Structural engineering responsibility to the public 8

[x7r]

I'm trying to make sense out of this experience...

A local GC asked me to do the structural engineering for a residential pop-top addition. The house is located in a 130 mph wind gust area. The GC wanted to eliminate many of the critical first story interior walls (which were probably functioning as wall bracing). He also added several new windows that reduced some of the exterior shear walls to only 14 in. width. The design was even more complicated because the existing exterior sheathing was fiberboard with very wide nail spacing. I was finally able to make the design work using a lot of hold-down bolts, a steel moment frame inside a wall, interior OSB sheathing to increase shear capacity, etc.

The GC demanded that I remove all the special details because they were too expensive. When we eventually parted ways, he said he knew another SE who was willing to delete all the hardware from my design and resubmit it.

At that point I felt ethically obligated to follow-up. I eventually asked the city planning office to show me the submittal. Just as the GC promised, the lateral design was virtually non-existent. All wind-resistance hardware was gone. The pop-top walls were just glued to the steel beams supporting them. Even the gravity design wasn’t good – the steel beams would have crushed the top plates that they rested on. There were also some load-bearing walls around a stairwell that were discontinuous at the border between floors (without connecting to any diaphragm).

I wrote a detailed letter describing all the structural problems and sent it to the homeowner and our state board of engineering licensure. The other engineer responded that all his volunteer work shows that he has the highest ethical standards. I just received a copy of the Board’s decision – they say they have insufficient information to conclude there was a violation of the practice act so they are dismissing my complaint. The homeowner is satisfied that his house is well-designed and blames me for worrying him with a false alarm.

What just happened? Is there some kind of positive moral that can be learned from this? Does this kind of situation usually turn out this poorly?

 

[x7r]

Thank you to everyone who provided comments or suggestions. I thought I'd make this (hopefully) last post with a brief update... A third SE took a look at the structure, found at least some of the problems, and retrofit work is being planned for the house.

 

[moltenmetal]

Great- glad to hear that! My cynicism is taken down at least 1/2 of one notch.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

"retrofit" work. Too bad they couldn't recognize the problem BEFORE they started throwing metal and lumber together.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[Forensic74]

OP, I think you wrote the letter to the wrong entity. You should have made your concerns known to the building code enforcement office, not the license board. Yes, it's an ethics and competency issue, but you really needed the code officials behind you to reinforce gross negligence of the other engineer.

IMHO, you are still open to liability if this thing falls down because you have not conveyed your concerns to the authorities that have direct power to condemn the structure due to code deficiencies.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

Would code officials understand improper engineering?

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[EngineeringEric]

How was your letter worded? If the other Engrs. main argument was "Look at this, I have great Ethics" then it seems that is all that was in question. I agree the local building code officials cannot analyze the structure. If we are dealing with shear walls it is already over their head. You can either try and get the other engineer to show you some calcs(he will be insulted), reopen the case with you proving the design does not work (the other guy will despise you after this move), contact the state/province/other engineering board and discuss the issue with them and see what they want to do.

But you will make some enemies with this if you haven't already.

 

[VladChiefns830]

x7r,
For what it's worth, I think you did the right thing. Speaking as a building official and also an expert witness (building code) - there are many building officials that simply aren't worth a damn.

You have covered yourself. You have alerted the homeowner. You have alerted the other engineer. Many times, a monied interest will trump a safety interest. I see this constantly.

If it happens again, please do the exact same thing. At least you can always say that you went the extra mile for safety. Thank you and good luck.

 

[VladChiefns830]

PS - Yes the building official cannot analyze the design. But most of us know a structural engineer here and there...there are things that a building official could do...he could find a way to check it if he wanted to.

 

[kylesito]

This is why we often turn down 'residential' jobs. The fact that most home builders are only used to building to the IRC code (not IBC) often creates problems. Most of the IRC is prescriptive and you may not even have to consider lateral load paths in the same manner you do for IBC buildings. This means you get all kinds of crazy stuff used in home construction that technically meets code but is not engineered in the slightest degree.

Is it possible that your house fell under the IRC code and you were designing it for IBC?

If not, after the next hurricane or typhoon comes ashore, you might get to say "I told you so".




PE, SE
Eastern United States

"If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death!"
~Code of Hammurabi