structural engineer of record review of "design by others" submittals

[tdstructural]

I've only been a structural engineer for 12 years but in that short time I've seen the quality of "design by others" or "bidder design" submittals decline at an amazing rate. Our peers (other structural/professional engineers) will stamp and expect an approval for incomplete and mistake laden designs for the Structural Engineer of Record (SER) to review and accept.

This includes dwgs without calculations - then we ask for calcs and they provide calcs with an expired engineering stamp or a stamp from another state and obviously calcs from a similar but previous project (not even the same seismic zone criteria), then the calcs show different member sizes from what is shown on the dwgs - that is assuming the calculations can be understood. They seem to think I understand their product specific software. And never any connection design information - just member sizes.

I'm tired of wasting my time and money on these sumbittals. I end up writing a full page or two letter describing the reason for my rejection of the design. This costs me time and money to point out their obvious lack of concern for safety or professional liablity. Their submittal (stamped by an engineer) should be illegal. Is it? If yes - can I make a formal complaint to the state board for the way these engineers are abusing their stamp/seal?

 

[JedClampett]

For example, we make temporary excavation support the responsibility of the contractor. It's their choice on what to do and how to do it. We require calculations sealed by an outside engineer. We've tried different combinations of reviewing and not looking at the calculations. But when we ask our lawyers how to avoid exposure in case of a disaster, they tell us there's no way. If something bad happens, we're going to get dragged in. So all this discussion of EOR is pretty much a moot point. Do your best and PAY YOUR INSURANCE PREMIUMS!

 

[msquared48]

BA:

If I have to review and shop stamp those drawings, I AM responsible for the work as the SEOR. Sorry, but that's how I play the game.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[Lion06]

I would like to get input from others on this, but don't you run somewhat of a risk by documenting all connections on the contract drawings? At that stage we have no idea who the fabricator will be. Different shops prefer different connection types, so you'll invariably document a job with double angles only to have the fabricator ask to do shear tabs. Then you're designing the connections twice.

I agree that the EOR knows the busing best, but it's not that difficult to ensure the calculations are in line with all of our assumptions.

 

[BAretired]

JAE,

I'm not sure if the law is the same in Canada as it is in the USA but it is likely very similar. I am not sufficiently familiar with the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse to comment authoritatively, but I am under the impression that the steel fabricator specifically asked the SEOR if the changes in design were acceptable. I found no mention of a fabricator's engineer in my Google search, but I could be mistaken.

I also believe that the SEOR wrote a letter to the architect and owner indicating that his firm had reviewed every connection in the building and gave assurances that they were adequate.

Thus, it seems to me that the SEOR did not delegate design responsibility. He undertook to accept it for himself.

If a component is to be designed by the fabricator's engineer, the SEOR should be entitled to rely on that component fulfilling its purpose. If he cannot, then he may as well design it himself.

BA

 

[slickdeals]

Chances are that if you used double angles and know what you are doing, then shear tabs won't work for that condition.

That being said, I have had requests from fabricators to change a shear tab connection to a single angle connection. Lately, we provide the connection design tables for both shear tabs and equivalent single angles.

Connection design information provided to a fabricator often does not include transfer forces, workpoint assumptions etc. It requires a good fabricator/connection designer to know the ins and outs of connection design.

Again, I am not saying that designing the connection in your drawings is necessarily the right/best way, but IMHO saves hassles, change orders, aggravations and most importantly project delays.

 

[msquared48]

I don't get it here guys. Who is the structural engineer here anyway, the SEOR or the fabricator?

If you design and detail a connection based on the requirements of the code and the loads seen, why do the whims of the fabricator have any bearing here? The fabricator saw the plans when he submitted the drawings and his bid should have been based on those plans, not what he wanted to do. This is bull...

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[Ron]

BA....just because the SEOR reviews and "approves" the submittal, does not relieve the fabricator's engineer of his responsibility. Negligence is still negligence, and if he is found so, then he pays. It just results in a bunch of legal entanglements that has everyone running for cover and the lawyers opening their wallets to insert more cash.

When you delegate work to another engineer with whom you have no direct contract, by default you offer that engineer some protection from liability, mostly in the definition of your review process. That's just the nature of the beast. You have no capability of indemnification by that engineer, since you have no contractual relationship. That's one reason why you're own contract terms are very important.

You can even throw in a provision that requires indemnification from your client if others are found responsible for their negligent acts. (they might not sign it, but it's worth a try!)

 

[connectegr]

As mentioned above the trend of delegating connection design began after the Hyatt collapse (actually 1981). The intention was for an additional professional review of the shop drawings and connection design. The Hyatt collapse was do to a change made by the detailer that was missed by the EOR on review. I don't believe this additional review eliminates the EOR's responsibility, but it does create a shared liability. Most of our projects require $2 mill in E&O coverage. Our contracts also have indemnification clauses. We seal our connection calculations and on many projects we seal the shop drawings after a review for conformance to the calculations. This is certainly a benefit to the project. Frequently the additional review discovers non-design issues that avoid fabrication and erection issues down the road.

This said, I believe the intent of adding an additional professional to the process is being lost. It is becoming a necessary evil for the fabricators. A responsibility which is minimized or delegated to the lowest bidder. And the importance and advantages are being ignored.

http://www.FerrellEngineering.com

 

[BAretired]

Ron,

I agree with your position as stated in your last previous post.

BA

 

[connectegr]

Tdstructural

I know that my comments do not address your original post. Many states do specifically allow for the delegation of portions of the design responsibility. Regretfully the process you are using does not allow you to select the quality of the professionals you are working with. I believe your contract should allow for the additional review and coordination cost that is required if the quality of the design received is inadequate. The additional payments will not help with the time and delays that result.

http://www.FerrellEngineering.com

 

[abusementpark]

My firm frequently runs into the problem of delegated design calculation quality. It is particularly a big problem with light gage metal framing calculations.

If the submittal doesn't meet the requirements, we reject it. It they resubmit it and it still doesn't meet the requirements, we reject. We've had projects that have required 3 or 4 resubmittals just to get the calcs to an acceptable level. It's very frustrating, but hopefully with a strict adherence to our standards, contractors and suppliers will begin to understand.

 

[graybeach]

I work on the owner's side and, on a recent building modification project, we hired a SEOR who delegated design of a moderately complicated connection to the fabricator. The fabricator's design missed checking a critical load case. The SEOR didn't catch this and approved the calculations. Actually, the SEOR's stamp just said "reviewed". Luckily, our company has structural engineers who review submittals. We caught the mistake, and the fabricator's engineer was cooperative and grateful. The SEOR was no help and never conceded that he missed something. His attitude was that he wasn't the responsible party.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the SEOR should be considered responsible for the connection designs. In the future, I will be sure to spell this out in no uncertain terms in contracts with structural engineers. Either that or forbid delegation of design to fabricators.

 

[BAretired]

Design of non standard connections of structural members should be the responsibility of the SEOR as it is part and parcel of the structural design. Responsibility for such design should not be delegated to the fabricator.

Design of standard components such as open web steel joists, double tees or light wood trusses is normally performed by the fabricator's engineer who seals the shop drawings. Review by the SEOR should ensure that the component design is based on the proper criteria and that all forces acting on the components have been considered. SEOR review of component design does not usually include a detailed review of calculations for each element. If the owner expects otherwise, he should so specify, but it is not normal practice in the industry.

BA

 

[slickdeals]

We've had projects that have required 3 or 4 resubmittals just to get the calcs to an acceptable level.

The fabricator's design missed checking a critical load case.

These statements above help to make the claim that designing connections in-house (atleast the non-standard connections as BA suggests) will avoid having to go back and forth and to prevent design mistakes/oversights and delays. I understand specialty items such as wood trusses/aluminum/light gage etc. But STEEL Connections deserve to be designed in house.

I am not sure why engineers choose not to design their connections. For the standard connections, it is probably quicker to design the connections than list the reactions on your plans. There is only one extra step because you are doing almost all the work in providing the connection design forces.

I am curious as to why design offices delegate connection engineering.

 

[BAretired]

Engineers choose not to design their connections for two reasons: first, it saves them time and second, it reduces their exposure by spreading liability to another party.

BA

 

[JAE]

BAretired, I agree with your assertion that we as SEOR's should design all non-typical connections.

I think for me, as a licensed engineer is that I only feel comfortable assigning/deletating design duties to others (i.e. bar joists, typical connections) when those designs are relatively standard, simple, and easily reviewed by me for load capacity and safety to the public.

Anything that goes beyond "standard" I get much more careful about and reluctant to delegate out.

 

[slickdeals]

@BA:
I am not sure I entirely buy the saving time aspect. If you spend 3 times reviewing an incomplete/indecipherable set of calculations, are you not spending more?

As far as contractual agreements, does connection design fall under Construction Administration? If so, do firms charge the client a separate $$ amount for this?

Our design contracts are typically lump-sum fee with a built-in dollar amount for CA. What do your typical contracts look like and how are they broken down?

 

[BAretired]

JAE,

I agree.

slickdeals,

A non-standard connection can take quite a lot of time to design properly. The SEOR saves that time by calling upon someone else to design and detail it.

I have serviced a few small steel fabricators by providing oddball connection designs which the fabricator details, I review and seal. The EOR has never asked for my calculations or challenged my design, so I suspect he does no further review but instead, relies on my professional seal.

In this way, the EOR has saved time and has avoided liability for the connection design.

BA

 

[JedClampett]

In the power plant industry, back in the 1960's and 1970's, it was routine to let fabricators design steel connections. Default was an AISC Type II connection. If there were higher loads than the Type II capacity or transfer forces, they would be posted on the drawing for the fabricator to design.
The fabricators we dealt had very qualified detailers, many were refugees from Europe. It was rare to have a problem with their design. And we didn't require calculations.
I don't know what's changed. Maybe it's that no one has the patience to apprentice a position like steel detailing.