×
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

Questionable Calculations
12

Questionable Calculations

Questionable Calculations

(OP)
I have a situation where I’m monitoring a project as an owner’s rep. We have encountered a situation where the owner is requesting structural calculations to ensure an installation is acceptable. In doing this it has come to light in writing that the designers on this project took another project’s design documents and did not evaluate the original design. Along with that comment in writing when I reviewed the calculations produced I am seeing glaring errors in the calculations. I am asking about roof diaphragm blocking and the designer calculated the uplift forces on a truss and compared that reaction to the shear diaphragm capacity of plywood out of the code. They did not reduce the value from the table as required either. So I am seeing clear deficiencies in the small amount of calculations provided. I’m a licensed Structural Engineer in the state I’m working in. Knowing the Structural Engineering Statues in the state and knowing it is illegal to not evaluate a design you stamped for and seeing the glaring issues with fairly simple calculations…..

Do I have an obligation to report this to the state board as a complaint?

Can a complaint be made anonymously and are they reviewed in the same manor?

RE: Questionable Calculations

2
You can probably file an anonymous compliant, but wouldn't you rather talk to the engineer and one engineer to another? Maybe they have done a thousand of these and don't need to check the roof diaphragm calcs.

There may be mitigating circumstances. Don't drag the guys name through the mud unless you've given them a chance to make things right themselves.

One thing I have learned is that if you are going to lay into someone, you better be damn sure that you are right.

When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.

-R. Buckminster Fuller

RE: Questionable Calculations

I agree with manstrom, especially if it hasn't been built yet: I'd try to resolve it with the EOR and fix it there rather than filing a complaint with the board. (You don't want to get a rep as someone who does that anyway when there are other avenues available.)

RE: Questionable Calculations

I also agree with manstrom, and his advice is actually required in the ASCE code of ethics. That said, I work on the owner's side too and see egregious errors all the time. In 10 years of doing this, I haven't reported anyone to the board but probably should have in some cases.

RE: Questionable Calculations

I agree too. Do not burn your bridges. Some day you may need the same consideration.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Questionable Calculations

I agree with all of the above.

However, if the EOR doesn't provide an adequate response; then you have an obligation to file a report.

If we as engineers do not adequately police ourselves, then the politicians will.

Mike Lambert

RE: Questionable Calculations

(OP)
The structure of the building is installed. These deficient calculations were the requested response from the EOR. They authorized changes that when I review make the building structural inadequate. That is why we requested calcs. In doing so we were essentially told they took a design and copied it without verifying the design. A structural engineer for the EOR company produced the calc comparing uplift against diaphragm capacity. Another engineer produced shear wall calcs that did not include the connection from the roof to the shear wall or the connection between the gable truss and the top of the stick built wall. A third engineer highered by the contractor produced connection Calcs between the roof and the shear wall and the gable truss and the stick built wall, but only produced Calcs for the out of plane loads. Meaning the direct wind pressure on the wall and ignored the in plane loads that are required to make these connections performs as the required shear wall. The shear loads are substantial and where I'm seeing no chance the installation is structurally adequate. The questionable and deficient Calcs are the response to the owners concerns. The typical project the cm does is heavy civil. The cm highers the designer. I'm assuming I have a situation where I have civil engineer versed in bridges and road loading stamping my project that happens to be standard wood buildings. In my opinion I feel I have the cardinal sin of professional engineering which is stamping something you are no qualified to design.

RE: Questionable Calculations

Are you just looking at their calculations or have you calculated your own loads to check the connection? If you have done your own calculations do they meet the minimum requirements of the building code and current minimum engineering standards of the State?
What they have done may not be what you would have done. But you must look at what they could do before saying it does not work.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

RE: Questionable Calculations

(OP)
They have single 16d toenailed nails at 24" o.c. Worth approx 92 pounds each meaning a shear capacity of 46 pounds per foot. The required shear load is at least 300 pounds per foot. We are talking connections that are no where close to being adequate for any reasonable required load between the roof and shear wall.

RE: Questionable Calculations

Even if it is built, I'd still give them an opportunity to fix it (it's up to the owner whether he will cover the costs or they will). And I wouldn't assume anything about the design engineer's background, it could be just a oversight on his part......just let him fix it first.

RE: Questionable Calculations

Greatone76:

If this the nailing of the wall plate to the floor diaphragm, did the shear wall sheathing continue to the top of either the sill plate or wall double top plate below? If this is the case, then the 16d would have only to transfer the story shear, not the total shear.

Just a thought.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Questionable Calculations

(OP)
The change that was approved was from a direct connection from the roof sheathing to the double top plate of a shear wall that continued up to the roof level. This is a one story building. Instead of this the truss manufacturer submitted a gable truss that came out presheathed. They also had the roof overhang cantilever sit on top of the gable truss. The cantilever pieces sitting on top of the gable truss are attached to the roof sheathing and then only attached to the gable truss with single nails in each member giving me the single toenails at 24 in o.c. Also because the gable truss came out with sheathing the sheathing is broken between the gable truss and the top of the stick built wall, so the connection between the gable truss and the top of the stick built wall now becomes critical because the sheathing does not connect between the 2. They used more nails in this connection but I'm still seeing values that do not match the required loads there either.

RE: Questionable Calculations

Could you give us a sketch of the detail?

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

RE: Questionable Calculations

2
We of course do not have calcs in front of us, and, feeling sentiment expressed unanimously here and wondering why you don't talk to them?

Regarding your...".. capacity of 46 pounds per foot. The required shear load is at least 300 pounds per foot..."
What did they say?
a) "Yea, so what, we don't care."
b) "We disagree and here is why."
c) "omg, Thanks for catching that! We will rectify immediately!"
d) you haven't talked to them.

Regarding your... " Knowing the Structural Engineering Statues in the state and knowing it is illegal to .... " then you also where to find the answers to your a) "Do I have an obligation to report this to the state board as a complaint?" and b) "Can a complaint be made anonymously and are they reviewed in the same manor?"

Just curious as to what lies behind your wish for Anonymity, GreatOne ?

RE: Questionable Calculations

(OP)
The CM is part of a large organization and the owner is part of a larger organization. I'm a contractor to the owner. I have no avenue to make the connection to the EOR. I've done my job in alerting to the owner to the problem. I've gone above and beyond using my structural knowledge to educate them on the severity of the situation. I'm a peon on this project that shouldn't have the education, background or professional liscene I have.

I don't want to report anyone anytime. But my concern is that I'm aware of a situation that appears to be a problem. I'm looking for some advice on how to proceed. I don't have a clear way to simply communicate with the engineer. I understand that would be the best and I believe the owner has asked the question and it is going back to the engineer. If and when it gets ignored I'm trying to figure out what I'm obligated to do and what I can do and what others would do.

RE: Questionable Calculations

No vertical blocking at over framing?

No kickers at wall double top plate to roof?

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Questionable Calculations

(OP)
No blocking at the over framing. There is a single kicker at the middle of the wall.

RE: Questionable Calculations

Is there a name on the stamp on the drawings? Get their contact info through the licensing board (readily available through my board, at least) and call the engineer directly. The owner may not realize that this actually matters, or care. Hopefully the engineer will.

If the engineer doesn't, then your status on the project doesn't matter at all; file a complaint with the board. Document all your attempts to get this issue fixed, and do the right thing.

Please remember: we're not all guys!

RE: Questionable Calculations

4
For the love of God, call the darn engineer directly! Your avenue is called a telephone. I have done it a few times when I have no direct contractual relationship with the engineer.

Your concern appears warranted. By your sketch your primary concern is also easily fixed in 1 hour by a guy with a nail gun.

RE: Questionable Calculations

Is that the detail in the plans or what was done at the site?

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

RE: Questionable Calculations

(OP)
The gable detail on this particular shelter did not exist. The owner questioned the installation. These Calcs were the result of the question.

And yes the corrective action is a couple dozen Simpson A35 angle clips and an afternoon. I just have what appears to be a situation where the cm who highered the designer is pushing the designer to approve the installations as done by the contractor.

RE: Questionable Calculations

It sounds like you're questioning when this becomes big enough of an issue to go to your engineering board. I would say that this paragraph of the engineering code of ethics answers that: "Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required."

So, yes, if you feel this person has no business performing this design then you should notify your board.

That said, I agree 100% with the general sentiment here that this should be discussed informally with the other engineer prior to escalating this. I've seen both sides of this situation and nobody wins.

And, as far as I know, you can report to your state board anonymously but will probably be required to provide supporting statements and respond to comments by the engineer you're bringing the complaint against.

Maine Professional and Structural Engineer.
(Just passed the 16-hour SE exam, woohoo!)

RE: Questionable Calculations

There should be kickers at the rat runs, but there probably are not any rat runs either. Is there at least one at rat run at mid span?

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Questionable Calculations

In my opinion, you have a duty not only to alert the owner to the problem but to ensure that corrective measures are taken to remedy the situation. It is not mandatory to report the EOR to his professional association unless he displays unwillingness to accept your recommendations or shows reason why his calculations are adequate.

If you decide to make a complaint to the professional association, you will be the complainant and you may be required to attend and give evidence at a hearing of the Discipline Panel to decide whether or not disciplinary action is appropriate.

BA

RE: Questionable Calculations

I gotta ask Mike, what is a rat run?

RE: Questionable Calculations

dcarr:

It's a flat 2X member laid across top of the truss bottom chords of the trusses near panel points to hold them at the desired spacing. They also give some lateral stability to the truss bottom chord if connected to the end walls.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Questionable Calculations

For what it is worth, I'm on a licensing board and this is an easy call. As a professional licensed in the state, you have an obligation to protect the health safety and welfare of the public. If you suspect incompetency (which it appears that you do from your 15:08 post), this should be reported. Let the licensing board review it and make the call. Put your name on the complaint. It will make an investigation faster and easier for the board if more information is needed. Anonymous complaints often have no backup information and are then dropped for lack of evidence.

In my state, the respondent is not even aware a complaint has been filed until an investigation is complete and a decision has been made to prosecute. Even then, the name of the person filing the complaint is never reveled to the respondent but they will probably be able to figure it out anyway. Other states will be different. Feel free to call the board and discuss the complaint process.

Engineers need to protect the public and the profession by weeding out incompetency. This will never happen as long as we stand back and let things like this continue because we are afraid of offending someone. I know the engineering / construction business can be a close knit group and flushing out the weak and incapable may not be popular but it is the moral and ethical thing to do.

RE: Questionable Calculations

Well, at the risk of stirring up a hornet's list, I will have to disagree in part. I believe there is a big difference between an honest mistake, with a willingness to correct the situation, and repeated demonstrations of incompetence with no willingness to change. I cannot assess what is the true situation unless I know the individual and situation. Until then, I am one to give the benefit of the doubt, and not be so quick to condemn.

That should get it going...

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Questionable Calculations

(OP)
Yes there is one rat run down the middle. The ceiling of the structure at that intersection of the gable truss and framed wall provides reasonable stability to the joint in the out of plane direction.

It has been my observation through my interactions with the design group that they are not equipped to do structural design on buildings. When we first asked about diaphragm blocking requirements they repeatedly informed us that the truss manufacturer would have been the one to require or not require blocking in the diaphragm. The lateral analysis and diaphragm forces are clearly the responsibility of the EOR and have little to nothing to do with the truss manufacturer. We have previously requested structural calculations and the EOR will not produce the calcs, so the contractor has on multiple occasions highered their own Structural Engineer to produce and provide structural design for the errors made in the construction of the project. We can't even get the EOR to send a letter stating they agree with the contractor's structural engineer. We had a situation where it was determined that the foundation walls were placed out of the plumb. The design grouped used the head architect to respond via RFI that the foundation walls were out of plumb, but not enough to be a problem without producing an amount they were out of plumb or an amount that was acceptable. The architect should not be making that statement when a structural engineer stamped the drawings. It would be my guess the engineers I have participating in the project are PE engineers with civil backgrounds and are not qualified to do structural design of buildings. There has been many indications throughout the project that the design group is not acting in a professional manner. When I received in writing that the design group took some other projects design from another design group and said they did not verify the design I truly began to understand the underlying problem with the project and why we continued to run into problem after problem. The owner would find error in the installation the CM would say everything is fine and sometimes produce random e-mails or half answers from a variety of sources to tell the owner it is acceptable. The lack of original design and resistance to produce revised design is the underlying issue. We are all assuming when a change is request via submittal or RFI that the EOR is checking it and we are learning that this never happened and the more we check the more problems and questions arise.

RE: Questionable Calculations

The word is hired, not highered.

BA

RE: Questionable Calculations

Retained would be more appropriate.

BA

RE: Questionable Calculations

Woodman88 I read the thread and kind of got lost in the details of needing three public copies but got the gist of where it was headed regarding the board's involvement. I can appreciate the board unwillingness to intervene and become the referee to settle a difference of opinion on interpretation of a code provision. I'm not familiar with Arizona law but I suspect the building official has the authority to interpret the code and has final say for acceptance of the plans. As was suggested in the thread, contacting ACI for the proper interpretation would be a better approach to resolving the issue especially if the difference of opinion is a technical nuance that doesn't affect the adequacy of the structure. However, if it does, the board should be contacted and a well constructed argument presented to indicate the seriousness of the problem.

Msquared48 I generally agree with you. Engineers are expected to adhere to the generally accepted standard of practice. I don't like to make blanket statements but no plans are perfect and small errors in calculations or details are not reasons to file a complaint. As Greatone76 noted in his 4:09 response, there appears to be a competency issue much larger than just a couple bad details. From what he has described, it sounds like the engineers in question are practicing outside their area of expertise.


RE: Questionable Calculations

parapetguy
It is simple, in Arizona "ALL referenced codes have to be part of the public records" for the public to be able to review. As only the IBC is in the public record only the IBC is the building code for the Building Official to interpret. All reference engineering standards in the IBC are under the State board rules, not the city.
I am sure that the state you are in have the same requirements. If you will tell me the state you are in I will look up the laws, that you apparently won"t do yourself, to give you. Why you are on a licensing board without looking up the laws for your state concerning the engineering laws is beyond me.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

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