SEOR Review Requirements 1

[SwinnyGG]

This is more of a code-related question than a technical one, but I am posting it here because I believe this forum gets a lot more traffic than the code forum does and I don't want to double post. If anyone feels this post is misplaced, I can delete and re-post elsewhere.

Well gents, the mechanical engineer's worst nightmare has been thrust upon me. This post is long, and for that I apologize, but I'm at my wit's end and I'm hoping someone here can help point me in the right direction.

Background: I am a mechanical engineer for an industrial automation manufacturer. I very frequently am tasked with the design of everything from small brackets up to multi-ton weldments to support equipment of all kinds.

When I design a large weldment to hold a piece of equipment, I also need to design that weldment's attachment to the structure in which it will reside. My policy (previously fully supported by the company) has ALWAYS been that any attachment of equipment which is safety critical (much our equipment is large and has overturning moments large enough that if free standing, overturning the equipment is a legitimate possibility) requires SEOR review and approval (usually via PE stamped approval letter, sometimes with new analysis and drawings when required) for release.

The workflow is usually that the weldment or whatever is designed by me, but the structural attachments are not- I provide a drawing of the weldment which indicates equipment loads and moments, and the SEOR goes to work. If we are mounting to concrete, I will use PROFIS to sanity check that I've provided enough anchor points, but I do not provide this report to the SEOR for review (to avoid any question of whether or not the calculations are theirs or mine, I let them duplicate that work. They know it better than me anyways.). For structural steel attachment I will do a similar back-of-the-napkin sanity check, which I do not provide.

I recently have been 'gifted' the 'opportunity' to work under a new supervisor and a new program manager- neither of which have any experience in dealing with projects like the one we are currently working through, which involves a weldment-supported piece of equipment with a large overturning moment.

I have a very large 'reference only' note on every installation drawing which includes a statement that 'attachment to concrete requires SEOR review/approval before installation of any equipment'

I also have a PROFIS report which indicates that due to the condition of the floor (very thin) and reinforcement (WWF only) there is only one Hilti anchor that can work. My gut also tells me that in this particular installation, successful install and service without any modification to the floor of this building is highly unlikely. Since I am not a structural engineer, I do not believe I am qualified to calculate whether or not my gut feeling is correct- because if I put anything on paper, I do not believe I will be able to prevent my 'estimate' calculations from becoming a certification so to speak.

Of course, my PM is trying to avoid the monetary and time cost of SEOR review, and wants me to release my PROFIS report, specify the attachment myself, and quit complaining.

As neither a structural nor professional engineer, I am very uncomfortable both with this particular project and with the precedent this would set. So here is the question- is there ANY indication in any of the applicable codes (IBC? ASIC?) which offers some direction on what engineered features do or do not require SEOR approval when a building is modified or occupancy changed? I have pored over every code that I know to try and find, with no help on this issue.

Any help that any of you could offer in clarifying this issue would be greatly appreciated.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

You're looking for the IEBC (Existing Building Code), if it's applicable for your jurisdiction. Essentially if you're increasing the design loading of an existing building by more than a few percent then it requires redesign for the new loads.

Your post makes me immensely happy, having been that structural engineer working to fix issues caused by attachment of heavy equipment without consulting an engineer. Nothing against mechanical engineers but too often I've seen them find the nearest steel column or concrete slab and anchor into it without a second thought.

All said and done, who would end up being liable if the equipment was installed and it failed? Also, if it failed is this a life-safety issue or simply a matter of having to spend more $$ to fix?

Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries

http://www.americanconcrete.com

 

[FoxSE14]

Agreed with TME: you are doing/feeling the right thing. Thank you.

Check the state laws (visit your licensing board's website). Depending on your situation, you may find that an SE is required and that it may be illegal for you to do what your supervisors are requesting of you. It is at a minimum unethical if you are feeling uncomfortable based on your differing area of expertise.

Edit: Check specifically if your state has a Structural Engineering Act. Also here is a reference to get you started: Link. See table near bottom.

 

[Ron]

jgKRI....agree with above. Your attitude, gut feel and approach are correct. Stand your ground. To do otherwise places undue liability on you and your company. As others noted, we like working with engineers who give us good info and expect us to use it accordingly, whether they are mechanical, structural, civil or other.

And yes....to do what your supervisor wants might put you afoul of your engineering law.

 

[WARose]

jgKRI, I think you are doing the right thing in seeking a structural PE/SE.

As far as your question on code......like the others have said: check your local jurisdiction. A argument a lot of plant managers will make is: "this falls under the industrial exemption." They will say that whether it's an attachment to a machine or a new building.

I've never been too clear myself in terms of what is exempt and what isn't. (To me the language of the code is hazy in this regard.) So I just wanted to give you a heads up here.

 

[dik]

A well deserved star...

Dik

 

[SwinnyGG]

Thank you all for the reassurance.

IEBC is a code I did not know existed, I will definitely start reading up on that. I hope my answer will lie in that document.

I am operating in Michigan, but this project will be installed in Nebraska- and it appears from a quick google that IEBC is applicable in Nebraska, at least in some counties.

All said and done, who would end up being liable if the equipment was installed and it failed? Also, if it failed is this a life-safety issue or simply a matter of having to spend more $$ to fix?

Well...... my interpretation is, me.

These new guys are making the argument that the installation contractor is where any proverbial buck would stop, since they physically perform the work- but they act according to the specifications and instructions on our drawings. It's a pretty frustrating circular argument to be involved in, let me tell you.

With regard to the life safety question- they are fighting me on that as well. This is for a robotic system which will apply various industrial coatings on very large parts (think vehicle-sized, although this isn't automotive) where the system is active and parts are being moved by personnel. This application is very low volume, so no conveyor.

Should a condition arise where the robot is operating in its safe zone while personnel are standing/working in their adjacent safe zone, (which absolutely will happen and continue during a large percentage of system uptime as this is how the system is designed to operate) and the robot system is e-stopped, the overturning moment generated is such that the equipment very likely would overturn INTO THE PERSONNEL AREA.

How anyone could look at the system layout, and have this interaction clearly explained, and then not understand how equipment attachment to the floor is safety critical is beyond me.

 

[SwinnyGG]

As a quick update...

Turns out this install results in an occupancy change for the area in question per IBC (and IEBC!).

This makes my justification of SEOR review much easier to justify, thankfully.

Thanks again to everyone who replied and helped me out.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Knowing how expensive a robot like that is and having been asked to design a precast concrete deadweight for a mobile one I've definitely seen your exact situation. The customer gave us the E-stop overturning forces and said they wanted to get a precast base that could be moved around but was heavy enough to resist the overturning moment from the robot. They figured it would be a tiny little pad (do we have the same customer? ), I calculated a 6'x6'x24" pad as a rough design (10,800 lbs of weight). Safe to say we didn't get that job (I suspect a return to their drawing board was what happened).

Anyway, glad you found an easy way out. If that doesn't work then remind them how much that robot costs and sell it to them that way.

Finally, since you're clearly going the right way have you considered learning the structural engineering aspect that your company could clearly use? Sounds like a licensed PE with structural and mechanical qualifications would be worth some money to them. Maybe they could get you the training you need to get towards that?

Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries

http://www.americanconcrete.com

 

[SwinnyGG]

I know that I'm definitely capable of doing the structural engineering- with the required education of course. I'm not capable right this instant but I know I have the horsepower upstairs to get there.

The real issue is that I'm already on a management track. Finished my MBA last year, and am going that route. I feel that my pure technical ability is solid-but-not-top-1% so to speak, but my real talent is decision making and management of technical projects, so that's where I'm going. I'm only 29 so I have a ways to go.

And your story about clueless robot customers is chuckle worthy. You wouldn't believe some of the stuff we see (or maybe you would!!).

As I type this I am on a plane flying to a customer sight to evaluate what repairs are needed to a large paint robot(which is brand new, started production in July) which has some catastrophic damage. They won't tell us what happened, but from the photos it looks to me like it was struck at moderate speed with the business end of a brass forklift. Before the customer knows I'm on site I plan to walk around and find the forklift with our paint on the tip of the fork so I can document this and pin the bill on them. The robot in question is six figures without options, when ordered to standard lead time of 16 weeks. I'm pretty sure they think I'm going to show up and tell them they need a 50 dollar part, when the bill is very likely to run in excess of my annual salary.

I can't make this stuff up.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Before the customer knows I'm on site I plan to walk around and find the forklift with our paint on the tip of the fork so I can document this and pin the bill on them.

You sound like the kind of person with quite a good thinker between the ears. Not only a fantastic understanding of when to call in the other engineers but also a good understanding of how not to get screwed over on a job. I fully support your decision to go into management; sound like you'll run a great ship. Good luck!

Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries

http://www.americanconcrete.com

 

[SwinnyGG]

Thanks for that.

I've always felt that knowing our own limitations, strengths, and weaknesses as engineers is one of the most important aspects of being good at what we do. So many people compromise their decision making ability by letting their ego prevent them from asking for advice or guidance from someone with more experience/technical ability/time/whatever. I work really hard not to do that.

 

[andriver]

I don't understand why your company would want to increase the liability they are exposed to. My company would fight tooth and nail to maintain the precedence you have set. If they do want the connections to be designed by your company, I would kindly negotiate a fair price and sub the work out to a 3rd party structural engineer. Essentially, this is what you get for what you paid for, if you want to increase our scope there will be an additional fee.

 

[SwinnyGG]

I don't understand why your company would want to increase the liability they are exposed to. My company would fight tooth and nail to maintain the precedence you have set. If they do want the connections to be designed by your company, I would kindly negotiate a fair price and sub the work out to a 3rd party structural engineer. Essentially, this is what you get for what you paid for, if you want to increase our scope there will be an additional fee.

This approach is exactly how this situation SHOULD be dealt with, in my opinion. I agree 100% that we should not be absorbing any liability above and beyond A) what we are legally qualified to release into the world, which most certainly does not include structural concrete elements and B) what our quoted and awarded scope of work says we must absorb.

The problems arise when sales and/or PM staff submit very very wide-scope quotes in order to win business, without understanding what engineering realities are going to effect their budget. Problems like this can be (and at my place of work, almost always are.. this case is an exception) quickly solved or avoided by consulting with the engineer to make sure the quote is realistic.

Our company, unfortunately, does not directly force PM or Sales to confer with me before they deliver RFP/RFQ responses- most of those guys do so because they have come to learn that if they let me review things, the odds of their project arriving on time and under budget increase substantially (along with the bonus they get as a result). This guy hasn't yet learned that lesson, and my smart but inexperienced new manager doesn't know enough yet to check that box before stuff hits the customer.