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?

 

[SteelPE]

My experience is a lot different than phamENG.

If it's a problem they created, I would expect the answers back in a week or two. If it's a problem they think they are not responsible for, the design goes to the back of the line and it will take about a month to get revised reactions back. Same with the change orders... if they determine they are not responsible then change orders will be issued.

The project that prompted this thread only has 8 columns. I was going to design the foundation yesterday afternoon for submission to my CAD guy.... until I found the issues. I was hoping to get the project completed within a week (including drafting with sealed drawings). I was hoping to get it invoiced ASAP and paid before the end of the year...... now I am hoping to get it invoiced before December. So it's a very slow turn around on this end.

 

[bones206]

Sounds like up front coordination with the contractor/client and having a mutual understanding of your dual role as foundation designer/EOR can save some headaches. I see what SteelPE is saying about working with people who are willing to work with you...

 

[r13]

Does the snow load likely govern some aspect of the design? If it has non-negligible effect, the designer should re-run the design with correct load, which can be done within minutes. No matter what happens, the discrepancy should be brought to the owner's attention, and kept in record, before the foundation design starts.

 

[Ron247]

EOR? You would be amazed how many PEMB foundation projects I have been involved with that have NO EOR. The percentage is about 95%. The Arch specs the size and layout of the building. The Owner orders the building that the PEMB company stamps the design of the building only. Parroting what phamEng stated, the PEMB engineer is NOT the EOR and they make sure they are not thought to be one. They only specify the anchor bolt diameter, pattern and quantity but NOT the embedment length. The PEMB sends out anchor bolts, reactions and a "footprint".

I then do the foundation design, but state in my drawings I am not the EOR because I AM NOT. The whole thing goes through the city with NO EOR.

Now, as far as incorrect reactions, too high can be a financial burden, but too low is a legal liability. In the old days, I worked in a 70 mph area but the company that sold the most PEMBs in my area figured out their smallest offering of material sizes could handle an 80 mph even though my area was 70 mph. 10 psf versus 13 psf in the old days. Their attorneys told them to sell everything as 80 mph, no extra cost to them or the Client. Problem was, I was obligated to design to the 80 mph reaction they supplied. Since uplift controls A LOT of PEMB foundations, my footings (or footers) were 30% too big. Cost my Client extra $$$.

I make sure I cite where I got my reactions, and state I have not confirmed their accuracy.

 

[r13]

The following are my personal opinions, gathered from past experience dealing with PEMB suppliers: 1) I would not accept the reactions generated by using loads lower than the code specified minimum, unless the load case has negligible effect, which can be verified through engineering judgement, or a simple cal. Disclaimer does/will not waive my responsibility as a designer. 2) Over design within certain tolerance is acceptable, albeit more difficult, if the owner buying into it. Since the increase in foundation cost is usually quite small compared to the overall project costs; also it is rather welcome in anticipation of future "use change" and/or possibility in adding additions, which are not rare encounters in commercial/industrial type projects. 3) Due to variation in foundation types and material strengths, the anchor bolt length is best left to the foundation designers to decide, which is the usual practice. I have seen heavy equipment vendors specify the embedment lengths, then the foundation has to be designed to accommodate the specified length, which can be both quite difficult and impractical. Finally, the EOR, to my understanding, is the person who oversees and put everything together, signoff on the permit application, and bears the ultimate responsibility for the entire project. The person can be an engineer, or the architect, as required by the jurisdiction.

 

[Anonymous_ENG]

I work and seal drawings for a PEMB manufacturer, and have changed my username to protect my identity, as my normal one would give it away. I don't post all the time on these forums, but I follow them daily.

I want to give some insight into how we design our buildings, as I know this industry has its reputation. Disclaimer, I worked outside the PEMB industry for the beginning of my career, so I have seen it from both sides.

We design a product, and the seals on our drawings certify that we designed the building to the loading information given in our order documents. These loads must be specified to us, including the building code. We know what states have adopted what, but if a local jurisdiction differs from the state code, we won't know that. As mentioned previously, we are not the EOR, and do not/cannot specify the loading used. I personally feel this is a bit of a cop out, and that we should verify these loadings, but that is not the way the industry has done things for as long as it has been around. In my region, we generally assume the foundation engineer will be the EOR.

I do my due diligence, and make sure that the loads seem reasonable, but I'm not going to the jurisdiction to verify. For instance, if I see an Category 3 building, and the wind load it says to use in our order documents is 115 mph, I'm calling about that and letting the builder know we're using 120 mph. If the project is in ME, and the ground snow is 20 psf, we're going to verify that's correct.

Legally, we have all the language required to protect ourselves from the higher loading stuff described above. The wording in everything we design says that we certify the building is designed to support the loading called out to us, and as you all know, not much more.

As bones206 mentioned, coordination up front with your builder or GC will save some headaches on the back end, especially for deflection requirements (brick veneer, etc). We will submit change orders if loads change, and the timing can take awhile if that is a customer driven change.

 

[structSU10]

Yea, every PEMB I have done the foundations for we became the EOR, treating the PEMB as a delegated design in a sense. We provided the loading and deflection criteria to meet the clients needs, and review a full submittal from the PEMB company. i have not been involved in what this means for liability / fee.

 

[SteelPE]

Anonymous ENG

Again, I understand where you are coming from and I can see a method to the madness, however, as stated above, there is a standard of care that needs to be provided by the engineer. You are sealing the drawings which in my view, says that the building is in conformance to the building code.

If you have worked for a metal building company then have you ever run into this instance with a building collapse(where the building isn't designed to the minimum code standards and the notes applied to the drawings relieved you of all responsibility)? I can't see that standing up in court.... then there is the added Board of Engineers. Would that note stand up with them (I suppose you would have the MBMA an your side then)?

 

[Teguci]

https://www.structuremag.org/?p=692

In the ideal world, the EOR specifies the loads and then delegates that to the specialty engineer on the contract drawings and specifications. The idea that the EOR can then accuse the specialty engineer for not properly checking that the loads the EOR gave him are correct seems wrong and defeats the purpose for the EOR stamping the original contract documents. I would hold the EOR fully responsible.

If a specialty engineer is working on a project which doesn't have contract drawings with a designated EOR, then the specialty engineer assumes the role of EOR or informs the client that they need to hire an EOR to provide the contract documents. By the way, here are the unstamped generic drawings that you requested that doesn't list a specific building site but is probably good for a deserted island where no jurisdiction holds sway.

If the specialty engineer acts alone and provides specific stamped drawings, I'd have a hard time not holding them accountable regardless of notes. That stamp means you are upholding public safety and can be used to move a project through permitting.