×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Practice of Engineering
8

Practice of Engineering

Practice of Engineering

(OP)
I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this question/comment so if it belongs somewhere else just let me know.

I was renewing a PE license online today and had to certify that I would abide by the states ethical requirements. This was a new item so I decided to look up the pertinent law so that I knew what I was signing for.

One of the standards of conducts states, "Not delegate responsible charge or direct supervisory control to a non-licensed individual to provide professional services".

The firm I work (consulting engineering firm in the power business) for has set up the organization such that we have a chief designer who is responsible for "drawing coordination". I have no problem with that, however in practice this is the way it works. He decides what the framing layout should be, what type of lateral load resisting system should be employed, and indirectly the sizes of the members all on the basis of "that's all the room we have available".

I have spoken with my supervisor (the firms engineering manager) about this. I claim that the chief designer is doing structural engineering without a license. The engineering manager states that since I am the one doing the calculations then I'm doing the engineering. I claim that all I'm doing is certifying someone else's design over which I have very little control, and that this is getting awfully close to plan stamping.

I am considering contacting my states licensing board to get their take on this but thought I would like to hear from some practicing engineers who may be able to shed some additional light on this.

Thank you for your input.

RE: Practice of Engineering

(OP)
I or someone on my staff does.

RE: Practice of Engineering

The chief designer, a glorified ex-drafter with years of experience, may be under direct responsible charge of the guy who ultimately stamps the drawings.  Actually this may be happening in the background and you don't realize it.  Just find out from the guy whose stamp will be on the drawing.

If the SEOR does not exercise his responsible charge and "allows" the designer to make ALL the decisions on that project, and you can prove it, you have grounds to report this to the board.

RE: Practice of Engineering

whyun makes a good point - the EOR has to have control over all decisions relative to the design.

What this means in practice is that as the EOR, if you are continually placed in a position where the "designer" has the power to over-rule your decisions on beam sizes, connection types, etc. then the designer has direct control, not you.

And that is a bad thing.

Preliminary layout of framing and bracing schemes, etc. is not necessarily an issue.  If you then do calculations that show the concept won't work and the designer tells you to go take a hike, you are not in direct control of the design.

I've had architects come to me with a building concept and have indicated to me their idea of what the framing will be - that isn't practicing engineering.

RE: Practice of Engineering

(OP)
I agree with the comments that have been made, however there is an underlying issue here. What constitues "drawing coordination" and what constitutes the practice of engineering. I claim that under the guise of "drawing coordination" structural decisions are being made that I am forced (by the upper management of the firm) to live with. Typically these decisions involve the amount of space available for structural members, the framing system chosen, the connections required (espicially gusset plate sizes), etc.

As time goes on I am getting more and more frustrated with this situation. It may be time to move on.

RE: Practice of Engineering

Quote:

I claim that all I'm doing is certifying someone else's design over which I have very little control

What do you do if the calcs show it wont work?

We have designers at my work who, using their experience (which is based on what they have seen done before), will draw up layouts, arrangements etc.  They will select the members, draw up connection details etc.  This is basically just copying.

We then do the calculations and actually design what they drew.  If it works its all well and good.  If it doesn't work then we change it.  Generally though what the designers draw up is OK because they are copying stuff that has been designed properly in the past.  The sections were good enough then and they are still good enough now.

I have learned that it is usually good to listen to these experianced guys.  There was a reason an engineer came up with the design way back in the day, the designer may not know it though and you couldn't see it.  I have changed stuff in the past to suit my engineering preference, and it was a preference, only to find out it didnt work as I expected and the unchanged arrangement would have been better.  Other times, the change is so non consequential all changing it really does is use up draughting time for no real benefit.  If they want to use a larger section than is needed and its not detrimental to the design then I will leave it (Economics/Efficiency generally are not a consideration where I work).

 

RE: Practice of Engineering

If you just sign off on what you are given, then it is plan stamping and shame on you for not being more assertive in your role as engineer.  I don't see anything wrong with designer laying things out for you since hopefully you be calculating/checking/verifying everything (which is your engineering responsibility).    

RE: Practice of Engineering

(OP)
I believe that structural engineering consists of more than just verifying someone else's concepts. Under the system that I find myself in I am nothing more than an automaton whose function is to justify other peoples wishes. With no input beyond providing calculations I don't feel that I am actually doing engineering.

Just for the record I have thirty years of structural/mechanical engineering experience, I am a registered PE in a dozen states, and I have earned six college degrees. I have never been so frustrated in my life.

RE: Practice of Engineering

I think that if someone presents a design to you, you do the mathematical calculations, and the calculations show that the design works, then you are OK. What you are describing went on in some of the places that I worked. I suggest that you focus on the end result (a safe design) rather than on the particular work method that led to it.

RE: Practice of Engineering

steve1, if your current firm does not give you the appropriate authority/responsibility/paycheck commensurate with your experience, either ask for a promotion or move to another firm that will provide what you want.

RE: Practice of Engineering

Quote:

With no input beyond providing calculations I don't feel that I am actually doing engineering.

True, but then, neither is your designer, since he's simply pulling cookbook designs.

While there's something to be said for creativity, standardization of design practices is one avenue to profitability.  

How well would your company do as a whole, if each engineer used different approaches to their designs, resulting in massive NRE for each new build, because your contractors have to use different procedures and materials for each job?

Seems to me that you're simply not in the right company, and you're lashing out in your frustration.  You're doing what appears to be a medium experience level job and well below your stated qualifications.  But the problem is not this designer, it's you in THIS job.

Let's take it to the next level.  Say you get the guy fired/prosecuted.  Will things change? Sure, some PE, possibly you will get the designer's job to do EXACTLY the same thing that the designer did before.  If you don't get the dot on your forehead to replace the designer, your job will remain EXACTLY the same, and, you'll get some other PE REALLY frustrated, because he won't even get to do ANY calculations, just picking from existing designs.

Why?  Because that's the business model of your company.  The company is comfortable doing essentially variations of some minimal set of basic designs.  They're not looking to break new ground.

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Practice of Engineering

(OP)
Thanks for all the great replies.

I may not have articulated my point as well as I would have liked. Let me try again.

Is there an ethical question related to the structural engineer not having control over the design in the sense that he has no input into how the basic framing scheme, including lateral resistance, is selected? Further, does it suffice, in the sense of responsible charge, simply to meet a set of loading requirements without regard to some finer points of risk management such as cost effectiveness (design alternatives), human comfort (stair layout, vibrations, etc), longevity (coatings, additives, maintainance provisions), psychological effects (depth to span ratio, slenderness ratio, deflection limit), etc. that an experienced engineer will consider important to the design?

RE: Practice of Engineering

Not knowing the specifics of your particular company, it would be difficult to say.  If all your company's designs are variations on a basic theme, then the answer is no.  

I don't think that "responsible charge" necessarily means that you have to do a brand new design from scratch every time.   That would seem to be pandering to your own sense of power.  

Since you mention cost effectiveness, wouldn't you think that maximizing reuse is a cost effective solution, at least for your company?

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Practice of Engineering

Badda badda bing.

As they say.

The professional has a duty to both his client and his employer. Giving the client a cheap, cost effective design, may appear to be ethical, yet, if it is not robust, may expose the client to costs down the track.

Rejigging design #004 to meet contract #1005 may not be a wonderful intellectual achievement, but if it works, that may be a better solution.

I sympathise with the desire to re-engineer from the ground up, but frankly, I don't redesign nuts and bolts unless I have to. (and I have)

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Practice of Engineering

EOR has full authority over the project.  Any junior staff, project managers, senior engineers executing the work are acting under EOR's behalf and shall follow his orders and direction.  If EOR wants a "cheap" design, it it his prerogative.

If a project engineer finds faults in the EOR's approach that "endangers" the public, it is only ethical to address the EOR.  Authority is still with the EOR.  As difficult as it may be, if EOR "decides" to place the public in danger, it is only ethical to report him to the board.

All in all, engineers working for an EOR really only have authority over "minor" engineering decisions.

RE: Practice of Engineering

If in the final analysis, you are not comfortable putting your stamp on the design, you don't.

How you got there really isn't important. What is important is the final product.

Many companies have non-PE's doing a lot of valuable work. Yes, they can make calculations, decisions, recommendations, all that - and yet, no stamp. The stamp is with the EOR. No single EOR can do all the work - he/she has to depend on others, including PEs and non-PEs.

I don't see anything unethical in this type of arrangement, as long as the EOR stamps the design he/she believes in.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."   
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: Practice of Engineering

Oh, and if your company is charging for a custom design, but is simply rehashing old designs, one could certainly argue price gouging, which is unethical.

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Practice of Engineering

Quote:

Is there an ethical question related to the structural engineer not having control over the design in the sense that he has no input into how the basic framing scheme, including lateral resistance, is selected? Further, does it suffice, in the sense of responsible charge, simply to meet a set of loading requirements without regard to some finer points of risk management such as cost effectiveness (design alternatives), human comfort (stair layout, vibrations, etc), longevity (coatings, additives, maintainance provisions), psychological effects (depth to span ratio, slenderness ratio, deflection limit), etc. that an experienced engineer will consider important to the design?

A lot of posts in this thread are dead wrong.  An engineer must have control over the design from start to finish.  There's no arguing this.  A design is made up of items you can and cant calculate.  Just because you're providing calculations doesn't mean you're providing a full design.  If you were working side by side the senior designer and providing layout directions along the way then it's a different story, but checking someone else's layout and "just being happy with the final product" is so wrong.  Checking a design is so much more cursory than doing the design from scratch.  Some people may be comfortable with their designers, but when it comes down to it, its a cost savings move by the firm to substitute an engineer's hours with a cheaper designer's hours.

I would flat out disagree with your supervisor and contact your board if it doesn't go anywhere.  I'm not sure why it took you this long to become worried about it though.....didn't you feel like you were acting like a puppet before you read the ethical requirements?

RE: Practice of Engineering

So please explain the ethical difference between approving the use of off the shelf components which meets your design criteria, engineered by someone else (Nuts and bolts, I beams) and approving the use of a design which meets your design criteria that is drawn by a designer?

Or do you design your own nuts and bolts?



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Practice of Engineering

Greg,
Structural engineers for buildings use standard "off the shelf" components that meet ASTM requirements, an industry standard.  I'm sure it's much different than automotive engineering where you have a much wider array of bolt sizes/materials/etc.  We sure aren't running a FE analysis on typical A325 3/4" diameter bolts when AISC dictates allowable shear and tension values.  It would be atypical and uneconomical for a building structural engineer to design custom bolts.....but if I had to for some reason I could.

I dont fully understand how automotive engineering works, so I cant comment much more than that....sorry.



RE: Practice of Engineering

In addition... I think the EOR is illegally practicing by not having full supervision over the design, So Steve1, if you go to the board I would be aware of this.

I recommend you check out a few of the states' licensure websites and take a look at their disciplinary actions.

For example http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/l_enforce.htm#disciplinary

RE: Practice of Engineering

So... you either can't  or won't explain why /ethically/ there is a difference between taking preengineered parts out of a catalogue, and assessing their suitability, and taking parts designed by a different third party, and assessing their suitability.

I'm not saying either is wrong, I'm just saying I find it astonishing that you think there is an ethical difference.



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Practice of Engineering

Steve1,
I have the exact same problem as you and think you should stick to your guns.  Typical example: one of our designers detailed a maintenance platform that was totally stick built, to be built over existing machinery, about 15 feet up in the air.  The thing was supposed to be galvanized and was riddled with field welds.  I told him to redetail it with prefabricated units.  He refused saying that he spent enough time on it already.  I made a quick sketch showing how it could be done easily.  He screamed (like I was stepping on his turf) and went to my boss.  My boss seals the drawings, and I am supposed to sign as the checking engineer.  My boss said that if it works structurally we should just leave it as is, but I did not back down because what was detailed was just plain dumb.  Eventually the designer revised the design to the point I felt ok to sign the drawing.  When something really needs to be changed (and is not just my preferrence), I do not give in.  If I lose my job over it - bub-bye!  

RE: Practice of Engineering

2
There are many right answers and infinite wrong answers to a structural design.

If what the CAD draftsman is coming up with works, then it is up to you as the SEOR to either approve that design or come up with another (better) one based on your professional knowledge and experience.  You are the PE and he is a CAD jockey; he may be very knowledgible or he may be unable to engineer his way out of a wet paper bag.

I always tell people here that: "If it is my PE license on the line, then we can either do it my way or we can do it my way".  That being said, you need to question your ego in order to justify redlining a design that does indeed meet the code and does provide an economical design for the client.  On the contrary, you are on thin ice ethically and legally if you do not have the authority within the firm or willpower within yourself to demand that something that is "wrong" be redesigned until it meets the code before you will stamp it with your license.

If the structural design is essentially "good", then I would let it go for the present but politely ask in writing to get involved in the schematic decisions earlier on the next project.  If he or management do not have the respect for you and your license to grant such a polite and reasonable request coming from the SEOR, then I would start to find another firm.

The Board will likely ignore any claims of "plan stamping" if the engineering work is being prepared and stamped within the same firm.  "Plan stamping" to me means the low life unethical engineers who will "review and stamp" someone else's drawings prepared external to the firm.  

RE: Practice of Engineering

As a data point, I looked up the law and rules in my first state of licensure, Louisiana.  The definition for Responsible Charge in the Law is written:

"... shall mean the direct control and personal supervision of engineering ... service or work ..."

The definition of Responsible Charge of a Professional Engineer as stated in the Rules is:

"a.  the work performed by a professional engineer duly licensed...
b.  the work reviewed and approved by a professional engineer, duly licensed ..., who is authorized to direct changes to the engineering work, or
c.  the work performed in accordance with a system of engineering practices approved by a professional engineer, duly licensed..."

Greg - to answer your question - "So please explain the ethical difference between approving the use of off the shelf components which meets your design criteria, engineered by someone else (Nuts and bolts, I beams) and approving the use of a design which meets your design criteria that is drawn by a designer?"

The answer is simply because the nuts, bolts and I beams  are approved for use by our codes.  By default, we are not required to check them because they pass the standard of care.  We are required to meet codes by law (not usually an issue with machines unless you're in something like aerospace or boilers).  The prescribed law accepts the pieces we use (there are tight specifications listed for them in our codes), but their arrangement and sequencing must be under our direct control for us to be able to ethically and lawfully stamp the drawings.

Your statement about re-engineering from the ground up is covered by clause c. in the rules.  An engineer may approve a process whereby duplicates with slight, approved variations can be made without direct supervision.



If you "heard" it on the internet, it's guilty until proven innocent. - DCS

RE: Practice of Engineering

Quote:

An engineer may approve a process whereby duplicates with slight, approved variations can be made without direct supervision.

This looks to be pretty similar to what the OP originally posted.

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Practice of Engineering

IRstuff, I don't agree with you because of the OP's statement, "(the designer) decides what the framing layout should be, what type of lateral load resisting system should be employed, and indirectly the sizes of the members all on the basis of "that's all the room we have available"."

This is not pre-approving a work process and having someone else do it.  He didn't pre-approve anything.  He only sees it on the back end...



If you "heard" it on the internet, it's guilty until proven innocent. - DCS

RE: Practice of Engineering

Here we are stuck in the crack. We all work together and I believe that people need to quit reading "into" things. We all have a common goal in what we do as a "Team" if the designer creates a "wigget" and these are construction plans that are to be used for constrction purposes, then the Engineer who stamps the "Plans" has to be responsible for making sure that those in thier charge have done things correctly. This is why we have a system of checks and balances.
If there is an error, the engineer finds the error then red line the plans and give it back to the designer for correction before you sign the plans. SIMPLE!
Regards,
Namdac

RE: Practice of Engineering

I think the states' ethics codes read pretty clear.  If you're a team, then the engineer should be providing input up front.
      
"Section 1. Definitions. (1) "Conflict of interest" means any circumstance in which a licensee’s personal or financial interest is contrary to the interests of the public, his employer, or current or past client.

(2) "Direct supervisory control" in the practice of engineering means that an engineer licensee shall directly supervise and take responsibility for consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, design and certification of an engineering project and includes only that work performed by an employee as defined herein."

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources