Cheating on retaining wall calcs
Cheating on retaining wall calcs
(OP)
I am planchecking some plans for various sized retaining walls. The engineer is using Enercalc. The first thing I wondered is if the walls will need special inspection, so I looked down at the Masonry Data and saw that "NO" has been handwritten. However, the engineer also included the wall diagram graphic, which says "Spc Insp" right on it. I noticed that this has happened on almost every wall. Then I looked more closely, and on some of the taller walls the rebar sizes have also been handwritten, and this time the engineer corrected on the graphic too.
Obviously this is unethical. Is it something that I should report?
Obviously this is unethical. Is it something that I should report?






RE: Cheating on retaining wall calcs
ACI 530 mandates that all inspection be inspected. UBC, as I recall, left it up to the designer. I think not inspecting masonry is a mistake and it can yield some conservative designs that cost clients more.
Please elaborate
RE: Cheating on retaining wall calcs
The designing engineer has provided a set of calculations with the drawings, and he is using Enercalc for the retaining wall calculations. He has input his wall data and in most cases he has needed the increased stress values you get when you have the masonry specially inspected to make the walls work. Enercalc then notes that he is using special inspection values, and he has whited out the word "Yes" - meaning he needs special inspection - and handwritten "NO".
These are not corrections - these are building department submitted plans and calculations.
I know that owners and builders are always pressuring engineers to avoid requiring special inspection, so I am can see why this guy altered the calculations - in fact, now that I've looked at the walls and run some numbers, it appears that he has also altered some (not all) of the reinforcing size and spacing such that the walls work without special inspection. Why he didn't just rerun the walls and print out new calculations, I don't know. However, I also agree with you that not using inspection drastically increases the amount of reinforcing needed and often forces the use of 12" masonry where 8" would work with inspection.
RE: Cheating on retaining wall calcs
Whatever you do, do it in writing. Document what happens. Produce those written documents with extreme care, potentially with advice from the city attorney.
Generally, public entities have little choice in reporting unethical behavior, potentially dangerous designs or drawings that are so wrong that their production is a prima facie indication that the engineer who signed and sealed the drawing(s) is not competent. This would apply to your firm's assignment. However, ...
The issue of unethical behavior is tough to prove. If you can demonstrate that the design - as presented - requires special inspection in order to be accepted under the applicable building code(s), then you might have him on both the competency and/or ethics issues. But you will have to use the design method assumed by the applicable code as well as any other generally accepted design methods to demonstrate the error. Most state boards won't do this - the complainant must provide it.
I think your first step is to contact the engineer and ask him to come by to discuss the matter. Ask him to explain the changes, and to provide hand calculations to you to back them up. If he "arches his back", you have little choice but to file a complaint. If he can demonstrate the basis for his changes - and they are reasonable - you have avoided an unnecessary conflict.
The third scenario is thornier: what if he "confesses his sins" and asks to be permitted to withdraw the drawings from consideration? I don't think you can ethically permit that, but you need to check with the city attorney (also on contract?) and someone with your state board.
Good luck, and let us know what happens -
Please see FAQ731-376 by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Cheating on retaining wall calcs
RE: Cheating on retaining wall calcs
We as engineers must place and make the public safety paramount in our practice. I can understand a minor mistake and oversight; but never a deliberate one!
Good luck
RE: Cheating on retaining wall calcs
You said you ran some numbers. Was this done using the same program. Is the program the acceptable standard within this practice. If so then there could be a different outlook. Anyhow talk first.
RE: Cheating on retaining wall calcs
RE: Cheating on retaining wall calcs
RE: Cheating on retaining wall calcs
"Special Inspection" was first called for in the UBC (I think) some 20 or 30 years ago; I've been aware of it for at least 15 or 16 years. CMU walls and drilled pier foundations are the most common elements that require special inspection (in my experience.) Basically, the building code mandates inspection by a qualified independent third party, with reports provided to the building official as well as the owner and contractor. It beats the pants off the "let the owner/builder do what they want" system that I am currently dealing with -
While the heading isn't one I would have chosen, it certainly got my attention. Perhaps the simple addition of punctuation - a "?" - at the end of the sentence would have avoided the potential for misunderstanding. And let's remember that burnaway is a relatively new, inexperienced member (s/he joined Sept. 18, 2003 and has only logged on 6 times at the time of this post.)
And he didn't post yet another "what's the correlation between the (choose one: SPT blow counts / plate load test / dynamic penetrometer / CBR) and (choose one: shear strength / "bearing capacity" / k-value / Young's modulus) ?" question...
Please see FAQ731-376 by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Cheating on retaining wall calcs
I wasn't trying to be harsh on the title. It is attention grabbing, but . . . and, yeah, there really is a god (or diety whichever way you choose!!).
RE: Cheating on retaining wall calcs
The problem I've run into is that the program has "default" values. When I checked one of our "junior" engineers work, I caught it. We changed the "defualt" values so that walls are first designed w/o special inspection.
RE: Cheating on retaining wall calcs
Please see FAQ731-376 by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Cheating on retaining wall calcs
I think the first obligation when reviewing someone else's work is to check with them on the item in question. As noted above, there can be many valid reasons for a designer's choices and there is also the possiblity of an honest mistake. I think we would all appreciate the opportunity to resolve a question regarding our in a professional manner.
I can only recall one instance of a design professional "doctoring" calculations to cover a mistake and that was after the litigation started.
I think it is always better to trust someone's integrity until they prove you wrong. Trust everyone, just don't trust human nature might be a better way to put it.
RE: Cheating on retaining wall calcs
RE: Cheating on retaining wall calcs
What is ur engineering sense is telling u? u feel doubt, recalculate and prove that he is on the wrong...