Told a "built it this way for years" client he was wrong 6

[Teguci]

Just turned a client away (at his mutual suggestion) who has "been building these things this way for years." Told him that his glulam posts won't resist the lateral wind as currently sized and refused to be swayed by inertia. This is on top of informing him, previously, that a 50% increase in soil bearing capacity is not legit for sizing footings (this is based off of a PE stamped "standard" calculation). As much as I hope the "next" engineer explains the error of his way, I know all too well that some lonely 70+ year old engineer out there might not do his due diligence. What are your thoughts and experiences?

 

[oldrunner]

I think many of us over the years have had clients like this. We usually get away from them. I'm leary of a lot of the younger engineers and their cavalier attitudes. Recently we had a meeting of many of the structural designers (civil and S.E.'s) in our county and one S.E. was complaining about some new provisions in the 2010 CBC and said he was going to keep doing it the old way. One of the participants was the local county building official who mentioned that might be a problem. (After all, this engineer's plans had to pass through his jurisdiction.)

I specifically remember a contractor who stated that he had 27 years experience and declared that the 150 year old URM building we were standing in was safe. This was after I had mentioned that the front of the building was sinking into a old creek and red termites had eaten at least one wythe of a three whyte wall. The project is in legal limbo as we speak.

I'm particularly incensed when I walk on a job (completed and signed off) and find that the project is not built per the drawings; that the drawings weren't completed; that the calcs (ALL done by a computer program where the dead load only case had forces running in all directions) weren't completed, that the inspection was awful and that the owner never let the EOR come on the site during the construction and seen the same things that I did. Building torn down.

Within the last year, I've turned down three projects where there was "interesting" aspects that I would eventually end up being responsible for. Each has a separate story as to why we decided not to be involved. I've also decided to let two clients go because it's too hard to deal with them and their problems (These are manufacturer's who don't read the customers specifications or just plain don't know the implications of the customers requirements!) I also don't wish these clients on another engineer.

Old guys can still have passion for structural engineering. I'll be 79 next month.

 

[a2mfk]

I don't think anyone is saying old guys don't rule at engineering, so don't get your grey feathers ruffled JUST KIDDING!

Just like any other group of people, there are good and bad apples. We all have learned from the elders of this message board, had older bosses or guys at work who mentored us, etc. We are all grateful for the generation ahead of us.

But there is a smidge of evidence that some engineers, in the twilight of their career, may not use their best judgment at what types of projects they become involved with, or sign and seal plans they are not in responsible charge over. I have not experienced this first hand as much as read the Florida Board's violations website and newsletters. There is a disproportionate amount of "low PE numbers" on the list. My guess, as well as some others I have spoke with, is that our state has a high number of retirees who may:
a) come from another state and not be familiar with our code or high wind loads
b) not keep up with current standards and practices throughout their retirement
c) not give a crap, stamp trusses or porch additions or pool cages or whatever until they get caught, and then burn their license and flip us a bird from the golf course....

Why not, the average fine is like $1000??

And I am plucking more and more grays every day................

 

[nuche1973]

Teguci:
Good for you. I recently worked for a firm, where we had a large project and the Architect kept changing the structure. It started out as wood frame building and ended up as a wood framed,metal stud framed, steel frame, sitting on precast planks on top of a masonry/cast-in-place foundation, with a few piles thrown in, conglomeration. The site was located in a high wind region. The one thing that stood out was when the Arch wanted to use gyp board as the sheathing for the all shearwalls. This building was 5 stories! He cited IBC and the old "We've done this before in a high seismic." I was floored, when the bosses gave in on that. Felt a surge of relief when I was laid off.

There are days when I wake up feeling like the dumbest man on the planet, then there are days when I confirm it.

 

[Teguci]

271828 - I understand that I do not know all the answers, but my client didn't have any other than "we've done it that way for years." AKA "We've gotten away with it for years."

Epitome1170 - I am working on my gray hairs too.


Paddingtongreen - Those middle aged and younger engineers you mentioned are eventually going to be 70. I don't understand why you choose to be PO'd. As for me being PO'd at an older guy...yeah, I'm PO'd at the older engineer(s) that allowed this client to "build these things this way for years."

Oldrunner - I look forward to being in a position where I can turn clients away because "its hard to deal with them and their problems"! I also hope to have a passion for engineering when I am 79.

a2mfk - note c is kinda what I was getting at. I seem to remember hearing that Florida added requirements to their licensing to try and discourage the transient retireees from being licensed.

nuche 1973 - Would the gyp walls be considered "Intermediate" Light framed walls sheathed with gyp or "Special"? For seismic category D the Architect could squeeze the 5 floors in the 35 ft limit? Of course for Categories A - C you can always make it work. How many layers of 5/8" gyp can you install at each wall?

 

[pilesmakesmiles]

I usually say "it might've worked so far but based on the design code it doesn't so I can't do a calculation to show that it does".

Incidentally, is the 50% increase on bearing capacity in the context of wind loading?
One of the British Standards (BS8004 I think) allows an increase of bearing stress below the foundation when wind load is included.
I think the rationale is that foundations usually fail slowly and wind is usually a short term effect, however there are caveats (e.g. wind load cannot account for more than a given % of the foundation load, and you can only increase by 25%, not 50%)