×
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

Using a Previous Design
2

Using a Previous Design

Using a Previous Design

(OP)
A project I am working on is going to replace a fence. The fence is being replaced because, basically, it’s old, weathered, and falling apart. The fence is in a very remote location and it is very expensive to get materials and people out to the location, so the previous engineer used a unique type of anchoring for the fence; it was easy and cheap to transport and construct. I would like to use a similar (almost identical) design for the new fence, but I can’t actually calculate or verify that the existing anchor system works, but it seems to have worked on the previous design for at least 20 years. Nobody else that I have talked to knows how to calculate capacity for these anchors either (other structurals and geotechnicals).

But my question isn’t technical; I have talked with other engineers in the office and I have talked to geotechnical engineers that are involved in the project. I’m a relatively new engineer, just got my PE a year ago, and would probably be stamping this drawing. Different anchorage systems for the fence that have been suggested by other engineers and the geotechnical engineers would be much more expensive (on the order of 10x more from my cost estimates) for the sole reason that we can’t calculate or actually verify that the previous design “works.”

My immediate thought is that it seems to have worked for the past 20 years, and conceptually I can see how it works, I just can’t calculate it. It’s not a life safety issue, if the anchorage failed the fence would just fall over (I suppose there is a chance somebody could be walking beside it, but that is very unlikely) which of course is undesirable but I also think is unlikely.

Would it be unethical, or bad engineering practice, to use this previous design since I can’t actually verify it for myself?

RE: Using a Previous Design

If you can understand conceptually how it works then you can quantify how it works and therefore you can analyse it.

RE: Using a Previous Design

It's your seal and it's your call. If you can somehow verify it will work....

RE: Using a Previous Design

Maybe a sketch would help?

Then you may get some comments that help erase the mystery.

RE: Using a Previous Design

(OP)
I understand the question seems vague but I purposefully avoided getting into any specifics about the design just because I feel that I’ve exhausted all options of coming up with a way to calculate the anchor capacity. The situation seems fairly unique and I didn’t want to provide details that would make the project obvious to anybody familiar with the specific technical issues (or maybe I’m just paranoid?). The anchor design isn’t revolutionary in that it uses soil to resist uplift forces, but the way that the anchor engages the soil isn’t very well known since this object is rarely, if ever, used for this purpose. It was more of a “this is readily available, light and compact, and cheap to throw on a barge.” I suspect little calculation was done with this anchor and was perhaps something that this engineer had previous experience with but I have not been able to contact the previous engineer. I’ve looked in all kinds of books, Google searches, literature searches, emailed everybody I know who might know something about this and have come up nothing.

The question is just basically: would you, personally, sign off on something without being able to verify the adequacy if it had been in place and apparently working satisfactorily for 20 years?

Obviously there are holes and technicalities in the question, like seismic design and extreme design events like that related to structures that might not have happened in the 20 years, there are probably other long term concerns in other disciplines that I’m not familiar with, but you are of course welcome to include that in your opinion.

Considering the additional cost and low importance of this fence I’m inclined to say it’s okay, I have also mentioned this situation to the owner, but the only response I get from anybody is a shrug and “if you want to.” As a newer PE I was just curious if anybody else had done something similar, or has chosen not to do something similar. Sorry if that’s a long explanation.

RE: Using a Previous Design

You've probably considered all of these, but here are some thoughts.

Maybe the fence was designed for lower loads. Maybe reverse engineer and see what wind your fence is capable of carrying.

Similarly, maybe the original designer used a lower safety factor. I've seen it done for continuous systems like this where the overstressing of one anchor doesn't mean the whole fence will overturn.

Also, I've never used soil anchors, but I assume they depend highly on type of soil, compaction, etc. Sounds like you are removing the old anchors. Won't this disturb the soil and require compaction in a "remote" area?

RE: Using a Previous Design

A sketch may help... we may have encountered one of these 'critters' before...

Dik

RE: Using a Previous Design

I person sly would not if I could not verify. Recently in UK a wall collapsed and killed a three year as she passed as ground was being back filled behind it. Unlikely yes. Put that on the gravestone. Would you want it on your concience

RE: Using a Previous Design

I must confess the OP's attitude strikes me as so cagey I wasn't inclined to help, but for goodness sake, get one of these magic sekrit things, install it in the ground, and pull it over with a tractor. repeat with a normal system. You have now validated the fence post. Total cost, installation of two fence posts and hire of a tractor and load cell for one day. Sheesh.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Using a Previous Design

(OP)
Sorry for appearing cagey, there were two reasons I didn’t post the specifics of the situation: I didn’t want to incriminate anybody and I didn’t want to discuss the technical aspects of the situation here. Maybe it would be hard to incriminate anybody from this site, but just wasn’t sure and didn’t think it was really necessary.

The original design was a #6 x 8’-0” rebar hammered into the ground and attached to a snow fence with a “U” clip that is installed in western Alaska. The problem really comes in when considering that this is going into permafrost. A standard driven pile would likely have to be embedded around 20’-0” into the ground just to prevent frost jacking considering the depth of the active layer. I can conceptually understand how the rebar is able to resist uplift but I have no references to understand how this will behave in frozen grounds. To test this I would have to wait until next fall to install the rebar when the ground is thawed and then wait the entire winter to see if it jacks out of the ground, but considering that these have been already installed for 20 years and appear to be working I didn’t think that was necessary. My question arose because it seemed like people around me said it wasn’t good enough to stamp something unless you can calculate it, which I didn’t think was necessary since they seem to have been working but I couldn’t find anybody that agreed and was just looking for some more input.

RE: Using a Previous Design

Google "anchors for permafrost"

About 1,990,000 results (0.39 seconds)

RE: Using a Previous Design

(OP)
I feel like I haven't done a good job of communicating my question... sad

I am capable of designing several types of anchors in permafrost, I am not capable of determining whether or not the specific anchor used on the previous design is adequate. Regardless of my capabilities, I have several engineers involved on the project that are helping me to address that issue. We have several options for other types of anchors but they are much more expensive. I am okay with specifying a more expensive anchor but I would like to think there was a justification for that expense.

My question has to do with the ethical implications of signing off on a design you can't numerically validate. It was just meant in a general sense.

RE: Using a Previous Design

If you can clearly use the existing anchors installation with 20 years of field service as the test data that qualifies the design, and 20 years of service meets the design criteria for the new installation, then document it that way, stamp the drawings and move along. I see no ethical issue with that. Quite frankly, I prefer calculations + testing + field data. However, field data is always trump as it literally is as close as you can get to real world testing!

-Tony Staples
www.tscombustion.com

RE: Using a Previous Design

What is the consequence of the fence failing? Can you design it for 5 or 10 psf or whatever, depending on the fence type? and the spacing? You can calculate the moment resistance of the rebar using the plastic section, and can ignore deflection?, seems to me like you can put some real numbers to it and show that it works or doesn't work.

Dik

RE: Using a Previous Design

I must admit, I'm intrigued by the idea of several engineers designing a snow fence that seems to be built from an 8ft rebar driven into the ground...sounds rather complex.

RE: Using a Previous Design

OK, to answer the question.

It only matters if it fails and you are sued.

At that point :

I copied something that worked before, even though I didn't understand it.

I didn't anticipate the conditions that led to the failure.

I made an error in my calculation.

Are effectively your defense options. There's no real difference in outcome is there?

RE: Using a Previous Design

Given your situation, without knowing anything else, I would be reluctant to provide professional endorsement just yet.

Who provided the professional endorsement of this design in the previous twenty years? Perhaps that (those) engineer (engineers) will be able to provide guidance with respect to the design parameters involved. Otherwise, I believe you would be in a position that, if professional endorsement of the design is required, some supporting calculations are probably also necessary to have on file.

How tall is the fence and what wind loads will be imposed? From that you can probably calculate a moment about the anchorage point; in combination with knowledge of the cable tension and the estimated force required to pull the rebar out of the ground, this might boil down to something that is adequately addressed by a calculation involving first or second year statics, and that might be good enough to put a stamp to. But I think at the very least, that level of analysis is warranted before stamping.

RE: Using a Previous Design

Actually, upon reflection...

I don't know where I got the notion of a cable from...

If it is just a vertical pile with a fence clipped to the top, oscillating loads will eventually loosen the rebar. I wouldn't stamp this.

RE: Using a Previous Design

(OP)
Okay, well, maybe I should have just done this sooner but here is a quick sketch of the fence. The fence supports are made up of 2x6's built into a triangle shape. I have data to obtain wind speeds and wind pressures. I can do the wood design. With statics it is very easy to resolve the forces and obtain an uplift reaction. The fence is attached to the rebar just a few inches above the ground surface, so the bending of the rebar ends up to be more-or-less negligible. The problem that I have is I am unable to determine the uplift capacity of the rebar. There are some things that complicate the calculation, like trying to determine a frost jacking force when the active layer freezes, that we just don't have good information on.

The area is almost completely free of people, the only likely outcome of a rebar anchor failure is a section of fence would tip over and the snow fence would not function as intended. Although a lawsuit would certainly be possible, I don't think that is a likely outcome. Of course if it did go to litigation I would be very susceptible and have little defense.

It surprised me that almost all of the engineers I have talked to around here (structural and geotechnical) seemed very obstinate about not using similar rebar anchors and seemed completely unwilling to consider that they have been (apparently) performing sucessfully for the past 20 years. I would not consider this if it was a life-safety issue, but I don't see it that way. I was just wondering if anybody had used a similar argument to back up any designs that they have stamped.

Anyways, most of the people I've talked to seem against it. I think I will concede and design new anchors at the higher cost. Once the estimates come in we will see if the client will want to revisit the previous anchors.

I appreciate the input.

RE: Using a Previous Design

Quote:

The question is just basically: would you, personally, sign off on something without being able to verify the adequacy if it had been in place and apparently working satisfactorily for 20 years?

The correct answer is NO.

As a licensed engineer you have an obligation to provide for the safety and welfare of the public.

Even if something worked for 20 years and yet you had no idea how it works, or you knew from calculations that it didn't provide adequate safety against failure, then you shouldn't sign off on a new design of that same assembly or structure.

I think your decision to design a new anchor system is exactly what a good engineer will do - think, and think some more, and come up with a solution that works and is safe.



RE: Using a Previous Design

I'm a bit confused by your concern about frost jacking in permafrost.

Frost jacking requires freeze-thaw cycles.

Permafrost never thaws.

RE: Using a Previous Design

(OP)
The top layer of soil in permafrost is called the active layer, it will freeze in the winter and thaw in the summer.

RE: Using a Previous Design

That picture is worth a thousand words.

You might want to just do the math around what is drawn, because *that* is way different than what I had pictured, and now that I see it, I can see *that* working rather well.

RE: Using a Previous Design

Seems from sketch in order for anchors to pull out the opposite side would need to fail in bearing or the whole system overturn. Would simply adding weight work?

RE: Using a Previous Design

(OP)
Yes, adding weight would work. The problem with adding weight is the shipping cost. The materials are getting barged out to the job site and the shipping cost is based on weight and volume. The shipping cost estimate for just the fence materials is already hovering around $100,000 which makes that option very unattractive. It would be less weight to use new anchors.

RE: Using a Previous Design

Well, that is a very sensible design, even if you can't think of a way of analysing it. The simple case where some depth of the ground suddenly increases in height, lifting the base of the fence, is easy enough, if you know the properties of the underlying permafrost layer. The tricky bit is finding out what would happen if the melting layer is melting at different rates, lifting the base of the fence unevely, so tending to pull one tent peg out at a time.

Given that the army and the oil industry have a fair amount of experience building stuff in permafrost I'm guessing the basic design parameters for permafrost are understood. So doesn't it boil down to examining (a) what is the likely distribution of uplift forces on the base of the fence? (b) waht force is required to pull one of the pegs out at what angle (c) how good is a given length of permafrost at resisting the forces in (b).

I'd expect some sort of statistical distribution as an answer, and you make the pegs longer to shift the pass/fail rate.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Using a Previous Design

(OP)
Yup Greg, that's pretty much it. The uplift at the base of the fence from the wind is easy to calculate. There is also uplift that is created from the active layer freezing (the frost jacking forces). The basic force balance is uplift from the wind plus uplift from the frost jacking has to be less than the allowable anchorage force of the rebar in the frozen soil.

The frost jacking and skin friction forces have been fairly well studied for typical posts and piles and these are easy anchors to design given the soils information, which we will have. We don't have adequate information about how rebar performs in these situations to be able to determine the answers to your questions (b) and (c). The difference is in the surface of the material you are embedding into the ground, a rougher surface will develop more force but not necessairly a proportional amount comparing the anchorage force and the frost jacking force, because they use different mechanisms to develop the force. The problem with making the pegs longer is they are more likely to buckle as they are hammered into the frozen ground since rebar is pretty flimsy compared to, say, 4" diameter std pipe. The geotechnical engineers involved in the project are very familiar with permafrost conditions, and we have some information about rebar available, but not enough to come up with anything consistient.

RE: Using a Previous Design

Can't you just 'repair' the old fence even if that means replacing every component in it?

Kind of like the janitor getting ready to retire who boasts about having had the same broom for 50 odd years, "and in all that time it's only had 5 new handles and 7 new heads".

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Using a Previous Design

(OP)
I considered the option of detailing repairs for all the individual types of failures, I even wrote up a narrative explaining all of the details; I decided against that for a few reasons. The shipping costs go up even more if you consider shipping out materials in several smaller packages. The cost of labor is a similar story since there is nobody on site who could do the repairs. You could of course ship all the materials out at once, but then why wouldn't you just do all the repairs at once when the laborers are out there? Also, the existing rebar, although almost all of it is still in place and appears to be working, is pretty heavily corroded and likely won't last a lot longer so then we're back to the same question: do we use the old design or do we come up with something new.

It would certainly be an interesting research project for some of the permafrost geotechites around here, but probably not enough time to figure out something useful for this project.

RE: Using a Previous Design

(OP)
I have seen several of the manuals produced by the Permafrost Technology Foundation and they are usually very good. I have quite a bit of experience designing in permafrost conditions. To get your PE in Alaska you have to pass a class in Arctic Engineering which coveres all these topics. (that wasn't meant to sound meant to sound elitest, just that I have a pretty good understanding of permafrost).

It's interesting to me that the link from the Illinois DOT suggests a similar type of anchorage for the fence. I didn't see where it shows any design data to determine the depth of embedment of the rebar which further suggests to me that this more of a "tried and true" method.

Thanks for the links!

RE: Using a Previous Design

my last comment. i assume your being employed to provide a proffesional design service. if you cannot verify it i suggest you do somethinh you can. any fool can copy the old drawing

RE: Using a Previous Design

(OP)
Is it foolish to copy a design that appears to have worked satisfactorily for 20 years? Or is it foolish to create a new design that costs roughly 10x more to “ensure” it works? (just playing devil’s advocate)

Again, this is a fence out in the middle of nowhere… literally. I wouldn’t consider doing anything like this if I felt in any way that it endangered anybody.

Either way, I appreciate the input.

RE: Using a Previous Design

SKIAK:
You're a class act, man. (gender neutral "man").

RE: Using a Previous Design

@Kenat - the 'repair' solution is the elegant solution to this problem.

@OP - no, you don't release designs that you don't understand the principles behind.

RE: Using a Previous Design

(OP)
I considered the repair option but I get back to the same situation because the rebar would likely have to be “repaired” (replaced) since a lot of it is rusting out. Again I am in the situation where I am putting that detail on my drawings and signing off on them. Is that any different?

I guess I take exception with the comment that I "don't understand the principles behind" the anchor. How many engineers understand load transfer between the threads of a nut and bolt and can calculate that the threads are capable of transferring the required loads? I would say that we all (okay, most of us?) understand the principles behind that load transfer, but not many are capable of the actual computation. A lot of the designs we use rely on testing, how about any of those post installed concrete anchors? Who can calculate those pullout values? I think we still understand the principles behind them.

There are 246 existing snow fences, with (6) rebar anchors each that appear to have successfully withstood 20 freeze-thaw cycles, 246 x 6 x 20 = 29,520 test cycles of this design. That’s probably not really fair since none of you had that information, but that’s getting a little more specific than I intended. Or maybe it doesn’t change anybody's opinion anyways?

RE: Using a Previous Design

Suppose it comes down to how confident you are the worst case loading required has been applied together with the weakest support conditions

RE: Using a Previous Design

(OP)
Yeah, that's the one thing I can't be sure of. I haven't yet looked into finding information about the wind speeds experienced over the last 20 years compared to design speeds. It could certainly be possible to experience a higher wind speed in the next 20 years and exceed the loading previously experienced… but I suppose if that happened I could just blame it on climate change! wink

RE: Using a Previous Design

This is a benign case considering the apparent low risk, but I'm concerned that as a relatively new engineer you might be on a slippery slope. "It hasn't failed before" is the same logic the folks at Morton Thiokol used to give the thumbs up for Challenger.

We all use codes and standards and cookbooks to do our work, but between education and experience they need to be applied correctly

RE: Using a Previous Design

A 20 year real life test across multiple units is a bit more than the O rings got. Incidentally the criterion Feynman said should have been used was to replace 'did not fail' by 'did not perform as expected', which would have dealt with the erosion issue.

So, since this is cost driven, is it worth inspecting all or some of the units in the field and checking that they have all performed as expected?


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Using a Previous Design

I think that the sketch provided by SKIAK would constitute a fairly good free body diagram that, at the very least, one could compute reaction forces from. Then the only question would be what soil conditions one would need to hold an eight-foot rebar in place in the postion(s) and angles shown.

Once that was done, one could go on to quantify a theoretical maximum wind speed, a safety factor, etc. until one obtained an "acceptability envelope".

If the results were acceptable, then certainly that would be good enough to stamp, would it not?

In the absence of calculations or proof of design acceptability by others, I would view it as incumbent upon myself to apply my own analysis, as right or wrong as that analysis might be, before considering stamping it. The other way to look at it would be, "OK, so if I have a fence that conceptually looks like this, how would I design it and back it up with calculations before I would be prepared to call it my own?".

The active word there is "own", because once you stamp it, you own it.

RE: Using a Previous Design

Not being critical of the design, just the decision to stamp the drawings...

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