×
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

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

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

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

(OP)
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?

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

In my state, this is known as delegated engineering work.  I've done over 700 such projects.  I agree with you and I've been on both sides of this argument.

You could complain to the state board.  They will likely treat it less significantly than if you, as the SEOR, made the same mistakes. Here, we have specific requirements for delegated engineering work, and it is clearly written in the law.  

As the SEOR you become the arbiter of quality and the final word.  Unfortunately I know of no way to stop this kind of stuff.  When one company gets its shop drawings and calculations rejected, they will just ask another engineer to do it or they'll try to go around you and get pressure put on you from another direction.  Annoying at the least.

On the opposite side of that, you as the SEOR should provide the delegated engineer with your expectations.  Many times I'll get a project to analyze and I have to chase the SEOR down to get specific requirements that are not written, or in some cases he doesn't even know what he's looking for in the analysis.  Again, in my state, the SEOR is required to provide this information, but they often do not.

To save yourself a bit of agony, I would suggest that you come up with the items you expect and send them out to the ones you would expect structural calcs from (stair sections, canopies, walkway covers, trusses, specialty/miscellaneous steel, etc.).  Give them things like....applicable code (you might have designed the building by the IBC structural loading when perhaps they generally use ASCE 7, or the opposite), special loadings, limitations (for instance if they are attaching to a wall, that wall needs to be designed for the expected reactions)...I can't tell you how many times I've had to re-do a design because someone decided to change from a cast-in-place wall to a masonry wall with no filled cells at the attachment points...and didn't tell the rest of the groups it might affect).

A lot of the problems can be alleviated by good communication, both ways.  I try to make sure my calculation packages are complete and understandable, but I've seen some pretty bad ones, as you've described.  Keep in mind that the people asking these engineers for service usually are not engineers and don't necessarily know how to convey what they need.  The engineer should ask, but that doesn't always happen.

Good luck.

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

With the present economy we are finding more and more competition, which are not required to have experience or a track record of quality.  I have mentioned here the growing trend I have seen in unsupervised design provided overseas and sealed with little review.  Fabricators are also depending on packaged software whenever posible and purchasing a review and seal only.  This is happening on all types of projects, even complex projects.  The problems you are experiencing are symptoms of the trend.     

I do know where you can find the connection design quality you are expecting.   
 

http://www.FerrellEngineering.com

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

We ran into this problem on a transportation project.  Early on, it became apparent that some working drawing submittals were going to go on and on.  We kept close accounting of hours spent on those working drawing reviews.  At the end of the project, we asked the DOT for extra money to cover the repeated reviews.  The DOT agreed that the number of submissions was unreasonable and honored our request.  

On future projects, write into your contract a reasonable limit on the number of submissions.  Be brief with your reviews to keep within your budget.  When a particular submission looks like it's becoming a problem, contact the owner and explain the problem and that you simply don't have money in the budget for this.

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

I've only been in the profession for 4 years, but here is my experience with this so far.

When we have something that we want to see calcs for we always make a point to put performance criteria language in the specs.  This typically involves having language in the submittal section for any members/connections/other that we need to see calcs for.  We always specify the design loads on the drawings so that it is spelled out pretty clearly for the other engineer what we expect to see.

We also put language in the General Notes, just to hit the contractor (and usually the steel fabricator) over the head that we want to see calcs.

Finally, the connections/members that other are to design are typically shown very generically in the details with language that makes it clear that this isn't a detail to produce shop drawings from (e.g. a braced frame connection might show welds generically - with no sizes or lengths, but the note below will say to provide slip critical bolts is bolts are provided instead of welds).

With all of that said, we typically get pretty good calcs in.  I've never encountered calcs for a different, but similar job.  

Additionally, if I ever have questions about the calcs, I don't hesitate to call the engineer who prepared them.  I would never stamp calcs as Reviewed  without requiring them to be Revised and Resubmitted without having full confidence that they are right and that any marks I make on them will be picked up.  

I'm involved in a project right now where I've been reviewing a ton of steel connection calcs (moment connections, shear connections, braced frame connections) and I had the engineer doing the calcs resubmit the braced frame calcs because they were using the Uniform Force Method inappropriately for the weld design of the gusset/beam and gusset/column connections.

The other engineer was pretty reasonable about resubmitting them (I talked to him on the phone about it) and didn't give me a hard time at all.

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

StructuralEIT
I find the the best design firms have the highest standards for calculation submittals.  As you expressed in your comments, an understanding of the proper calculations required is important for the reviewer.  We welcome the opportunity do discuss the details of our calculations and address any concerns.  Your review procedure is similar to many of the best designers we have delt with.  As the quality of information provided by the fabricator or detailer declines, it is most important that the EOR maintain the integrity of the design process.  

We are also frequently involved in an alternate process.  The connection design is provided in coordination with the EOR's design.  For seismic considerations or critical load paths the connection engineer and EOR have direct communication.  This information is incorporated in the bid documents.  Or as an adendum immediately after award.  This does require a little education of the owner.  This is not an additional cost to the project, it simply recognizes the importance of this design coordination.  This is also helpful with BIM projects.  This design coordination eliminates many of the issues mentioned above.   

http://www.FerrellEngineering.com

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

(OP)
Before everyone gets way off track I feel I should take the time to better describe my situation. I live/work where the SEOR designs both the members and connections.

I - as the SEOR - provide the seismic design criteria and code requirements in the "structural general notes". The "structural general notes" are both part of the specs for the project and the construction drawing package. They are on the first page of the structural drawings. On that first page I not only note the items above but I also have an itemized list of "bidder design" or "design by other" items that I expect to see calculations and dwgs for. I also show the location and the value of the load I expect from these items on my design/construction dwgs. I can estimate the loads/forces on the super structure but I haven't been compensated nor hired to design these items.

I am refering to "bidder design" items such as canopies, stair treads, mechanical/electrical units and pipes/conduits connection, etc...  As an engineer I would never stamp or sign a design I didn't think was clear and correct.

I do like some of the comments above about making it clear in my contract that I'm not going to review these submittals numerous times without proper compensation. I'm going to start using that - of course there will be pressure to NOT have that in my contract. But I will try.

I would love to hear from all of you in regards to the legal and/or state requirements regarding these (worst case) misleading or (best case) maybe lazy submittals.  

I think it should be illegal.  

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

td...it is illegal in many states.  I know in my state it is.  The calculations and shop drawings have to meet the same standards as the primary design.

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

I see a lot of cases where jobs go to the lowest bidder, and the lowest bidder is the lowest for a reason.  They usually don't include the cost of secondary engineering or shop drawings.  So they'll end up trying to get the cheapest engineering possible in an attempt to stay under budget.  Owners and architects need to be more aware of what is included in bids and not just go with the lowest bidder.  The economy doesn't help.

I like to think my company does a good job of secondary engineering services.  We do a lot of cold-form framing, aluminum curtain-walls, and steel connections.  Jobs always go the smoothest when the EOR & Architect gave some thought to how the secondary components were going to work.

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

tdstructural,

Open web steel joists are usually designed by the joist supplier.  He normally submits shop drawings, sealed by a Professional Engineer who takes full responsibility for the design based on loads provided by the SEOR.  The SEOR should check to see that the shop drawings are based on a correct interpretation of loads, but apart from that, does not normally request calculations or become involved in the design of such items unless he sees something obviously wrong.

There is a growing trend among engineering firms in my area to ask for engineering seals on structural steel connection details.  I don't agree with that.  The SEOR should design members and connections, taking full responsibility for them, just as you do.

I have never requested calculations from a contractor for anything structural.  I much prefer to check a shop drawing than a calculation.  If I found issues with shop drawings, they were returned for correction, usually after a telephone conversation with the detailer.  There were times when the fabricator did not agree with my comments, but it did not happen often and was usually resolved amicably.

Have things changed in the last two years?

BA

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

I must add my 2 cents to this. I find that many firms choose to have the connections designed by a third party. I am not saying that they don't do it right, but it requires considerable time and effort to document the connection design requirements, the controlling forces (out of 100+ load combinations) and an exhaustive shop drawing/ connection design review and resubmittal/rejections etc.

It is our company's policy to have all connections designed by our office, primarily because as an EOR we know the building the best. We know the assumptions, we know the behavior and in the time and effort it takes to provide connection design information, we can design it once and for all.

That being said, I have reviewed shop drawings where the delegated engineer did not have a clue of how to complete the design. There are plenty of instances where a delegated engineer's duty of design will overlap with the EOR's design. At these locations, we provide a design intent or minimum sizes for members etc. to make sure no corners are being cut in the design. The reason being that as an EOR you are responsible for the overall building even if you did not design all the components.

Sorry for the ramble.

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

slickdeals,

I'm not sure I know what you mean when you say:

"The reason being that as an EOR you are responsible for the overall building even if you did not design all the components".

It seems to me that there should be a clearcut division of responsibility in the design of components.  Either the fabricator's engineer is responsible for it or he isn't.  If the EOR is also responsible, then how can he justify failing to check component design thoroughly?

BA

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

I see this all the time.  But I don't let it ruin my day.  I try to see it from the other Engineer's perspective.  He's/She's given a task and an small amount of money.  I'll bet some of these Engineer's post to this site, which makes them OK in my book. So they assume that this is a paperwork requirement that's likely to be filed away in that warehouse from "Raiders of the Lost Ark." The calculations are done accordingly.  And some of the time that's fine.  They're checked off as provided and that's the last daylight they see.  On the other extreme is the document dump, where I'm provided 5000 sheets of indecipherable computer vomit. Once I communicate what I want to see, complete and correct work, they improve drastically.
It might take a couple of interations to get them to an acceptable level, but I consider that part of the price I pay delegating work. Excessive submittal reviews get backcharged to the contractor.
What I don't like are engineers who absolutely refuse to do anchorage calculations.  No one likes to do ACI 318 Appendix D calculations.  But if you've picked the anchorage size and pattern, it's your job to calculate capacity. And don't tell me "I don't do concrete...", "it's your concrete, so it's your job..." etc. I don't know how many times I've been given no choice and done these myself.

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

BAretired....the SEOR is still responsible for the design, even if delegated...It's called specific reliance.  If a failure occurred, he would be pulled into it even if the delegated engineer took responsibility for his work.  The SEOR would then have to prove than he met the standard of care for review of the delegated engineer's work.  Assuming he could do this, then he might get out of it and the delegated engineer would have to bear the brunt of the problem; however, to get out of it would cost time and money.

That's why it is better to provide clear communication to the delegated engineer, require specific submittals, and then check the submittals against your intent.  You should have some idea (order of magnitude)if the calcs are correct, but you're not obligated to check each one.  If the delegated engineer does not provide adequate detail to determine if the calcs are valid in a cursory review, then reject them.

The delegated work that I do is primarily for rigid frame aluminum structures.  Most structural design engineers do very little with aluminum, so it is more of a mystery to some of them than one might expect. It isn't that aluminum is any more difficult to design than anything else, it's just that it has a few quirks that can cause problems if you're not familiar with those quirks.

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

@BA:
When a delegated engineer supplies his calculations and shop drawings, you as an EOR either approve it or reject it. By doing so, aren't you becoming liable to a certain extent? It is not like you wash your hands away from the responsibility entirely.

I have not yet been part of any litigation or lawsuits, but I am curious to know what others think about this "gray" area.

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

Slickdeals...read the first paragraph of my last post...yes, you are correct.

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

Poor communication on my part!! Should have been my "previous" post, not my "last" post!!

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

In my experience as the SEOR of multi-discipline and multi- engineer projects, I am ultimately responsible for all the structural engineering on the entire project, hands down, to include structuralo shop drawing approval, any structural calculations, contract drawings, changes, reports, whatever.  Makes no difference.

Professionally, I do not see how you can separate the ultimate  responsibility for the calculations and contract drawings to anyone else.  That is my bag as the SEOR as the title ultimately implies.  You are the one in charge and making the ultimate decisions.  You can delegate authority, but the ultimate responsibility is still yours.

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

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

Just reiterating a bit of what Ron replied re BARetired's comments.  

Just as in the Hyatt Regency collapse in Kansas City back in the 1970's, at least in the states, the SEOR can delegate design tasks, but cannot delegate design responsibility (per the outcome of the trials on that case).

Thus, I can and should review another's structural calculations and submittals to the extent any other reasonable engineer would do to guard the safety and welfare of the public.  The engineer who did the calculations has a degree of liability for doing the job right.  I also have a degree of liability for his/her work as I am responsible for the overal structural design of the project.

 

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

Well Mike, what exactly is the fabricator's engineer responsible for?  According to you...nothing.

BA

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

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!  

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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!)  

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

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

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

Ron,

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

BA

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

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

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

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.

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

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.   

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

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

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

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

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

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

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.
 

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

@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?

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

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

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

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.

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