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
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
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
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
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
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
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
BA
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
"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
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.
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
BA
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
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
Adequately formulated disclaimers are essential, as it is impossible to report on what cannot be seen.
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
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
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
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
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
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
Dik
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
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
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
Dik
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
This is the front end for a short 'letter type' of report.
Dik
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
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
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
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
http://www.fbpe.org/documents/published/Legal/Disc...
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/national/Charg...
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
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
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
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
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
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
“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
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
Dik
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
RE: Engineer charged in roof collapse
My pleasure. I've decided that if I can't be a good engineer at least I can sit around reading poetry.