×
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

PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"
2

PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

(OP)
Any of you third party plan checkers facing this issue?  I perform structural design and analysis services occasionally for PV systems,...mostly rooftops.  In addition, I also provide third party plan checks of the same.  Recently, I've been asked to give my blessing to a system that varies significantly from any cataloged, engineered, tested, or documented racking arrangement thus provided by the PV racking company in question.  They have claimed "Proprietary Information",...no specific section/member or connection details and supporting calculations are apparently going to be submitted by the PV racking manufacturer.  The company has chosen not to respond further to any more of my comments concerning their non-typical (cataloged/engineered) racking arrangements. The drawings showing the racking system will be stamped by a professional engineer.   This plan check has taken months because of the failure of the manufacturer's cooperation in producing engineering data.  Has anyone had the "Proprietary Information,..not for public consumption" card played while performing plan checks?  In my opinion, I'm not "the public" when performing a plan check for my client, who in this case is a major county in the state of CA.  Thanks in advance for any comments.  Bill

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

Never experienced this, but as a reviewer, if your not satisfied, then I would reject. Your still taking some liability of this even if stamped by another engineer in one way or another. interesting why they wont submit a calc, not like the engineering or design is patentable or something.  

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

I bet they won't submit because they haven't gotten/can't find an engineer to seal it.  Reject it till they come up with these mysterious calcs.  (I know some good CA engineers if they need help...)

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

What is "PV"?

I've heard of concrete suppliers claiming their mix designs are proprietary information, but rather than not submit them, they let the engineer of record "borrow" them to review.  You sign a disclaimer, promise not to divulge their trade secrets, and then return the mix design to them when you're through with it.

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

nutte, "photovoltaic".  ie solar electric panels for on top of roofs.

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

I would bet the people buying the goods would have some pull to get the info.  It sounds to me like you have done what you can, and it is time to toss the debate back to the owner to decide what is the next step.

I think there are a lot of manufacturers in the cold rolled steel industry that are reluctant to share this info.  Years ago we reviewed a quonset building built with cold rolled steel and after pushing for the cross-sectional data information we finally got their calculations from 1966.  The date of the calculations was a little surprising.

Brad

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

(OP)
Thanks all,...feeling my client will accept their plans as is with or without my approval, which is their option, my final advise to them is in effect that they request one of the many engineers involved in the producing the loading data for the racking system also take specific, written responsibility via letter or wet stamp notation, for the structural integrity of the non-typical racking arrangements shown on the layout plans before accepting the design package.  I've fought the good fight.  Or did I?

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

ztengguy, not to hi-jack this thread but you bring up an interesting point on this question.  Is a plan reviewer, hired by an official city, county, whatever, really liable for anything?  Really?

I know California can be sort of like a brave new world at times but how far does the state/country have to go to check work done by a company producing a product like that?

This sort of is in line with a long thread we had sometime back on the issue of engineers being forced to submit calculations for review  ("I don't care if you are a licensed engineer in this state and have stamped/signed the plans - we still want to verify whether you did all your calculations correctly and nit-pick your methods and assumptions.  We just don't trust our own ability to properly license engineers and we don't believe that you have any vested interest in doing a good job.")

 

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

(OP)
Thanks! JAE.   Read the thread, with Ned,..near a shed.  All good points!  I'm a calc guy, personally, unless I know I can produce a quick supporting calc or code reference table or Simpson page number to support my drawings.  In most of my submittals, calcs are required for the primary structural elements of my structures.  Secondary structural elements sometimes receive a little more leeway in plan checks.  Here we see the acceptance of drawings with simply the appropriate engineer's stamp sometimes taking care of the bill.  Hoards of third party plan check companies, existing solely as such, making as much as, or maybe more than I do to design a building to check it, vary in intensity in their reviews.  When spinning and redistributing rigid diaphragms forces in multistory buildings, it's not a bad idea to have someone glancing over your results,"or at least to see if you've done such".  This is my theory on plan check reviews,....which I do, myself,...occasionally.   I don't spend to much time checking math. I do check to see if major numbers look consistent, like story forces and whether collectors have been designed using the appropriate load combinations.  Other than that, I look at the process to see if the major components are there, represented with some leeway as to the order and neatness of the package as  we are all different animals with our own "means and methods of engineering".  Above all, I do look for ownership for the components of the whole shebang, or at least that everyone got pecked at least once along the pecking order.

In my little PV example, we had a design/build company with engineers on staff, subbing out all engineering but stamping the construction documents as the design build company/contractor.  The Wind Tunnel study stamped a letter saying that the project geometries appeared to be compliant to the loads derived in the small scale model used in their study.  The structural engineer using the values from the wind tunnel study stamped his anchorage calculation package.  The PV racking supplier, claiming all information proprietary finally, after much duress, provided a very simplified/typical FEA analysis by another structural engineer of a similar but not enveloping racking layout covering most of the racking configurations for the project.  However, the main members in the FEA model were topped out in allowable capacities and the non-typical arrangements on the project documents appeared to double and triple the tributary load to the same members.  Yet, the design/build engineer of record ready to okay and stand behind supplier based upon his warranty for "parts and labor".

In my mind, I see the future finger pointing legal battle of who was responsible for the design of what part of what component using whose design information since so many engineers had their fingers in the pudding on this one.  I simply asked the million dollar question,...."Will the real racking system engineer please stand up?"  Fine,...we don't need further calcs at this point, however, as a minimum we would like to see your exclusive stamp and notation stating such,...on the drawings, or in letter form to be kept with the job records and/or drawings. If you're sure of your work, calcs or no calcs, you can do this,..yes?

And that's where this story ended.  Per slta's post above, in my opinion, either they don't have the engineering data, don't want to pay someone to produce it, or they don't like the results they got back from the man they paid for the results who thus will not stamp the drawings with my little note request.

Thus, I feel calcs are necessary and I'm not completely happy with myself that I've given up the good fight and not asked for even "more hard calcs".  Like Jerry McGuire movie line, sort of,..."Show me the Calcs!"  Come on people,...charge more for your projects, hey, why not, you can include time for calcs.  We'll still lose our budget butt's anyway, but not by as much though.  Where's the warranty on public safety?  Isn't that what we've all sworn to protect.  Parts and Labor?   Stepping down now, soapbox relinquished.  Have a good weekend.  Thanks to JAE and all others who responded.

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

Reject. Reject. If the first two answers are not clear...reject.

PV systems have little or no engineering. I'm in a high wind area and I am going through an issue similar...no backup calcs.  Not attachment calcs.  Windborne debris....

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

My opinions, as a former (15 years) plan reviewer and currently a designer.

First, in Ohio, I did my best to review stamped plans, but in all reality, there is no way I could have gotten through everything.  If everything looks OK and a PE is willing to put his/her license on the line, then that was good for me assuming my "spot checks" panned out.  As an employee of the State of Ohio, the state took on any liability, not me.  The EOR was the ultimate guilty party if there was a fatal mistake.  Anyone submitting documents for permitting was able to claim confidentiality.

As far as your situation, I would think if someone wanted your services and was asking for a blessing, they would provide you with the requested documentation.  Not being a regulator, I feel that you have the same responsibility as the person designing it, so I would walk away from it (at least that portion of it) unless they provide you with what you need to make an educated decision.  As a professional, they need to respect your responsibilities and expect some integrity.

Having a racking system certified by the manufacturer is one thing, but having the racking/system certified/stamped for a particular installation is another.  I personally don't know of any "proprietary" calculations...it's all spelled out in ASCE 7 and local codes.

Many flat-roof racking systems require upwards of 10 psf local ballast loads, requiring a good structural review of the roof.  Those with direct attachment have to be evaluated for wind loading, among other things.  Here in Ohio (90 mph basic wind speed), an encroachment into roof zone 2 can easily get you into 30+ psf uplift forces.  I can only imagine what coastal zones look like...

I have also seen at least one non-ballasted, not attached racking system whose manufacturer claims it is held down "as if by magic".  I would like to see the calculations for pixie dust and magic for this one.  I haven't asked for them yet.  Hopefully, someday soon, I'll get to see what "magic" looks like on paper.

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

I guess Im thinking that in a event of a collapse, injury, etc, The reviewer can be liable since he is a PE, and should have known better, etc. I can understand too if you work for a State agency, you might be protected.

Also, when it comes to suing, Lawyers will sue everyone and see who has the most/deepest pockets. It might cost you a arm or a leg just to prove that all you did was review, and not do the design.

If you want any of my calcs for something i designed, so be it. Maybe the PV will be a bit more, since you have to pay an engineer to do the calcs.

Customer can always go down the road to PV supplier that is willing to provide calcs. His money, his choice.
 

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

I really don't believe that city plan reviewers, or the city itself, or any public agency reviewing plans for construction signed and sealed by a private licensed engineer is liable for anything.  I could be wrong but I've just not seen that as the way it works.  The EOR is the liable party - not someone checking to see if the wind was 90 mph vs. 110 mph.

 

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

JAE:  In this case, I read SteelHead's post as if he was being paid to review someone else's work, and then give it a "thumbs up".  If I read it correctly, then I would say he does carry some liability, and (if it was me) require the proprietary calculations - with a confidentiality agreement - or let someone else take on the liability.

If he's a government-type reviewer, then I agree that there is little (or no) liability - but he still has the right to see the magical calculations.

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

Hyatt walkway collapse ==> EOR is liable for everyone elses engineering IF someone dies.

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

Certainly the supplier should provide sufficient details of materials, dimensions etc to allow the actual proposed structure to be accurately defined, but why insist on seeing their calculations.  Surely a verifier should be doing their own independent calculations?

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/
 

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

Deep pockets + Big lawyers + "fuzzy" "green energy" (non-existent) designs for a roof-mounted PV array?

The way I see it, you've got three threats here (looking at the building and its owner) to consider:

1)  Junk blowing off of your owner's building due to a "sheet-metal and sheetrock screwed" PV panel and hurting somebody downwind.

2)  The PV panel pulling off of your building's roof and hurting somebody or damaging your building, its waterproofing, its roof, its roof-mounted AC and HVAC equipment.   

3.  (Least important)  The PV panel falling down under wind or shaking loads and only damaging the PV panels.  Since they (the PV panels) are worthless (in my opinion) that's not a real fault.   

I suspect that the "miraculous" green energy design is deliberately strong enough only to resist the static weights of the PV panels themselves.  No uplift planning, no roof weight/lift planning, no downwind hazards to people or other structures are of concern.   


 

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

JAE:

I will have to take issue here on two points:

First, regarding the issue with the requirement to submit calculations, if I were the plan reviewer, I would want to see them.  The code has become so complicated over the years, that unless you have these calcs for the review, you will never know if the structure has been properly designed.  In my opinion, it's just not possible from a drawing set alone now.

Also, regarding the liability issue, I know many jurisdictions claim that they have no liability, but that has not been my experience.  I just ran into a case where there was an unclear area regarding authority to approve between the inspectors and the plan reviewers.  He relied on the inspector's opinion and was trumped by the plan reviewer, after the fact.  No liablility here?  I don't think so, but I'm not a lawyer or judge either.  The outcome remains to be seen.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

Mike -

I understand your points (good ones).  

But even with calculations, unless you, as a plan reviewer, are going the whole way and are going to redesign the full frame (full analysis, full calculations, etc.) you won't know from reading someone's calc's whether everything is right.

My reference above was to a previous thread where we hashed out the issue of the purpose of calculations.  As a reviewer, my job should be to verify general aspects of the design, check for use of the correct building code, appropriate loads, etc. on a more macro scale.

To suppose that a plan reviewer is there to ensure some level of quality assurance of the EOR's minute calculations is, to me, absurd.  

The EOR is responsible to check and verify their own work.  It is not some government-hired plan reviewer's job to look for errors....or at least it shouldn't be.

Submitting my calculations (my personal tool that serves my application of engineering principles) to a plan reviewer simply cheapens our profession in my view.

I know it is different in places like California but historically our profession was never meant to be a commodity where outside entities checked our math, our calculations, and our application of engineering principles.

(my feathers get ruffled on this topic so sorry for the rant)

Your second paragraph sort of makes my point.  You describe a situation and yet you present a struggle between an inspector and a reviewer.  Where the h*!! is the EOR in all of this?  I would suggest that perhaps the EOR (and engineering) was cheapened and removed from the issue and it was the EOR's professional design that was at issue.

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

Quote:

But even with calculations, unless you, as a plan reviewer, are going the whole way and are going to redesign the full frame (full analysis, full calculations, etc.) you won't know from reading someone's calc's whether everything is right.

I agree, I just don't see the benefit of getting the calcs.  They are more likely to mislead than anything.  Confirming that the design shown on the drawings complies with all code requirements through an independent analysis seems to me to be both the best way to ensure that something has not been overlooked, and the quickest and simplest way to do the job.

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/
 

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

"Reject" until your boss takes the rubber stamp away from you.

Only put off until tomorrow what you are willing to die having left undone. - Pablo Picasso

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

In this situation though, with the calc's being ever-not-so-subtly kept in the desk drawer by the company, I would demand them - if not to review them thoroughly - but just to ensure that they were actually present, and that the calc's presented actually covered the same design configuration that is going to be installed on your client's building.   

"Green energy" government-funded programs are notorious for political corruption in planning, spec's, purchases, and installation.   That side, the planning and "community-development side" is where the money and interest and speculation is - NOT in the long-term operation or maintenance or even profitability.  Few have been successful in operations after the construction and "planning" money has been spent back at the corporate and political and regulatory/university headquarters.    

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

JAE:

I can associate with what you are saying, really.

I have served as a plans checker for a major city though in the distant past (very distant now).  I can see what you say applying more to smaller jurisdictions than larger ones as the smaller ones are less likely to hire structural engineers for reviewers.  Having done that for a major jurusdiction - the City of Anchorage - unless I am aware of the engineering competency of the EOR of the project, I do like to spot check the calcs to build up a level of professional trust in ability.  I do not assume that all the bells and whistles have been addressed when in that mode.  Difference of opinion and approach I guess.

As for the other matter, I am that EOR for the project and was left out of the loop here as the owner chose to believe the contractor and inspector rather than me.  The owner knows better now, but it's too late.  Now I have to try to solve the problem when I was not at fault here and that pisses me off.  I feel ignored and devalued, and, yes, cheapened, to mention a few  things.  Some people just either don't know how to read plans, or are engineer wannabees,  and should not be contractors, convincing the owners that they know better than the engineer.  This guy had not idea of why I did what I did, thinking he had the better solution, which created all sorts of legal problems for the owner, with both the county and the adjacent land owner.

Hope things are going OK for you...  bigsmile

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

(OP)
Thanks again to all participating in this thread.  Interesting arguments, well defended.  Speaking more specifically about a particular project, let's say one which might pose a significant loss of life and risk to public safety I can't help but feel we would all agree that a system of checks and balances is a good thing.  We, as engineers, are like a box of chocolates when it comes to experience.  We also may or may not have had the absolute luck and privilege of having a good mentor along the way (a topic for another day). Most of the time our companies are awarded a job because they've underbid another companies' 'absolute lowest can do bid' - by half (also a topic for another day). With the numerous code prescriptive requirements only satisfied through the careful and thorough production of an enormous calculation set, at least a macro check of our calculation package/process must be warranted.  Personally, I have had independent reviewers ask me what I've perceived to be silly a question because in my mind they really didn't know any better,..."that load combination would not even begin to govern," I think to myself.  On the flip side had experienced engineering reviewers ask me eye opening questions because they did know better - better than me, or maybe even my mentor. I've appreciated these comments and/or responses to 'my' silly review questions as I became a better engineer that day.  I didn't feel my purpose was cheapened but rather became even more respectful of the daunting task it is to become a sound structural engineer mastering all material and building codes. A task I would imagine I'll continue to pursue up until retirement. Gotta show'em some calcs for some projects in my opinion.  Just too many even solely engineering ingredients in the soup, e.g., budgets, experience, ethics,.....not to mention owner, supplier, contractor pressures.  So yes,...Show me the calcs.  I'll show you mine!       

Funny,...just checking back in today with the intent to leave one last comment on this thread regarding my original post (see way above) and update all on the outcome of this reviewer's final actions. (For the record, SEOR maintains liability, I maintain my dignity and reputation)  To recap,.....I did not agree to "accept with caveats" as my client, who retained me to do the review, encouraged me to do.  I held fast to a request for additional calculations or a specific PV review and approval letter authored by the (until this time silent) SEOR.  This, of course, sent a 'major' PV player reeling in pain and agony, "We've never had to do this before, you're asking for too many details, we've given you enough information, delays will occur,...." and so on, and so forth.   

News as of today.  New calculations on the way,... not surprisingly to me with revised construction documents showing additional anchorage locations, doubling and tripling in numbers in some locations.

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

structuralsteelhead,
I have just read this thread.  Welcome to the site, and I hope you will continue to participate.

Your last post, to me, illustrates the most important two attributes an engineer can have: judgement and integrity.  

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

Someone needs to question this SEOR and put him through the ringer.

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

My government agency (power utility) is always installing stuff like this and, just last week I reviewed some calcs and drawings for a roof top microwave antenna installation.  You better believe we require sealed calculations to be submitted, and we require them to be done and checked by two different people.  We have the deep pockets and will pay dearly if something flies off a roof and kills someone.  And, by far, the most common mistake I come across is improper consideration of the load path for laterally loaded antennas, brackets, PV attachments, etc.

JAE - you would not believe how many hacks are out there sealing documents.  Judging from your posts over the years, I'm certain you are not one of them.  But we would still need to see your calcs.

Interestingly, the NTSB report partially faulted Minnesota DOT for not catching the error in the I35 gusset plate design.  In a way, I think this is a sad dilutiion of a PE seal, but there you have it.

   

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen anyone address the question of what is the benefit of seeing the calculations.  To follow through someone else's calculations line by line will take longer than doing the analysis yourself, and is much more likely to result in a significant error being missed, so what is the point?

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/
 

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

Doug,
I think JAE did argue that point, and I agree that for most "plan reviewers", the calculations would mean nothing.  It depends on the qualifications and experience of the reviewer.  For in house verification of work, I always insisted on seeing the calculations.  Just seeing the quality of the organisation and logic of the calculations goes a long way toward gaining confidence in the design.  You don't have to follow line by line (or ream after ream of computer output) to know what to look for.

It sounds like in the case reported here that the calculations either didn't exist, were incorrect, or were not suitable for submission.  The OP's insistence on seeing them has led to a better result.   

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

Quote (hokie66):

It depends on the qualifications and experience of the reviewer.

I agree with that.

Per graybeach - I think it is correct that for specialized structural entities, where the owner many times knows more about their system than the engineer (state bridge depts., graybeach's firm, for example) perhaps submitting calculations offers the owner a chance to provide QA on the project.

My perspective is more toward building designs where many times reviewers are either city inspector-types or outside structural engineers.  And with these, many times (not all) they don't go through the full calculations anyway.

Good thread.

 

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

As to reviewing each and every detail of the calculations...  
H%^^ no!  

I just picked and chose what concerned me considering the structure being reviewed, digging and verifying.  If I found things that in my opinion I should not have been found, I dug deeper.  If not, I didn't review beyond my norm.  

I have seen engineers, good engineers, make mistakes more than once, including myself.  No one is perfect, and a system of checks and balances is good in my opinion.    

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

RE: PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit"

Even in my own company, "reviewing" is required but not at all defined.  I've had complaints from management that I should not have so many comments on sealed documents, and once I actually had a 60 foot long steel track fly off the side of a cliff due to failed brackets (thankfully no one was hurt) and got a good talking to for it.  In the latter case, the track was not part of what I was asked to review but I still sort of got blamed.  I keep photos of the latter at the ready so I can quickly respond to the former.

I pretty much do exactly what Mike does.  I look at the load path, do a few spot checks, and dig deeper as required.

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