Seal on calcs but not on plans 5

[nhtr86]

I have a strong opinion about this but I wanted to see if there were differing opinions:

Licensed PE A "designed" a pole building by selecting the overall dimensions and layout, but engaged licensed PE B to handle the structural calculations and detailing. B provided sealed structural calculations and sketches with notes. A produced the project drawings incorporating B's details and notes. A sealed all drawings, B has a seal but it does not appear on any drawings. After questioning A, he stated that B is responsible for the structural engineering. When being challenged that if B is responsible for the structural aspects of the design, then his seal needs to appear on the plans, A stated that B's seal on the structural calculations was sufficient to make it clear that B is responsible for the structural aspects.

When B was told that if he is responsible for structural, his seal needs to appear on the plans, he refused and claimed that this would be "plan stamping" since he did not produce the plans.

When I have seen this situation in the past, an Architect needed a bit of structural work done but didn't want to pay enough for the PE to justify making his own S sheets, so the Architect incorporated the PE's details into the A sheets and the PE reviewed the plans and then each person stamped the same sheet. Under the PE stamp would be a note "structural aspects only" and under the Architect stamp a note "excluding structural"

I am purposely not going to say what part in this I am involved in to avoid biasing the response.

Is it acceptable for the structural engineer to seal the calculations and not the plans that contain his notes and details?

Is both professionals stamping the same drawing and adding notes about the limits of their work that right way to handle small jobs where it isn't economically feasible for everyone to make their own plans like is conventionally done?

 

[TRAK.Structural]

This may come down to the terms of the agreement between A and B. If A didn't want to pay for B to produce plans, or even to review and seal plans made from his/her calculations and that was agreed upon than I don't think B would be required to seal them. In terms of who would be held responsible in a court of law should anything go wrong, probably both although I think A may get in more trouble.

 

[JStephen]

I have seen discussions in the past where in some big engineering firms, there may be 20 different people working on the project but one guy signs it all. Which strikes me as not ideal, but still, not unknown, either. This seems to be a similar idea but with two people.
There is a presumption that both people are competent to seal the work, otherwise, you have a different issue.

 

[driftLimiter]

The state board regulations and state laws should help answer your questions.

I think that whoever is on the drawings is going be considered the EOR. The EOR should legally be the responsible engineer for the entire design. If they choose to accept another engineers calculations and design that should be fine but it doesn't relieve them of their responsibilities as EOR.

 

[TRAK.Structural]

I've worked at some of those "big engineering firms" and yes lots of engineers work on the same project and only 1 person seals the drawings. The ones who aren't sealing the drawings are not sealing calculations which I think is a distinct difference here. In situations where sealed calculations are part of the deliverable than the engineer who seals the drawings will also seal the calcs. It's the responsibility of the sealing engineer to review the work of others in this situation, imho.

 

[Geoff13]

In Ontario the rules are set by PEO (Professional Engineers Ontario). The rules are backed up by law, and thus sealing is a statutory obligation. The rules may be different, or non-existent where you are.

When Eng A sealed the drawings without clarification, these rules state they have also taken full professional responsibility for the calculations required for the drawing. Obviously this implies full review and agreement of these calculations. If anything goes wrong PEO would hold Eng A 100% responsible, though no doubt lawyers would go after Eng B as well.

However PEO would also charge Eng B with professional misconduct. Refusing to seal documents that you are professionally responsible for is against the law. Eng B just needs to add a clarifying statement with their stamp, which is the suggested solution by PEO when multiple engineers are involved. As a member of PEO I would feel obligated to report Eng B's refusal to stamp.

In Ontario, adding a seal does not increase liability, nor does not sealing reduce liability. I can't understand why Eng B won't seal the drawings with a suitable note.

 

[gte447f]

To the OP, it sounds like you are knowledgeable on this topic, so I imagine you already know this, but many state engineering rules/laws contain a requirement similar to the following. Your mileage may vary in your state.

"Each drawing sheet, whether bound or unbound, shall be sealed, signed and dated by the registrant(s) responsible for the work on that sheet and contain the entity's COA information. If necessary due to number of sheets, in lieu of providing a seal, signature, date, and COA information on each drawing sheet, a summary sheet may be included in the form of a clearly drafted table or other format that identifies each registrants seal, signature, date, and COA information and which includes a narrative that clearly describes the element of work for which each registrant is responsible and indicates the most current version of each sheet. This summary sheet shall be included within the final documents. If a document is sealed, signed and dated and contains the entity's COA information by more than one registrant, the portion of the work for which each registrant is responsible shall be clearly noted."

 

[lexpatrie]

The "terms" of the agreement have no bearing, UNLESS the regulations are satisfied.

Minnesota recently had a decision that stamping somebody else's drawing that shows your work is not allowed. Drawings are to be your own production, your title block, so the guy sending out the unsealed plans improperly delegated the work (most likely) didn't properly supervise the work (by their own 'strategy' for not stamping the plans as not under their supervision), and the delegated engineer didn't hold the first guys feet to the fire correctly. What should be done here is mister "I'm not stamping the plans" needs to be reported to the board (this approach smacks of unethical behavour or a lack of competence in performing the work or some goofy ass "legal" strategy that isnt ethical anyway, and removed conpletely from the project, and the guy who did the design calcs needs to hire his own drawings and stamp them, showing the work (plans details specifications) completely cutting Mr "I'm not stamping the plans" out.

Let the board sort out the ethics violations.

 

[LOTE]

I don't have experience with pole barns, but I do a lot of retaining walls. We typically design the structural aspects of the wall, while the geotechnical engineer does the global stability and portions of external stability. We clearly state the delineation of responsibility in our drawings, but our drawings are the only engineering drawing for the structure. The geotechnical engineer does not seal our drawings stating he designed the global stability of the structure next to my seal stating I designed the structural portions. The geotechnical report/geotechnical calculation set with their seal is the only document that the geotech seals. The geotechnical report may have some sketches (or outputs from an analysis software with sketches), but this is not what you want to hand a contractor to build off of, which is why we include every detail from the geotechnical report in our details and notes.
I don't think anyone would argue with this delineation between structural and geotechnical engineers' responsibility. How is this that different?

 

[lexpatrie]

What you are doing with retaining walls deviates from anything I've seen on plans in the U.S.

Usually the structural drawings will reference the Geotechnical report and require its findings and advice be followed with a Geotechnical from the firm on site periodically to supervise. (Compaction, placement of fill, removal of unsuitable spill, etc.)

The retaining wall is based on the allowable pressures from the Geotechnical report, the EOR designs the wall completely.

I have never seen a Geotechnical report with sketches, by the way.

 

[LOTE]

"Sketches" should have been in quotation marks, but an out from Gslope or ReSSA could be interpreted as a sketch.

On smaller projects, I typically see the person onsite as a third party inspector, not the geotechnical engineer or a representative from their firm. In practice, I rarely see the geotech involved after their initial report on a small project unless the 3rd party inspector finds inferior soils onsite during excavation.

With certain types of walls (MSE for instance), there is a lot more the geotech has to provide than just allowable bearing (minimum reinforced length, embedment, etc.).

Maybe a different example. Say a structural engineering firm designs a crash barrier and moment slab for a contractor (on a DOT design build job) with a single cross section sketch/drawing within their calculation package to dimension the slab and rebar, then the contractor takes it to a precast company to have it precast based on the structural engineering firm's design. The DOT requires shop drawings be submitted and requires those shop drawings to be sealed. If the precaster has an in house engineer complete and seal the shop drawings, not the structural firm, is that an ethical/legal violation? I don't believe so.

If we call the pole barn drawings shop drawings, is that any different?

 

[lexpatrie]

I don't think that really pertains to the OP situation. If you were, hypothetically, to specify a pole barn and design the foundations, say, and give design criteria for the engineering of the pole barn, whether that delegated design engineer seals or does not seal their drawings is immaterial as "you" would be the EOR, because "you" accepted the design for inclusion into "your" work via the shop drawings and calculations.

There are nuances, here, i.e. if the delegated engineer made mistakes internally, those are more defensible as their errors (i.e. errors in their software), if these errors are apparent in the calculation package, that is potentially different. If "your" review as EOR is so cursory that you don't catch a change in framing direction (*), a deviation in spacing of the trusses (that ruins your roof deck via increased span), if your review of the truss drawings is so bad you don't catch the trusses being a foot short at one of those dumb architectural "jogs" in the building, a failure to include a snow drift load, inadequate dead, live, seismic or snow load design, or wrong exposure category or SDC, risk category, etc, that doesn't match your design criteria, that, to me, is a much clearer problem for "you," although the delegated engineer also probably failed on the standard of care as well, their failure doesn't do you much good in front of the board, though it might have some "helpful" aspect in a lawsuit... but I think we all agree practicing so we avoid lawsuits and disciplinary actions is an underlying goal, HSW is, of course, higher priority.

*Verhulst, Ahuja, Structural Engineering Responsibilities and Structural Components: A Premanufactured Wood Truss Case Study, probably a reprint from ASCE 2009 Forensic Engineering proceedings.

In the highway precast example, the EOR is on the hook for reviewing that work, ensuring it at least potentially conforms to the project requirements (i.e. loading), and would then "accept" it's inclusion into the overall work. (See Delegated engineering in Florida, if you'd like something more codified, though there, too, it's pretty sketched out).

Coming back to the OP -

This is a grey area, but it has all the elements of the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse, i.e. an unclear delegation of design responsibility. That the two engineers are "at odds" basically proves this on the face.

When B was told that if he is responsible for structural, his seal needs to appear on the plans, he refused and claimed that this would be "plan stamping" since he did not produce the plans.

I agree, this is affixing your seal to someone else's drawings not under your direct supervision (colloquially this is "plan stamping" but many states do not have explicit policies regarding plan-stamping, (though some do, I think Illinois does), but the practice is nonetheless forbidden as it is sealing a drawing or report that was not produced under your direct supervision, [after 5 pm not under your responsible charge)]. (Minnesota has come out clearly against this approach, with a $20,000 fine for the Architect on May 21, 2024).

Engineer B could seal plans, but they would need to be on their drawings produced under their responsible charge, then Engineer A doesn't seem to be relevant to the project.

When I have seen this situation in the past, an Architect needed a bit of structural work done but didn't want to pay enough for the PE to justify making his own S sheets, so the Architect incorporated the PE's details into the A sheets and the PE reviewed the plans and then each person stamped the same sheet. Under the PE stamp would be a note "structural aspects only" and under the Architect stamp a note "excluding structural"

This kind of munging of the design drawings is poor practice, even if it's allowed, which I don't really see. Some states have provisions for incidental practice of engineering by architects, and vice versa. It's a poorly defined field and is subject to the caprice of the various boards with regards to it being an ethical violation, after all, where, exactly, is the line between incidental practice of architecture and actual unlicensed practice of architecture lie? Further, this enables the finger pointing "that's not mine" when there are two disciplines on the same sheet with different design professionals (that is, perhaps, partly the point for these two individuals).

Most states have provisions for plan sets, where the overall title page might be signed with the drawing index (i.e. Arch seal appears adjacent to the Arch sheets in the plan set, Engineer seals appear adjacent to the discipline drawings they are sealing), these rules exist for a reason and provide guidance on how to do this, the individual sheets would then have the various design professional seals on them, as well, (Arch on the Arch drawings, etc.). These rules, typically, do not recognize "small projects" as having different rules. I would argue that's not an omission or a lack of formalization, it's because across the board, the regulations apply to all projects.

TLDR: The P.E. should NOT be sealing drawings that are not prepared under their direct supervision.

With regard to the OP, if I haven't already "ruled", I think Engineer A is doing some really odd stuff here. You seal the drawing, you are the EOR, you are asserting (by affixing the seal) that you have reviewed all the "referenced" work, which, it sounds like Engineer A may not be competent in, and they have effectively vouched for it, because they sealed the drawings. The PEMB calculations (or rather, post-frame), being done by another firm (I presume?), is not under their direct supervision or responsible charge.

I would also add one last note of caution - these post-frame folks tend to be accustomed to designing agricultural buildings, the provisions for human occupied buildings (Risk Category II, III, and IV) are not the same. Issues that are "fine" in an Ag building can be deeply bothersome (or render the structure unfit for use), particularly inadequate provision for actual and "future" dead loads.

This does not sound like a typical case (i.e. open web steel joists incorporated into a design for a big-box store, delegated steel connection design, precast floor planks, a foundation with a proprietary PEMB on top of it [note there are wrinkles in this process that are non-standard but are borderline routinely done, not germane to the discussion here]).

 

[JStructsteel]

Isn't the first engineer acting as a drafter and B has say what is on the drawings? If no changes to be made, so be it.

 

[gte447f]

I'm with JStructsteel on the role of engineer A. He/she doesn't seem to be bringing much to the table other than drafting, so what exactly are they stamping for, and if basically all the important information on the drawing is coming from Engineer B, why shouldn't they be the one stamping?

 

[Aesur]

Isn't the first engineer acting as a drafter and B has say what is on the drawings?

The way I read it, Engineer A designed the building and engaged B to do the calculations. The way I read it at least implies A is working for the client and engaged B as a 1099 to do the engineering for them. In that case I would think A is in responsible charge of B as B works for A, and therefore A should be signing both the plans and calculations.

 

[gte447f]

Interesting take Aesur. That makes sense. I guess there are multiple ways to view this arrangement. I still tend to lean towards they should both stamp the drawings and spell out who is responsible for what information.

 

[fel3]

lexpatrie…

"Usually the structural drawings will reference the Geotechnical report and require its findings and advice be followed…"

Part of this sentence indicates a very bad practice. Referring to the geotechnical report is fine because the report is part of the project documentation, but I prefer to make it available during the bidding phase and not mention it in the drawings unless there is a very specific reason for doing so.

Unfortunately, making that geotechnical report part of the construction contract, which your sentence indicates, is a very bad practice that I see all too often. First, the geotechnical report is not written in contract-style language (e.g., "findings and advice" are not requirements, which is what a construction contract is made of). Second, the geotechnical engineer didn't sign up for the added liability that would come from his/her report being made part of a construction contract. The proper practice is for the design engineer to craft the relevant parts of the construction contract based on the geotechnical report and make those technical requirements his/her own. Even an unattributed direct quote from the geotechnical report (which I use from time to time) becomes the work of design engineer. The design engineer may even want to be more conservative than the geotechnical engineer recommended.



============
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

 

[Aesur]

Part of this sentence indicates a very bad practice. Referring to the geotechnical report is fine because the report is part of the project documentation, but I prefer to make it available during the bidding phase and not mention it in the drawings unless there is a very specific reason for doing so.

*first note this is a separate topic from the original question*
Why is this a very bad practice? By listing and referencing the geotechnical report in the documents, it somewhat becomes contract documents. The structural engineer designs the foundations based on the geotechnical report and is required to list where this information came from as well as the values used in the design on the construction documents. Additionally, per section 107 of the IBC, the geotechnical report is to be submitted as part of the submittal documents. A structural engineer is not qualified to make a geotechnical recommendation in most cases outside the IBC minimums and recommendations of the geotechnical report as this is a different area of expertise. A structural engineer doesn't want to take any more liability than they need to either, especially for a field outside their expertise, in this case Geotechnical. If the structural had to make the decision that would cover their liability they would just use the IBC tables and keep their notes that they are not liable for any geotechnical aspects of the project; and then what would be the point in even having a geotechnical report, their business would start drying up. Another aspect to consider is, the purpose of a geotechnical report is to save the owner money through the use of smaller foundations and to better control movement, if the structural is required to make the final decision that covers their own liability and the geotech takes none, then there would be a lot less savings for the owner. No matter the language in the report, I have always seen it become part of the contract documents and almost never see a structural go outside the report requirements.

 

[phamENG]

Even an unattributed direct quote from the geotechnical report (which I use from time to time) becomes the work of design engineer.

Exactly. That's why I don't do it, and I tell the contractor to read and follow the goetechnical report. They may not have signed up for the 'added liability' of being in the contract documents, but I certainly didn't sign up for the liability of becoming the geotechnical engineer. If the geotech doesn't want to be held responsible for the recommendations he or she gives, then he or she shouldn't give those recommendations.

 

[lexpatrie]

Most structural engineers don't do Geotechnical.

Beyond that my response is an eyeroll. I don't give a flying crap about "contract language" in a Geotechnical report. Shall vs. will etc. Etc., etc.

The plans call for the recommendation to be followed. That is sufficient to bind.

I don't know where you are, but every set of plans I've looked at does something pretty similar. East West North South. Seismic snow region HVHZ.