×
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

Question about sealing

Question about sealing

Question about sealing

(OP)
Local press-plate truss company designs glulam beams and other engineered wood beams to be used in their truss packages. They develop the loads and generate a woodworks report analysis for the beams. They then send that report to an engineer and he seals it. This engineer only has the woodworks analysis. He seals it and attaches a letter saying that it is based solely on the data sheets provided that he cannot verify the loading is correct. He has no clue what it's actually being used for and how it's being loaded. He's just sealing that the beam is good for the load used in the analysis. Is this ok?

I see both sides of this.
1.) He doesn't have plans so how can he verify the loading that was used in the analysis.

2.)on the other hand, he's just certifying that the beam can handle the load on the page, he's not sealing that it can work for a particular beam, on a particular job.

I ask this because it seems inherently wrong to me, but I'm seeing this done a lot by many engineers and I have been asked to do just this for a beam order. They want a letter sealed by me that says the beams in the analysis are good for the loads in the analysis. They are fine with me qualifying that I am not able to independently verify the loads.

RE: Question about sealing

This is no different than any other manufacturer produced table. They are only certifying that the beam is OK for XYZ loads and that is based on the following assumptions (bracing, pin-pin, etc etc). It is up for the EOR to determine the loads and then select a member from the table that meets the assumptions and the given loading requirements.

I wouldn't do it because how am I fairly compensated for my liability (unless I was an employee at said company)?

In Florida this is spelled out in our Laws and Rules.

RE: Question about sealing

I'm not quite following this.  Is this a generic letter that is handed out to anyone the truss company does business with?

If he is sealing the calcs, he has a responsibility to ensure the design criteria (which includes the loading) for the project is met.  

It doesn't sound like the submittal is a very good one.  I'd call the engineer that submitted it and ask if he wants you to send them back "returned not reviewed" or send you a set of calcs that is project specific that doesn't require you to select members based on the actual loads, because he doesn't know what the loads are supposed to be.  I'd be a little more diplomatic on the phone, but I would get the point across.  

 

RE: Question about sealing

(OP)
it's more like this, they will use these beams in several houses in a particular state. The letter will basically say that beam x, with span Y, can adequately support # plf roof dead load, # plf roof live load. They then show this info to any building inspector that occasionally questions the beam size being used. The sealing engineer isn't sealing the specific beam for the specific application, just the generic beam size for the theoretical load given. Evidently they get by with this all the time. I've seen this exact same thing done with other suppliers and other engineers in my office have sealed it. Now, I have the state they want and they have asked me to seal the generic letter.
   

RE: Question about sealing

I don't know that I see much value in a letter like that.  You can use design tables from a manufacturer to that end.  

What good is a letter stating that beam X can support Y plf for a span of Z ft, if you don't have any verification that all of those conditions are met?  

It might not be your problem if you're sealing a generic letter, but just for my own edification, who is verifying that the loads on the project don't exceed the loads in the letter?  What about point loads?  Are the members always simple span or can they be continuous?  

I guess I'm failing to see what the benefit of the letter is above and beyond a manufacturer's load table.

RE: Question about sealing

(OP)
The benefit is:
The supplier gets by cheap and the building inspectors generally don't question it. The suppliers feel confident that their in house designers (not engineers)design the beams properly. They flash an engineers seal on a generic letter in front of a building inspector it gets approved and on to the next house.  

RE: Question about sealing

Who is on the hook if something fails?   

RE: Question about sealing

(OP)
That's my concern, but arguably if higher loads exist, then the  beam was not used as it was designed for. Not my fault I would argue.

They have since presented me with numerous examples all sealed by engineers at Truss Joist. Company A designs, they send the calc to tuss-joist and they stamp the design with a qualification that the beam size is good for the loads provided in the analysis.

I told them I would not seal it, and my company is about to loose a $30,000 beam order.

RE: Question about sealing

The scenario you present at Truss Joist sounds like a single seal for a single project.  Not a blanket seal that essentially gives designers an engineering license.  

You're company is being offered $30k to seal a letter?  Nice.

RE: Question about sealing

(OP)
My company manufacturers glulam beams, we got a $30,000 order for the beams. The company that designed them sent their beam calcs and wanted us to seal it. They claim this is how they do it with other manufacturers and the other manufacturers just qualify that the seal is based on the loads presented in the calcs only. As they put it they just want an engineer to seal that the beams per their calcs only are good. They provided me with examples from other companies qualifying it that way.  

RE: Question about sealing

Some comments/questions on this:

1.  If this is a house, does an engineer or architect need to seal anything at all?  In many states, residential construction is not required to be designed by a licensed professional.  If so, your seal is essentially meaningless in terms of satisfying a requirement to have an EOR over the whole structure.  You could then very easily simply review the calculations/designs and seal them with the necessary qualifiers as they suggest.

2.  If the structure requires a licensed engineer, and that required EOR is NOT YOU, then you as a beam supplier can simply provide similar sealed calcs/drawings that again claim that the designs are based upon X, Y and Z and the EOR is ultimately responsible for checking the applied loads vs. the actual loads.

3.  If the structure doesn't require a licensed engineer, and that EOR doesn't exist...i.e. there is some loosely held assumption out there that your sealing of the beams consitutes some level of responsibility over the structure, then you WOULD have a concern in my view.  

 

RE: Question about sealing

"They claim this is how they do it with other manufacturers and the other manufacturers just qualify that the seal is based on the loads presented in the calcs only. As they put it they just want an engineer to seal that the beams per their calcs only are good."
This is the standard way Wood Trusses are sealed. But, Wood Trusses are a fairly involved design. Doing this for a beam, I have to wonder why the building designer didn't design it (I always specified the size and grade for my glulam/LVL/PSL/etc. beams) or at least be willing to seal the beam calcs.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

RE: Question about sealing

The problem you run into is that you can put all kinds of qualifications on a drawing and they tend to be ignored.

A PE seal on a drawing can be taken to mean different things, which may or may not be spelled out in the state engineering rules.  It may be taken to imply conformance with project specifications or with building codes, and if used in a more generic way, you have a problem.

Where I have run into this issue is sealing a standard detail drawing once and for all, which is a perfectly reasonable step.  But then a draftsman makes a copy of that drawing, puts it in a set of shop drawings that I know nothing about, and what's the status then?

RE: Question about sealing

(OP)
I don't know if it's house for sure, I don't know if their is an E.O.R., they just want me to stamp the calcs as good for the loads on the page.  Simple as that. This is very similar to the way press-plate trusses are done. A designer, not an engineer, puts all the span and load info in a computer program, The analysis goes off to the plate manufacturer who provides them with the software. They get a truss design back stamped. The design is for a truss with  span x, spacing y, and loads z. Like it or not this is the ways it's done and how it's been done for a long time.

I won't stamp it, but their is plenty of evidence to suggest that this is acceptable to do just from the fact that so many do it without issue. Doesn't make it ethically right, but if no one is getting in trouble for this then by whose authority does anyone say this is wrong?
 

RE: Question about sealing

swsengineer,

Keep in mind that your seal and signature only do ONE thing...they certify that YOU were the engineer that designed the item indicated on the plan.  Nothing more.

Secondly, as a licensed engineer, you have a duty to protect the public welfare and safety.  Given that, I might suggest this note on your sheet:

THE BEAM DESIGN REFLECTED ON THIS SHEET IS FOR SPECIFIC, INDICATED LOADS AND REQUIRED LATERAL BRACING.  THE BEAM DESIGN HAS NOT BEEN INTEGRATED INTO A ACTUAL STRUCTURAL SYSTEM.  AS SUCH, THE USE OF THIS BEAM IN AN ACTUAL STRUCTURAL SYSTEM SHOULD BE CAREFULLY REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY A LICENSED ENGINEER.
 

RE: Question about sealing

I think I understand the entire dilemma.

You don't even know what the beams will be used for, and JAE summed it up in his #2:

2.  If the structure requires a licensed engineer, and that required EOR is NOT YOU, then you as a beam supplier can simply provide similar sealed calcs/drawings that again claim that the designs are based upon X, Y and Z and the EOR is ultimately responsible for checking the applied loads vs. the actual loads.


I agree. Like I originally said, this is no different than any other manufacturer produced table or calc. We all use these, do you independently run your own calcs on everything in AISC, for metal stud in LGSEA,Simpson connections, steel joists, etc... No, we rely on standardized tables produced by the MFR.

Now, you are THAT engineer doing the tables. I would be OK doing this, since it sounds like why your company hired  you (to be their engineer), but I would insist on a nice box of CYA notes that must be next to my seal of my assumptions (specific loading info, load cases, load factors, deflection, bracing assumptions, bearing conditions, etc.). I would NOT rely on anyone else's calcs, which I know you aren't, I would do my own, and use their calcs as a check for mine.

If this takes a day of your time, for a $30k order I am sure your boss would be OK with that. Do what you need to do as an engineer to ensure that whatever you are signing and sealing is correct and limits your liability. You are keeping yourself and your company out of trouble, which I would remind your boss of the liability his company is incurring if you don't do this the right way.

 

RE: Question about sealing

(OP)
Good advice guys

Our sales dept. to spite me found an engineering firm willing to seal a letter for $300. Fine with me.

I still feel it's ethically wrong, as I feel strongly that's it is being used to convey something that it is not to a building official or whoever ultimately wants to see the seal.

As many of you have stated whats really the purpose of having a seal on a design chart or generic table. Their is no good purpose that I can think of. It's a guarantee of nothing.


 

RE: Question about sealing

swsengineer...check with your state board.  Might be bordering on "plan stamping".  If so, report them.

RE: Question about sealing

Ron - you mean that the firm sealing it for $300 is plan stamping right?
 

RE: Question about sealing

JAE..yes.  Sorry I was unclear.

RE: Question about sealing

(OP)
I don't see how it's plan stamping. The calculations can be redone by the certifying engineer in a matter a minutes, and if this note is put with the sealed letter then what specifically is wrong?

THE BEAM DESIGNS REFLECTED ON THIS SHEET IS FOR SPECIFIC, INDICATED LOADS AND REQUIRED LATERAL BRACING.  THE BEAM DESIGN HAS NOT BEEN INTEGRATED INTO A ACTUAL STRUCTURAL SYSTEM FOR ANY SPECIFIC PROJECT.  AS SUCH, THE USE OF THIS BEAM IN AN ACTUAL STRUCTURAL SYSTEM SHOULD BE CAREFULLY REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY A LICENSED ENGINEER.

 

RE: Question about sealing

sws-

With that qualifying language, what EXACTLY is the purpose of the letter with respect to a specific project for which it would be "flashed in front of the building official"?

RE: Question about sealing

swsengineer - I believe our paths cross routinely.  I deal with glulam on a regular basis.  I am on retainer with another manufacturer in the southeast.  A company I used to work for was asked by this manufacturer to do some of the same type things you've mentioned.  I was hesitant and discussed it with other engineers in the business and they all seemed to say that they would not do it.  It is too much exposure to liability.  If someone applies the loading incorrectly and uses that size beam and even just has some serious deflection problems, you might not be found liable, but at the very least you'd have a big headache to deal with.

I think you made the right decision and the other company is crazy for stamping that type letter for $300.  I don't think it is ethically wrong to do it, for the record... I just think there is too much risk involved.

No, it's not plan stamping.  Nothing like plan stamping in my opinion.  All you would need is a quick beam analysis in your job file to prove it.  Plus, you'd be writing the letter.  So it is by very definition not plan stamping.  Plan stamping, to me, is when someone lays a set of plans in front of you that they drew and you stamp them.  Yes, there are some more subtleties to plan stamping, but that's the basic gist of it.

RE: Question about sealing

(OP)
As far as the purpose, I can only speculate. How many of you engineer a simpson hanger before using it? Simpson does not engineer it for a specific job. If a building inspector questions the use of a specific hanger you can show him the simpson information. I see it as being similiar to this? Agree/Disagree?
 

RE: Question about sealing

I don't see it as similar.

For the Simpson example, an engineer is using the Simpson information in their design that will ultimately be sealed by the design engineer.

The letter being provided is, by your own admission, allowing designers to pick off beams with no oversight or stamping.  You also said that flashing an engineer's seal in front of a building official usually gets their concerns off the table, but the seal is not for that specific project.  I think it's a disengenuous use of a seal to do that.  Maybe if the person flashing the letter with the seal said something along the lines of, "...., but the engineer who sealed this letter did not design the beam for this specific project.  A non-licensed designer with our company designed this beam".  

I know my first question would be then why the hell are you showing me this letter if the engineer didn't design the beam for this specific project.

RE: Question about sealing

I should disclose that I've never sealed anything.

RE: Question about sealing

The sealing question is meaningless if the building is a house that doesn't legally need a seal.
 

RE: Question about sealing

JAE-
That's true.  So why would they be flashing a seal in front of a building official other than to misrepresent the use of said seal?

RE: Question about sealing

To me, it sounds like the intention is to mislead a building official by simply showing him an engineer's seal even though it's not needed for the project and is not specific to the project.  

If this is being compared to a Simpson catalog - would anyone ever get questioned about a joist hanger and whip out a Simpson catalog?  No, you would pull out the drawings and (whether sealed or not) show the building official the relevant information.  

Even if a seal isn't required, drawings would be, right?

Also, in comparing this situation to trusses.  I haven't done a ton of jobs that included wood trusses, but all of the truss jobs I've been involved in we've had calcs submitted with the job-specific loading, spans, spacing, wind loads, deflection criteria, etc.. signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer.  

RE: Question about sealing

(OP)
I got a little more info
These are for houses, and their are no plans, other than a floorplan and elevation. The spans and loads came from the builder verbally to the truss supplier. They generated a beam design with their software and basically want us as the beam manufacturer to seal that per the loads they used that the beam size is good and more importantly that the minimum bearing info is correct. I didn't seal it, but as I mentioned someone else did for us. Either way the info about it being a house or a commercial job, plans or not, E.O.R. or not are all irrelevant because the info we are supplied is the same regardless and they want a seal on it.  

Either it's ok to seal with a qualification similar to this or not.
THE BEAM DESIGNS REFLECTED ON THIS SHEET IS FOR SPECIFIC, INDICATED LOADS AND REQUIRED LATERAL BRACING.  THE BEAM DESIGN HAS NOT BEEN INTEGRATED INTO A ACTUAL STRUCTURAL SYSTEM.  AS SUCH, THE USE OF THIS BEAM IN AN ACTUAL STRUCTURAL SYSTEM SHOULD BE CAREFULLY REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY A LICENSED ENGINEER.

 

RE: Question about sealing

What I dont understand here is what is the value of the seal?  It seems the engineer would basically be sealing that a technician knows how to operate a computer program.  This does not seem much like engineering unless he checks something else other than a piece of paper.

$300...  Some engineers are sure good at math, but not good at risk management or business.

Brad

RE: Question about sealing

(OP)
value is either:
to give piece of mind to the technician and his company or to misrepresent that the beams have been engineered specifically for a project to whoever will inquire. Their are several beams for more than just one house in the order.   

RE: Question about sealing

Lets make this a real good argument.  What is the difference between a beam and the bolt I buy at Grainger or the nails at Lowes - all that have a rated value??

Used incorrectly - they will all kill you or someone else??

 

RE: Question about sealing

Sounds like any other pre-engineered component.  In Texas, any use of a member spanning over a certain distance (over 24 feet) requires either an EOR on the project or pre-engineered components.

I designed repair of of a building with plate-connected wood truss and glulam spans up to 77 feet which never saw an engineer.  But based on the design loads used, they would not have worked for the building use.  They were designed for residential instead of 100 psf+ live for commercial (and 1-1/2" normalweight concrete topping.)  Also bracing was inadequate, since it was not specified by the truss designer/supplier, and the contractor was inexperienced.

Nothing wrong with sealing it as a component, and obviously you are not going to seal anything without doing the calcs.  The items will be "certified" to a certain load, but not for a particular use, just like buying a Simpson tie.

RE: Question about sealing

Lion- I think I see where you are coming from. You are concerned with the intent of the manufacturer to use this signed and sealed letter in a way that may be misleading to a building code official, architect, building owner, etc. Some engineering boards MAY interpret this action as assisting a non-engineer to perform engineering, which is a violation of most board's codes of conduct.

I personally see it as no different then any other pre-engineered component, as others have stated. How this letter gets used is out of your control, and if done the way SWS described with that language attached, to me it is OK and legal. Is it a good business decision and worth the exposure for 300 clams? Hell no! You did the right thing by saying no.

If you graduated in 2006 then you are pretty young, I am just a little bit older, and throughout your career you will see lots of engineers, contractors, and architects doing things that are questionable. If someone really crosses the line, turn them in. But pick your battles on this other stuff. Sounds like you got a good set of ethics and balls enough to tell your company no. Good for you!

What really bothers me about this whole discussion is it seems there are MANY areas of the country where you can build a pretty good-sized and complicated structure without an engineer doing the design. That is what I would like to see changed...

RE: Question about sealing

a2, "...complicated structure without an engineer doing the design..."  I couldn't agree more.  The other concerning thing is the lack of concern from the $300 engineer.  I have been arguing for two years with a professional association about looking into a fairly common commercial building in our area that is lacking a proper lateral restraint system.  Its been like pulling teeth to get anything done.

Brad  

RE: Question about sealing

The Florida Board has actually used the fee in a project as evidence of plan stamping. And as backwards and southern as I think things can be down here, in most urban areas anything you do outside of a deck or doghouse needs a permit, and I mean in residential. Now, I know in residential most of the "design", if you want to call it that, is done by CAD techs. Then some architect or engineer signs and seals a whole set of house plans for rock bottom prices.  I have done residential additions for reputable contractors and architects who wanted it done right, and I am sure my fee was much greater than a lot of people were charging for entire tract houses... Not to mention, reuse fees for pennies on the dollar. Not worth my liability.

Generally in Florida plan reviewers are not engineers or architects and I have had very few comments made on my drawings in my entire 13 year career. I like to think it is because I am just that awesome, but the only thing they seem to pick on is if you missed something really obvious like calling out an importance factor or Exposure Category. Unfortunately, there is a large reliance in my experience on the seal. If its there, they trust that you did your job.

I guess my point was you can have strong codes, you can have good inspection enforcement, but if the plan review is weak, there are unscrupulous A and Es out there who will sell out their seal.... To the lowest bidder too...

But requiring signed and sealed plans would at least be a good start. I'd be curious as to what states you guys have experience in where you can build houses without sealed plans?




 

RE: Question about sealing

Welcome to residential engineering.  The wildest frontier in plan stamping.

RE: Question about sealing

In my state - while we have officially adopted IBC 2006 or 2009 or whatever - a couple of things come to mind:

Only the larger urban areas are code enforced.  So about 85% of the state is NOT covered and you can build just about anything - and I have seen it done.

Many of the building officials are not PE's or Architects - one "tony" city even hired an outside firm to do the reviews - but they have no engineers or architects on staff.  I challenged that and I think that finally got changed.  If you challenge anything - you are on the "black list"  One city used to charge an "extra" $25 if you didn't pick the I-beam sizes - they would do it for you.  

Each locality can and does adopt and modify the code (which ever one they pick) as they see fit.  They all add their two cents worth.  Some are using IBC 2009 and one still accepts BOCA 99 I think.  One small town mandated 2 layers of 1/2'' drywall on all interior walls for the longest time!!  Recently - I was working with 4 or 5 different "codes" within a 100 mile radius.  Now I think it down to only 3!!!

If things are slow - permits take forever and get nit picked to death.  When business is good, drawings on toilet paper seem to suffice.

When any complaints are made to the state - they just shake their heads and collect their salaries.

Just had to rant and rave - sorry.

RE: Question about sealing

Mike - what state? So I never move there or practice there...

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