Sealed drawings that do not meet the minimum requirements of the building code? 1

[SteelPE]

Somewhat click bait.

I sometimes design foundations for metal buildings. Most of the time I am working with the contractor/erector who is buying the building from a manufacturer. Routinely I find code violations in the loading criteria being used by the metal building manufacturer. Most of the time the local jurisdiction has some overriding load value that goes above and beyond typical IBC/ASCE 7. Most commonly this value is snow load.

Recently I began looking at an incredibly small metal building foundation (only 900+/ square feet). I was given sealed construction drawings from the metal building manufacturer. These sealed drawing have wrong wind speeds (too high), wrong live loads (too high) and wrong snow loads (too low). I know the contractor is sometimes responsible for giving this information to the metal building manufacturer, but it seems like the DGAF about verifying if it’s correct or not. Now we have sealed drawings with the wrong loading criteria. Seems like this is a violation of the standard of care required by engineers who apply their seal to the drawings (You can verify these numbers in under 5 minutes).

In their defense, they do put a statement on the drawings saying “The Project Engineer of Record (not the manufacturer” is responsible for verifying that the building code and design loads meet any and all applicable local requirements.”…. but what they are doing just appears to be very wrong.

I see this over and over and over again. I understand mistakes are made from time to time, but this is par for the course with metal building design.

How can you apply a seal to a building that doesn’t meet code requirements?

 

[XR250]

I think this needs to go under the topic of "Main problems you encounter as a structural engineer" .

 

[phamENG]

Do they have an address on their drawings? I think they get away with it by saying "This building can stand up to these loads. It's the responsibility of the contractor to not build it in a place where it will reasonable see greater than these loads."

The reason PEMB's exist and where they got their name, as I understand the history, is because they developed a book of standard designs to be reproduced over and over again without having to revisit the design (they are pre-engineered). The market is demanding more and the building codes have become more nuanced, so they're not quite so cookie cutter, but they still try to stay as close to that as they can to maximize economy.

 

[WinelandV]

At a previous job, we were at least the "coordinating engineer" on a fair few of these, so we would at least get to mark up the loading page with the local requirements prior to the manufacturer sending it to their stamping engineer.

I live in a city that has a minimum roof snow load that is larger than what you'd get from the ASCE 7. If you were able to find that in less than 5 minutes via the internet, I would buy you a beer. I find navigating most cities websites to be a frustrating exercise. When I do finally find the local requirements, I'm usually 13 levels deep with 6 tabs open.

At any rate, I'd at least point out the correct snow load to the EOR EDIT: manufacturer's engineer. And if no revision gets made, go ahead and scale up the snow reactions.

 

[phamENG]

I'd at least point out the correct snow load to the EOR

Careful - there's no better way to make a metal building engineer angry than to call him/her an EOR...

 

[MotorCity]

Loads in the building code are the minimum requirements. If the design loads are too high and the client is willing to pay for over design, there is no issue.

If the design loads are too low, that's obviously a problem.

 

[SteelPE]

Most of the jurisdictions around here publish the design criteria for every city and town in the code itself. That makes it incredibly easy to figure out the loads in only a few minutes. I just go to the old Google machine and type "jurisdiction building code".... and I have the answer quickly.

My issue is, if you are sealing the drawings you are saying that it is in compliance with the building code of that jurisdiction. More often than not it isn't.... and as I see it, that's a huge issue.

I understand calling every city and town to get the information stinks, but as my old boss would say "This is your life".

 

[RWW0002]

Wind exposure is the one I get tired of fighting.. According to the PEMB companies in my area (and prefab wood truss suppliers for that matter), every site is exposure B, no matter the surroundings. And they like to point out to owners that I am just wasting their money by forcing them to Exposure C...

At the end of the day I get the feeling that the PEMB companies are having to play a bidding game. Regardless of what the design criteria should be, they are forced to bid what they think others will be submitting in order to appear competitive, and changing it if forced to by the EOR after award (along with a change order) . It is a battle of the lack of diligence.. I have noticed much less problems with design criteria on design-build jobs where the PEMB company is not in a competitive bid scenario.

 

[bones206]

Isn't the structural design criteria usually stated up front in the bidding process?

 

[azcats]

We sent a design back to the engineer recently on a tower my company was purchasing. They had designed it to the wrong code or the code was updated recently. Sent it back with a link to the muni's specific design recommendations (mainly wind) and when we get it back it wasn't done to the correct wind speed.

A structural slight of hand I've seen lately is engineers using ASCE 7-16 wind maps when that code hasn't yet been adopted by the jurisdiction where the product is going.

 

[SteelPE]

bones,

T think you are correct with that statement, but my client is helping create this information for the metal building. I am only involved if the building goes forward and the end user doesn't have a structural engineer on their end. So the fact that they are providing this information up front doesn't matter if the person reviewing it isn't qualified to tell if it's right or wrong.

 

[bones206]

So basically there is no EOR for the project? There's a PEMB design engineer and a foundation design engineer, but nobody responsible for the project as a whole?

 

[bones206]

Sorry if my questions seem a bit basic or obvious. I get the sense that other engineers are operating in quite different business environments than I’m accustomed to, so I’m genuinely curious about how jobs are being setup in terms of legal design responsibility. I’m currently (very tentatively) transitioning to working for myself, so I’m becoming much more aware and interested in these kind of legal/liability issues that I’m sure I’ll be facing myself.

 

[Ron]

SteelPE....Yes, it is a standard of care violation and reportable to many of the state licensing agencies. In my area, occasionally the Building Official will highlight drawing deficiencies and bring the issue to the attention of the state board

 

[RWW0002]

bones - in my area the foundation engineer is generally considered the EOR and is responsible for the design criteria.. On a straight bid project this is fairly straightforward as you point out and the incorrect design criteria is put on bid documents then marked up when incorrect every single time in the PEMB shop drawings.

Things get more complicated on projects where the PEMB company is hired directly by owner or contractor early in the project. The foundation engineer may not be involved until later in the project and, being the default EOR, they must then comment on the the design criteria already agreed to by other parties..

 

[haynewp]

Loads in the building code are the minimum requirements. If the design loads are too high and the client is willing to pay for over design, there is no issue. If the design loads are too low, that's obviously a problem.

I tend to agree with this.

 

[SteelPE]

Bones,

I definitely view it as a dirty area of the metal building industry. I try to do my best to stay on top of it by flagging items that are incorrect. The key would be to work with people who are willing to work with you on getting the items correct.

I spoke to someone in the industry yesterday about this. They said that everyone puts the note on their drawings and they are not responsible for incorrect design criteria that is in violation of the building code. When I asked if that note would stand up in court..... his response was "who ever had the most lawyers would win". I am not sure that would work standing in front of the board..... I kind of feel bad for the engineers who work for these companies.

 

[oldrunner]

Once had a project in North Dakota with Corp of Engineers. ASCE 7-10 snow load was .5". The jurisdiction snow load was 3". I was chastise by the Corp of Engineers for using the 3" even though their contract required that I sustanciate their contract code.

Had a project in NY where the contract wind was too high and the NYPA revised the wind load to the correct wind load where the job site was. (upstate)

Had a project in eastern central California where the contract required an "old" zone 3 seismic but the specification said .10% seismic. Mechanical unit was built and on the loading dock to be shipped. Had a conversation with the geotech to resolve the issue. That particular project was one where we would only be provided part of the specifications and work order - usually something from a purchasing agent.

Hate wind zone B's. Had a project with about 400 structures where many of the houses were on a bluff and no structures for a long way - not quite a perfect solution from ASCE 7. Really a C area and a Kzt uphill wind speedup. Lots of problems with full height 2 story studs that didn't work for out of plane wind loads. Lots of leaks and eventually mold issues. None of the various plan checkers had picked this up. (I was not the EOR). None of the original EOR's had checked out of plane loads. (My report was called "Oops").

Like you people - we all have lots of these.

 

[bones206]

When you mark up incorrect design criteria on the PEMB submittals, do they usually try to make prompt corrections or do they tend to drag their feet and claim change orders?

If a company is responsive about making corrections based on EOR markups, I would probably be a lot more forgiving about the original sealed set having code violations. If it's a big finger pointing blame game with change orders, I'd just avoid doing those type of jobs altogether. Or only agree to jobs where I established the design criteria furnished to the PEMB designer at the beginning of the project. At least then I would have a chance at winning the blame game.

 

[phamENG]

If it's a hard code issue, they're usually prompt to at least check the calcs (takes them 5 minutes), though they will submit a change order if it changes the building design. Where I have run into issues has been with deflection and drift criteria. Part of their optimization of steel quantity necessarily means their frames get more flexible than traditional framing, and they don't like messing that. That issue usually came up when metal building manufacturers accustomed to providing storage buildings were tapped to provide an office building with a brick veneer or something similar.