Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations KootK on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Should I trust this engineer? 9

Status
Not open for further replies.

Metalmasterscm

Structural
Mar 23, 2020
8
I went to inspect a job today involving a pair of access stairs for a small 2 story parking garage at an apartment complex. I met with the facilities manager and toured the project. Immediately I spotted numerous cracks in the concrete surrounding the bases of a number of tube columns and was then shown a few bases that were only covered with stones under a landing. They all showed signs of severe corrosion, some to the point of showing grain layer expansion within the rust... We then went to a second stairwell where there were a number of columns that were not only corroded but were swollen from water ingress. Upon further inspection there were a few columns that were split from freezing including one that was split some 8 feet long along the weld seam from the tube mill. It appeared to be a lack of fusion between the two sides of the welded joint as the shear line was perfectly straight with no tearing of material from one side to the other. There were a number of columns showing swelling upwards of a 1/4"- 3/8” outwards on a 6x6x1/4” HSS. Further conversation with the Facilities. Mgr I was able to find out they had an engineering inspection and forwarded me the report and scope of repair. The EOR is calling for a cut and replace of approx 1-2 feet of the columns at the bottom along with the base plates, cap the tubes but does not address the column swelling, the split columns and many other issues including the interior of the tubes as these were only painted so more than likely they were raw steel on the interior. He (the EOR) basically said it would be "OK", now I'm not a P.E. I was working towards it but fell in to fabrication and 'erection', but I am much more technical that a lot of the bolt monkeys out there. I under stand shear diagrams, radius of gyration and moments of inertia.

Should I have faith in this engineer? There were a number of things left out and seems like it's a more of a 'done for a friend' type deal and trying to be cheap than an actual professional report and plan. Any opinions?

Thanks
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

You seem very knowledgeable about the subject, and your concerns seem valid to me.

What was/is your role in the project? Are you a paid inspector, municipal inspector? Friend of the owner? I think the definition of your role should help define your response.

If you are a paid inspector, then what if you pointed out the issues mentioned here directly to the engineer of record (via email with photos)?

If friend of the owner, then same email with photos; but sent to the owner. He/she can do with it what they want.
 
No. The report does not indicate the existing conditions, so No.

The EOR should indicate the existing conditions, which are OK and are No Good. It is important that an EOR state that there are signs of structural distress, but that it is superficial. You don't have that. So No. Even if there isn't a problem, the EOR should acknowledge that.

Thank you for the post. This is a very important topic.
 
A few inspection photos, on defects you have noticed, will help us understand better.
 
I think we need to clarify a few things. First, was the inspecting engineer also the design engineer of record (EOR)? Not that it matters a great deal for his lack of attention to the issues. That borders on negligence if described correctly (and it appears that you know what you're talking about).

Second, what is the time line? How old is the project? The exfoliation you describe is indicative of long term issues with waterproofing and/or maintenance. The facilities manager probably doesn't want to hear anything about poor maintenance since it is probably one of his responsibilities. I have had facility managers ask me to remove comments from my reports to that effect. I won't but some engineers will.

The seam splits are significant concerns. They could be related to defects in the seamed ERW tube, but nevertheless MUST be repaired or replaced. Field welding a couple of stub repairs is not a proper repair.

Tell the facility manager that another engineering inspection needs to be done by a different engineer, preferably one with structural remediation experience. Also recommend shoring of the existing compromised columns.

Stairs are life safety egress routes and require a higher level of attention because of this.


 
I think the other guys have summed it up well. That report doesn't sound sufficient. I see you're in Virginia. I was involved in one of these in VA a couple years ago. A colleague and I went through a couple buildings in a large apartment complex showing almost identical issues. We wrote an initial report that sounded similar to the one your describing - though in much more detail about the problems and no specific repair recommendations. Once the problem was defined, a package of repair drawings and specs were put together - some 30+ pages worth. We scraped paint, used ultrasonic testing, etc. to verify the condition of columns that "looked" okay. Many that looked like a splice or other simple repair would be sufficient had to be replaced entirely once we pulled out the UT.

That said, what is the date on the report? The job in my story - somebody from my firm had been out a 4 years prior to do a similar inspection. The results had not been as bad, and the manager felt they could sit on it. They made a few repairs and painted over the rest. Sometimes these sorts of poor construction details can last for years and years until one small part wears out - then the water is in and the corrosion is rapid. Here on the coast, you can go from little to no obvious problem to a panic inducing appearance pretty fast.

 
I agree that a complete report would have identified and addressed the deficiencies. I think that, as an inspector, it's reasonable for you to ask for more information about issues you have questions about.

It's a two story stair and the reasoning is probably that the applied loads are very very small relative to the capacity of the damaged HSS 6X6s.
 
It sounds like the OP is working for the fabricator and is either bidding or tasked to do the job. If that is correct and the concern is that the repairs being spec'ed are insufficient then about your only choice is to pass on the job and/or recommend additional repairs.
 
If you get push-back from anyone on this, report it to the local building official and ask for an inspection.

 
@kipfoot.....stairs are means of egress for life safety....they are required to be designed for 100 psf. From the description provided by the OP, these would not likely meet that criterion.

 
I wonder why you asked the question. Are you commissioned as an inspector, or as ldeem's suggestion that you are, or represent, a contractor? From your description, yes, there are concerns, but none of us have the opportunity to read the report ourselves, thus we really know nothing but something from your mouth. No photos, no reports, who shall we trust, or not to trust, what is the base to justify our opinion? As Ron suggested, report it to the manager, if pushed back, you shall consider to report to the local official, and request an former inspection. However, I believe you must bring in all evidences that truly support a strong case then, not just talks.
 
Before you tender, if you decide to do so, I would insist on a pre-tender meeting with the engineer on site. Point out your observations and concerns, and you will probably find that he agrees. His report was possibly based on a cursory examination, and he needs to do better.
 
As an FYI, you're posting on an international site. Questioning someone's educational background simply because you "believe he may be African" is pretty &^%&ed up. I had the privilege to study with some fellow students who did their undergraduate studies in Africa, and they could do intellectual laps around almost everyone in that Virginia classroom.
 
OP said:
but I am much more technical that a lot of the bolt monkeys out there

Then why you ask opinion from those "monkeys" [ponder]
 
@PhanEng I'm not doubting his educational prowess, the issue I have seen from many African schools is their programs many times aren't accredited to the same standards in the US and some have passed undergraduates to get them to a US University. I have seen other come from Universities in Europe, Asia, South America the same deal. My assumption is based upon his name. I'm not going to name names, but it's the same assumption you would give if someone had the last name Popadoupolus, you'd assume they were from Greece... I'm not knocking I'm just questioning. That being said my go-to engineer is from Russia, but he doesn't have his stamp in the US but there are many other engineers that have him design and they will confirm and apply their stamp to his drawings...

My questions for all this is coming from the lack of concern from their office for the issues I described prior.
 
Metalmasterscm said:
That being said my go-to engineer is from Russia, but he doesn't have his stamp in the US but there are many other engineers that have him design and they will confirm and apply their stamp to his drawings...

That's illegal in essentially every state in the US. Don't promote it.

 
Quote (Metalmasterscm)
That being said my go-to engineer is from Russia, but he doesn't have his stamp in the US but there are many other engineers that have him design and they will confirm and apply their stamp to his drawings...

That's illegal in essentially every state in the US. Don't promote it.

Well....not really. That's been the whole rub with the offshoring deal: you've got big companies with offices all over the world (including in places like India) that get American projects.....and they are designed in India....but sealed by a engineer living/working in one of their American offices. The whole grey area in the regs that allow this are the loopholes like "Supervisory control" (i.e. the EOR reviewed it/red lined it).

 
So illegal, but not enforced. Sounds like a lot of things.
 
It's not a loophole, per se, is it, since it's what allows EITs and non-licensed engineers to design under the supervision of a licensed engineer, even in the US? Otherwise, a licensed engineer would have do everything themselves.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
So illegal, but not enforced. Sounds like a lot of things.

That's just it: it's not illegal. (I've made this point a million times on here.)

Take (for example) Illinois's SE rules:

From Sect. Section 1480.210 Standards of Professional Conduct:

..............
a)
2) Licensees shall approve and seal only those designs [red]reviewed[/red] or prepared by them, and found to be safe for the public health, property and welfare.

..........
b)
2) Licensees shall not affix their signature or seal to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared [red]or reviewed[/red] under their direct supervisory control.


The "reviewed" part is what is letting all this happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor