×
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

Engineer charged in roof collapse
7

Engineer charged in roof collapse

Engineer charged in roof collapse

(OP)
This guy sounds like he was telling the client what they wanted to hear, instead of the truth, and knew very well the roof was in bad shape. If this is proven to be true, then throw the book at him. Also, with something of this much importance, why this wasn't all in writing is very suspicious in and of itself. Even if I discover problems with a structure accidentally, I disclose this in writing to the owner and the building department.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

a2mfk,
The Algo Centre Mall collapse in Elliot Lake has been the subject of much discussion here. If you search the site, you will find several threads, including links to the public enquiry, which took many months.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

(OP)
Thanks Hokie, surprised I just discovered the story.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

The lesson as always: don't put a client's wishes ahead of your own ethics. Don't risk your entire reputation (and potentially your freedom) to make money on one project.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

Yes. Being Mr. Nice Guy does not always bode well for your pocketbook, or reputation.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

Makes me feel better about the times I’ve had to stand up and say “no way”……and get grilled for it. A lot of times the contractor will have the client’s ear and he’ll tell him all sorts of stuff that’s just baloney.

Even worse can be the internal pressures in some organizations to green light some things. I’ve had it out with a few project managers over stuff like this before.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

3
Maybe it's a good time to quote this:

THE careful text-books measure
(Let all who build beware!)
The load, the shock, the pressure
Material can bear.
So, when the buckled girder
Lets down the grinding span,
'The blame of loss, or murder,
Is laid upon the man.
Not on the Stuff - the Man!

(From Hymn of Breaking Strain by Rudyard Kipling)

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

It appears that the engineer was browbeaten by the owner into changing his report to facilitate financing. Had this not been the case, he would honestly have reported that the structure was at risk of collapse and needed repair.

I have never felt comfortable giving a structural report on a building indicating that everything looks okay (even if it does) because it is always possible to miss something during an inspection. The fee simply cannot be adequate to compensate for the liability. For that reason, as a small consultant, I always tried to avoid that type of project.

BA

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

BA,

I refer to that as switching occupations from being an engineer to being an insurance company (not insurance agent). For a few hours worth of fee the engineer becomes liable for anything that might happen to the building. That's not engineering; that's insurance. And it's not worth it.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

Yes indeed, Archie. That is the way I look at it too.

BA

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

Whoever it was that like that poem pasted above might also like this one, Cold Iron, also from Kipling. I've got the first stanza pasted to the inside of my steel book and here it is pasted below. Just a little engineering verse, I suppose. The full poem contains a surprise ending, fyi.

"GOLD is for the mistress - silver for the maid -
Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade!"

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,
But Iron - Cold Iron - is master of them all."

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

Quote:

I have never felt comfortable giving a structural report on a building indicating that everything looks okay (even if it does) because it is always possible to miss something during an inspection. The fee simply cannot be adequate to compensate for the liability. For that reason, as a small consultant, I always tried to avoid that type of project.

I worked with a guy who always had some weasel words (in the report) to get out of that (something along the lines of: we just looked at what we were alerted to...yadda yadda). I love disclaimers. smile

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

BA, I used to get about one of those requests per week. I would turn them down as politely as possible.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

When I mentioned my policy to another consulting engineer, his comment was..."We always do a thorough inspection and charge an appropriate fee". While I admire his courage, I didn't change my policy.

BA

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

It's easy money. Write a quick report and collect a fee. No hard work done. The down side is, though, that there might come a day when the other party expects to collect a fee just as quickly...and that one will be MUCH larger...

Insurance is a legitimate line of business where such risks are pooled and offset. An engineer's not in a position to do that. It's a foolish thing to play with.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

Not that I disagree with BA and Archie, but there is a flip side. If building inspections are not done by qualified engineers, then who?

Adequately formulated disclaimers are essential, as it is impossible to report on what cannot be seen.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

Hokie, I agree with you but the problem is that the owners are often looking for a report to satisfy the bank or lending agency which is funding the purchase of a building. The owner feels the building is okay as it is and that the report is "just a formality".

The bank is unwilling to accept the kind of disclaimers the engineer needs in order to protect himself. Frequently the bank has its own forms which it requires the engineer to sign, virtually guaranteeing the structural adequacy of the building.

I recall one clause in the bank's form which said "I certify that there are no steel strands or cables used for pre-stressing within the building or anywhere on the property". Their reason for this was they had been stung by problems with unbonded pre-tensioned systems in the past. How can anyone sign such a clause as that even if the drawings show a structural steel building? But if you don't sign it, the client doesn't get his financing. Catch 22, I'd say.

BA

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

Well, good point, Hokie. I guess there are degrees and nuances to such things. And part of that, I suppose, is discerning who is really interested in an evaluation of their building's condition and who just wants a piece of paper to facilitate a real estate transaction.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

All wise counsel, but I think it is preaching to the converted. It is the people who are npot reading this site, who maybe should be.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

BA,
I agree that there are forms which cannot be ethically used without substantial modification. But the quote you referenced would in many cases be verifiable, and I think the bank is well within its rights of insisting on that statement, or something similar. If a bank or any client just wants a signoff on a standard form, I agree with you that refusing the commission is the right thing to do.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

I see the risk you are talking about BA, but I guess in all the numerous (many) "forensic" structural investigations that I've done over the years I've never ever said the building is "OK".

My reports always include a description of the building, observations, conclusions, and recommendations.

Most of these reports are initiated by some particular issue (settling foundation in a corner, crack in a wall, etc.)
My reports describe the conditions seen, what those particular conditions might mean, and what I think needs to happen.

I also end each report with something like this: "The observations, conclusions and recommendations in this report are based upon visual examinations of the exposed structural elements at the time of our visit. There may be conditions that were not visible that could affect the conclusions and recommendations. This report is not intended to guarantee or warranty that the entire structural system, or its parts, are safe and meet the provisions of the building code unless specifically stated."

Now I know that if something goes bad - all hell will break loose and my disclaimer above may not be entirely protective. But after 30+ years of doing this I've not had a problem (knock on wood).

I also agree with hokie66 that there is some level of obligation when building owners call for help on a crack or similar issue.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

This discussion is great and I myself have had worries about writing reports on existing structures for fear of the unknown. In this particular instance, it appears as if the items in question were visible and the engineer saw their condition and made two different conflicting statements as to their condition. Had the connections been hidden and the engineer placed JAE's disclaimer on the report do you think he wouldn't have been found at fault? My guess is that he would have not lost his license.

The comments about insurance are quite funny because I have always thought of myself as a cheap insurance salesman. For a relatively small fee, I am basically giving my clients the ability to file a claim against me for as long as my insurance policy is open (no matter what the statue of limitations say as they can always be pierced by a cunning lawyer).

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

JAE... your statement is generally included in the first couple of paragraphs... along with other disclaimers.

Dik

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

(OP)
I think we can all agree that it appears this engineer was negligent and perhaps made false statements. This is an extreme example of a bad and unethical forensic engineer. But I would not let this extreme example scare you away from doing forensic investigations or other structural assessments.

I agree with JAE and his report verbiage. I have probably done 1500+ forensic investigations, usually in relation to very specific issues. You always state the scope of the investigation, and you never overstate your conclusions. But the bulk of these have been in reference to an insurance claim about a very specific problem. Besides the occasional letter from another engineer who disagrees with my findings, I have never been questioned in regards to , "What about the problems with X,Y,Z ?", when that was not part of my scope. If you pay a mechanic to only change your oil, and that is it, he is not at fault if your timing belt blows out as you leave the parking lot. It is all about agreeing upon a specific scope of services.

In BA's example, when working with banks and similar property owners/managers, if you are doing a property condition assessment, again you must be very clear what your scope was, because they can push the boundary and ask for very general qualifications. And bottom line, be prepared to walk away from a possible project if the client is asking something you cannot deliver for the fee. I am sure we have all just scared clients off on purpose from a rather risky job by giving them a fee you knew they wouldn't like, but was the only way you could do the job correctly. For all you know the other two engineers they ask for fees from do the same thing and you get the job with an adequate fee for your time and efforts.

When asked to asses a structure in an ambiguous way, you can qualify your conclusions with something like:
"No materials were removed during our investigation, nor was any destructive testing performed. Therefore, based on the visual observations performed during our limited investigation, there were no indications of a reduction in strength of _______________. We also did not note any other distress that would be indicative of ______________."



RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

You forgot that little blurb that the geotechnical engineers always include, which is to say that they recommend that they be hired to do inspection during construction as well.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

There's a lot more that could go into that letter I'm sure. But it sort of shows everything that an engineer shouldn't do in a report.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

I gat asked by lenders occasionally to report that a building in "structurally sound". I always ask them for the definition.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

a colleague recently informed me that geotechnical engineers a few years ago officially limited their liability/responsibility for soil values/behavior in their reports to exclude any abnormality in the soil not visually inspected or tested.....maybe someone can elaborate on this with accurate info....but it sound like something that could be useful to structural engineers for inspections...

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

(OP)
SAIL3- Now that I have worked for several years for a company that also does geology and geotech (in Florida), I think that is a fair enough disclaimer. If an owner/client only wants to do a few SPTs on a site, then they are taking a risk that something bad could get missed. I was surprised by the difference in geology just from one side of a house to the other in the results of 10' hand augers (ex sand in one, bad plastic clay in another). A geotech doesn't have any magic powers to see into the ground, so they go off the test data, just that simple. Maybe there is a pocket of plastic clay or organics that does not get discovered until excavation starts.

Case Study 1:
Early on in my career there was a big legal battle on a design-build project as it relates to organic soils that were discovered during construction. It required a lot of excavation and bringing in fill to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, which was not anticipated because there were no SPTs in that area of the property. I don't know any details such as- did the geotech request testing in that area and someone denied it based on budget...

Cast Study 2:
Client brings our company in on a huge industrial project after the first geotech study revealed possible sinkhole activity in their SPTs. Our company goes back and does a LOT of geophysical testing of the entire site, which would have been better to do before the SPTs. A lot of problematic areas were identified for possible further exploration by SPT, avoiding by altering the site design, or remediation. The entire property had been cleared and a lot of site work had been done, but no foundations were dug at least...

Bottom line - you cannot predict very accurately what is going on underground, so you have a testing vs "acceptable risk" equation to balance.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

a2mfk...yes I have always considered the GeoTechs as taking the greatest risk in a project....
this engineer also stated that up until that liability limit was introduced that the Geotechnical Engineering profession was the most litigated/sued profession...Structural engineering inspections have alot of the same issues that the Geotech engrs have to deal with and could well do with a standardized libility limit format...

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

(OP)
SAIL- Unfortunately for SEs there is SO much variety out there in terms of scope, the structure, the problem, you have to write a detailed, individualized scope for each project, and detail exactly what you are going to do, and what your findings were based on. On the other hand, having been to several depositions now, and been asked a lot of basic questions about my investigations, it is my experience that "the law" usually doesn't expect us engineers to go above and beyond reasonable expectations, nor do they think we have X ray vision or other superpowers.

But, be smart and protect yourself in writing!

Also, as far as licensing goes, in Florida I believe they are on the soft side of things when it comes to disciplinary action, not to be confused with civil litigation. Cases in point:
http://www.fbpe.org/documents/published/Meetings%2...

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

shockednoevilnosmiley

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

On my apple box...

I disagree... although I think he was wrong... if there is anything in the report that may prevent him from getting a fair trial, then he should be entitled to the benefit of the doubt. It is more important for him to get a fair trial... any of the information presented can be made available to the court.

Off my apple box...

I've gone over the report prepared for the OPP... and, in my opinion, it is poorly done.

Dik

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

dik,

Can you elaborate on why you thought the report was poorly done? I assume you are referring to the NORR report.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

DamsInc:
Differences are based on my normal preparation of Forensic Reports and may not be errors, just differences in the way I prepare stuff:
• The Without Prejudice is buried at the bottom of the page, in the fine print with the third party disclaimer, and could be disqualified by a Court.
• There does not appear to be a legal address for the mall stipulated; I couldn’t even find the province in Canada where the Algo Centre Mall is located. I would have identified it as 151 Ontario Avenue, Elliot Lake, Ontario.
• There does not appear to be a statement that any of the professionals were advised that their work was being reviewed.
• There does not appear to be a statement that any of the professionals were advised that material was retained as evidence for testing to permit them to undertake any other testing.
• There is no disclosure of conflicts. The report was prepared by an architectural firm. The problems may have been architectural and architects in Ontario are self insured. The architect prepared the drawings the engineer sealed.
• There is a lack of consistency in the spelling of the affected firms, and only one or two are correctly identified by their proper legal company name.
• The report was prepared for the Ontario Provincial Police, commonly known as the OPP. Only on the cover page is Ontario Provincial Police noted and no definition of ‘OPP’ is given. For the balance of the report, OPP is used.
• NORR was referrecd to by several names; it did not appear that NORR LIMITED was mentioned.
• Mr. Bryan England, one of the protagonists, was referred to as Brian England as well as Bryan England. There are several other individuals referred to in an imprecise manner.
• There is reference to a W25x100 beam.
• There numerous uses of imprecise wording: “can be said to narrowly meet”, indicated, appears, “the structural portion of the drawings … indicates a layer”, appears, implies, “is probably adequate”. “seems like a reasonable assumption”, “probably accounts for some”, “were almost completely gone”, etc.
• There is no stipulation that either the engineer or architect were registered at the time. The best that comes out, “no OAA license is present although it appears the OAA seals at the time did not include a license number. NORR has no reason to believe that James W. Keywan was not a member of the OAA in good standing at the time of the drawings being issued.”
• There are emotional terms used: victims, tragic, thwarted, etc.
• There are colloquial terms used, including: “…and in some cases the butterfly effect leading to the collapse in 2012…”. This implies some random causality. “It is worth noting”, “It was abundantly clear”, “In other words”, and the winner, “…nipped in the bud.”
• The building code in effect at the time should specifically be mentioned, including any revisions.
• There is a hierarchy of parts to the Ontario building code that is stipulated at the front of the code: Part, Section, Subsection, Article, Sentence, Clause, and Subclause. There is no consistency in the report. Articles were referred to as Sections and Subsections, Sentences were referred to as Subsections, Sentences were referred to as Sections, Articles and Sentences were referred to as Paragraphs and Sections, and the list goes on… maybe a dozen or two.
• There is no consistency in referring to Standards: CAN3 A23.3 should maybe be referred to as CSA Standard A23.3-M77. The reference in the CISC Steel Handbook (in effect at the time) is CSA Standard A23.3-60.
• Reference is made to CISC S16-09 and it should be CISC Steel Handbook, 10th Edition, or CSA Standard S16-09.

There are numerous technical errors… and the list goes on. It would take another page or two…

Dik




RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

dik,

Thanks for your list - I think it is a great reminder to all practicing engineers of how we can improve our own reports. I noted many similarities between this list and the 3 Powerpoint presentations that you have previously posted elsewhere in regards to this investigation report.

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds - Albert Einstein

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

Thanks for the list, very informative. Most of what you wrote here seems to be related to sloppy legal/technical language and presentation. Would you consider any of the "technical" errors to be of a serious nature?

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

Technical errors can be the death of a report. I've not testified where one of my statements has been technically incorrect, but, I suspect as an expert witness you could become really uncomfortable. Some of the interesting statements with [page]:

“In addition, both options would require removal of unsound concrete from the soffit of the hollow core panels…” [19]

“According to Clinkett, the typical way to balance out HCS panels in order to achieve the desired slope in the roof was to place Masonite pads under them.” [32]; this went unchallenged.

“Precast hollow core panels are manufactured in a plant where the strands are prestressed and they are cast in forms and assembled in various incremental sizes…” [76]

“Current OBC requirements state that any major renovations to a roof assembly (involving substantial removal of existing material) require the renovated assembly to conform with “all other Parts” – which refers to the balance of OBC.” [64] This is incorrect; the OBC has a Part 11 for renovations to existing structures.

The scope of the report is not well defined... it is stipulated to be several things within the report. The report makes the same error that the engineer charged makes; it does not provide for exclusions.

“The design of the roof assembly…can be said to narrowly meet the requirements of Part 4 of the OBC (1975)…” [67]. Within the body of the report it lists nearly a dozen items that do not comply. This could be a significant error and open to challenge. Three notable ones: “The second is the structural insufficiency of the HCS.” [v]
“The flexural capacity of the beam [at the failed connection], when evaluated using CSA S16-1969 and using the 120 psf and 130 psf loads on either side of the beam is found to be insufficient by 13%.” [77]. “The design drawings do not clearly state what the design superimposed dead and live loads are.” [72] THis is a code requirement.

Dik






RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

Why did the OPP hire an Architectural firm to conduct/write the report on a Structural Engineer's work? Were they trying to appear impartial, or as having taken a holistic view?

While I am not as experienced as other's in the forum (Dik for example), I have done a fair amount of Forensic work... I've yet to meet an Architect who knows much about the field, or who practices regularly therein. Even building science is normally Engineers!

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

NORR has an engineering group... but, the firm is predominantly Architectural. They are a 'spin-off' of the Parkin group... one of the more famous Architectural Firms in Ontario/Canada. The problem is that if the building envelope and parkade is deemed Architectural, then there may be some insurance issues where the Architect (OAA) may be liable. I'm not aware if they have 'a statute of limitation'.

Dik

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

Thanks for sharing those poems, Archie264.

RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse

Sweet,

My pleasure. I've decided that if I can't be a good engineer at least I can sit around reading poetry.bigsmile

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