Structural engineering responsibility to the public
Structural engineering responsibility to the public
(OP)
I'm trying to make sense out of this experience...
A local GC asked me to do the structural engineering for a residential pop-top addition. The house is located in a 130 mph wind gust area. The GC wanted to eliminate many of the critical first story interior walls (which were probably functioning as wall bracing). He also added several new windows that reduced some of the exterior shear walls to only 14 in. width. The design was even more complicated because the existing exterior sheathing was fiberboard with very wide nail spacing. I was finally able to make the design work using a lot of hold-down bolts, a steel moment frame inside a wall, interior OSB sheathing to increase shear capacity, etc.
The GC demanded that I remove all the special details because they were too expensive. When we eventually parted ways, he said he knew another SE who was willing to delete all the hardware from my design and resubmit it.
At that point I felt ethically obligated to follow-up. I eventually asked the city planning office to show me the submittal. Just as the GC promised, the lateral design was virtually non-existent. All wind-resistance hardware was gone. The pop-top walls were just glued to the steel beams supporting them. Even the gravity design wasn’t good – the steel beams would have crushed the top plates that they rested on. There were also some load-bearing walls around a stairwell that were discontinuous at the border between floors (without connecting to any diaphragm).
I wrote a detailed letter describing all the structural problems and sent it to the homeowner and our state board of engineering licensure. The other engineer responded that all his volunteer work shows that he has the highest ethical standards. I just received a copy of the Board’s decision – they say they have insufficient information to conclude there was a violation of the practice act so they are dismissing my complaint. The homeowner is satisfied that his house is well-designed and blames me for worrying him with a false alarm.
What just happened? Is there some kind of positive moral that can be learned from this? Does this kind of situation usually turn out this poorly?
A local GC asked me to do the structural engineering for a residential pop-top addition. The house is located in a 130 mph wind gust area. The GC wanted to eliminate many of the critical first story interior walls (which were probably functioning as wall bracing). He also added several new windows that reduced some of the exterior shear walls to only 14 in. width. The design was even more complicated because the existing exterior sheathing was fiberboard with very wide nail spacing. I was finally able to make the design work using a lot of hold-down bolts, a steel moment frame inside a wall, interior OSB sheathing to increase shear capacity, etc.
The GC demanded that I remove all the special details because they were too expensive. When we eventually parted ways, he said he knew another SE who was willing to delete all the hardware from my design and resubmit it.
At that point I felt ethically obligated to follow-up. I eventually asked the city planning office to show me the submittal. Just as the GC promised, the lateral design was virtually non-existent. All wind-resistance hardware was gone. The pop-top walls were just glued to the steel beams supporting them. Even the gravity design wasn’t good – the steel beams would have crushed the top plates that they rested on. There were also some load-bearing walls around a stairwell that were discontinuous at the border between floors (without connecting to any diaphragm).
I wrote a detailed letter describing all the structural problems and sent it to the homeowner and our state board of engineering licensure. The other engineer responded that all his volunteer work shows that he has the highest ethical standards. I just received a copy of the Board’s decision – they say they have insufficient information to conclude there was a violation of the practice act so they are dismissing my complaint. The homeowner is satisfied that his house is well-designed and blames me for worrying him with a false alarm.
What just happened? Is there some kind of positive moral that can be learned from this? Does this kind of situation usually turn out this poorly?





RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
That's an interesting perspective. Maybe the other engineer knew that wind resistance features were required and he really did remove them because of a lack of ethics. There's a strong profit motive to do that -- the design will take less than half as many hours, so you can underbid ethical engineers.
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
Remember...if you have three engineers review something, you'll get at least 4 opinions.
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
Yes, there are always other good approaches. I proposed a few to the GC so he could look for the one with lowest cost. But it's difficult to find adequate lateral load paths in the final submittal. Only one side of the pop-top has a good shear wall. A perpendicular side is supported on a very perforated fiber board wall with minimal shear capacity. The other two sides are supported by steel beams on HSS posts (providing zero shear resistance).
I've been wondering if the Board expects complaints to be proved point-by-point with calculations. My letter was more like a list of locations where failures would occur below 130 mph. Maybe that's what they meant by "insufficient information."
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
The world is not a perfect place.
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
Most engineering boards are just as Compositepro noted. They are constrained by law and their power is limited by law (as it should be). This boils down to differing opinions, neither of which has been proved against the other. Do as hokie66 noted...contact the building official if you feel strongly that the structure has been compromised. Be prepared; however, that the owner is already pi$$ed at you so tread carefully or you'll be the subject of a civil suit.
As a professional courtesy, you might want to sit down with the other engineer and let him explain to you his approach and you do the same.
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
Thanks. That's a great idea. I actually talked with the local planning office before contacting the Board. They said they had no one qualified to review the drawings and suggested that I bring it to the attention of some other entity with authority.
I'm satisfied that I've fulfilled my duty to inform and have probably eliminated liability in case of a failure. What concerned me so much about this particular situation is that a failure wouldn't just result in financial loss (as a foundation problem might). A failure could easily result in loss of life. I don't want to be thinking that I just made a minimal effort or only took care of my own interests.
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
When the homeowner is not interested in hearing how their home is (possibly) structurally deficient, what more can you do? Just as Ron said above, to pursue beyond what you have already done may be interpreted by the homeowner as harassment.
In situations like these, I find that it is all but impossible to protect people from themselves.
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
Pick your battles carefully. You will do far more for public safety by continuing to do good work in the future than risking career damage over this incident.
Usually? No. Sometimes? Sadly, yes.
That could be a code for, "I've got connections in this community. Don't mess with me."
And perhaps that's the way the state board and the building department heard it as well. They are trading the odds of a future event (a 130 MPH wind gust and structural failure) for almost certain current grief.
In my opinion, someone's first defense of their ethics should be related to their professional performance. I'm the biggest jerk in town, but at least my designs don't fall down. Or burn up. (I'm an EE.)
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
Hopefully nothing ever happens, and even if it does, you are protected.
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
(This is based on DMAIC training I went to where the Challenger Space Shuttle incident came up. I suggested that from memory part of the cause was that management ignored engineering concerns or something like that, the response from the HR guy helping conduct the training was that maybe engineering should have pushed their case more or something along those lines.)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
"The Impact of Misinformation
The manner in which misinformation influences top management has been illustrated by former Associate Administrator for Space Flight Jesse Moore.
"And then we had a Flight Readiness Review, I guess, in July, getting ready for a mid-July or a late July flight, and the action had come back from the project office. I guess the Level III had reported to the Level II Flight Readiness Review, and then they reported up to me that-they reported the two erosions on the primary (O-ring) and some 10 or 12 percent erosion on the secondary (O-ring) on that flight in April, and the corrective actions, I guess, that had been put in place was to increase the test pressure, I think, from 50 psi [pounds per square inch] to 200 psi or 100 psi-I guess it was 200 psi is the number-and they felt that they had run a bunch of laboratory tests and analyses that showed that by increasing the pressure up to 200 psi, this would minimize or eliminate the erosion, and that there would be a fairly good degree of safety factor margin on the erosion as a result of increasing this pressure and ensuring that the secondary seal had been seated. And so we left that FRR [Flight Readiness Review] with that particular action closed by the project ," 16
Not only was Mr. Moore misinformed about the effectiveness and potential hazards associated with the long-used "new" procedure, he also was misinformed about the issue of joint redundancy. Apparently, no one told (or reminded) Mr. Moore that while the Solid Rocket Booster nozzle joint was Criticality 1R, the field joint was Criticality 1. No one told him about blow holes in the putty, probably resulting from the increased stabilization pressure, and no one told him that this "new" procedure had been in use since the exact time that field joint anomalies had become dangerously frequent. At the time of this briefing, the increased pressure already had been used on four Solid Rocket Motor nozzle joints, and all four had erosion. Erosion was the enemy, and increased pressure was its ally.
While Mr. Moore was not being intentionally deceived, he was obviously misled. The reporting system simply was not making trends, status and problems visible with sufficient accuracy and emphasis."
Above quote from http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch7.htm
Maybe HR need to get out more.
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: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
I've made one licensure complaint, ever. It was in relation to a boiler manufacturer who supplied us a unit with multiple deficiencies, which in my professional opinion WOULD have led to serious injury or death had the unit been put into service before we'd caught and corrected them. After many years grinding through their system, the complaints committee concluded that it wasn't certain that the unit would have failed, though how they could have drawn that conclusion on a unit where 300# fittings were used on a 1500# unit, and a relief valve protecting two connected units was set at the HIGHER of the two MAWPS, is beyond me. I think their real issue, which was missing from their written judgment, was that they considered the engineer's duty of care to extend only to the design, which in this case was limited to the vessels rather than the piping and relief valve settigns- even though the scope of the engineer's responsibility DID extend to the boiler piping and protection in my opinion by law...
I learned a valuable lesson about our local licensure body during that process: the only area they're competent to assess professional misconduct is in relation to structural engineering issues, since in our region only structurals have any meaningful right to practice- a right granted by 3rd party legislation and regulation (i.e. building departments requiring stamped drawings). The rest of us continue to practice under a putative exemption from licensure which doesn't exist in law but which exists by virtue of zero meaningful enforcement. We have no profession. And since medical errors kill probably 100x as many people as engineering errors, I guess that's OK as far as the general public is concerned- we're not killing enough people to matter. The rare occasions where there are deaths that might be tied to professional misconduct, such as the Algo Mall parking rooftop parking garage collapse, they go after the responsible party with criminal negligence charges after the fact and everybody is satisfied (a 64 yr old structural eng has been charged in that case, but is innocent until proven otherwise). Cynical? Sure- but that cynicism has been well earned.
To the OP: you've already exercised your professional responsibility. You're covered. That building isn't putting anyone's life in imminent risk: if they're still in it during 130 mi/hr wind gusts, they're stupid- and if they get injured, nobody will be there with an anemometer to know that it wasn't a 150 mi/hr gust that did the damage.
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
IMHO, you are still open to liability if this thing falls down because you have not conveyed your concerns to the authorities that have direct power to condemn the structure due to code deficiencies.
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
But you will make some enemies with this if you haven't already.
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
For what it's worth, I think you did the right thing. Speaking as a building official and also an expert witness (building code) - there are many building officials that simply aren't worth a damn.
You have covered yourself. You have alerted the homeowner. You have alerted the other engineer. Many times, a monied interest will trump a safety interest. I see this constantly.
If it happens again, please do the exact same thing. At least you can always say that you went the extra mile for safety. Thank you and good luck.
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
RE: Structural engineering responsibility to the public
Is it possible that your house fell under the IRC code and you were designing it for IBC?
If not, after the next hurricane or typhoon comes ashore, you might get to say "I told you so".
PE, SE
Eastern United States
"If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death!"
~Code of Hammurabi