it is I've gotten a lot of projects where the structural drawings survive, but the architectural drawings are long gone. I'm not going to find a fire rated assembly on a structural drawing, but 2 layers of 5/8" gypsum on a ceiling and a callout for a sprinkler to me suggests that it's a fire-rated assembly and it should be approached as such in any repairs.

Yeah, this post is maybe too long. Sorry.

 

[JStructsteel]

Thanks all

 

[dik]

The City of Winnipeg requires 'strict' certification on engineering stuff. They have a prescribed letter of approval. My certification has a few additions:

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

-Dik

 

[lexpatrie]

That last sentence is a major YUCK. "aLL THE STUFF i DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IS FINE."

 

[dik]

you betcha, but they won't accept anything less. To make matters worse, the professional association has endorsed this. It should be a requirement that anyone working with the association have at least 15 or 20 years of real world experience.

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

-Dik

 

[phamENG]

They might change their tune if all of the engineers just stopped working in Winnipeg.

 

[TLHS]

I will put architectural stuff on my drawings if it's within the limited area of practice that I'm comfortable with. So some industrial metal buildings and some small footprint buildings I would be pretty comfortable owning as a whole. This lines up pretty well with the allowable scope in my provincial practice, which would be part 9 work (light construction) and the cross-discipline work allowed by the architectural association for industrial scopes (

https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/33_2023#Schedule1

)

I'll do siting and architectural design for process buildings, but wouldn't touch the same work without an architect involved if it were an office building, even if it were on the same industrial site. If it were a small operations building that could be justified under part 9 with the exception of part 4 structural design then I could do that to, but probably wouldn't.

When it's modification stuff it depends. I don't want to force someone to hire a whole other professional just to get an obvious flashing detail, firestop or something that I am reasonably comfortable with, but I don't want to end up owning a bunch of building envelope or fire stuff and pissing off my insurer. So it's judgement calls there

I'm trying to get better at saying no to scope that isn't mine. Just because nobody's picked it up doesn't mean it lands on your plate. Make it clear it isn't something you can provide and try to point them in the right direction.

As far as coordination details, I'd prefer to show anything that I've relied on and tag it as 'see architectural for further details' so at least someone will send me an RFI if they notice something weird. If someone's told me something and I don't believe they're going to document it, I'll also sometimes disclaim ownership of it but draw it on my drawing and reference an email or conversation. I'll do a similar thing if I've got a report from an architect or someone else and I want to make sure people follow their recommendation. I'll draw it on my drawing but put a note saying that this is an implementation of the engineering/architectural recommendation provided is XXX Report by Whoever P.Eng. I do this a bunch for geotech recommendations on my civil or foundation drawings.

 

[dik]

pham... the problem is that the association puts up with this.

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

-Dik