Are they practicing engineering without a license?

[rholder98]

I was EOR for a large industrial warehouse somewhere in America. The structure is to be a metal building (designed by a qualified metal building manufacturer). Basically, then, I only designed the foundation.

There are several jib cranes scattered throughout the building. Believing it to be more efficient to use column-mounted jibs, we decided to go that route. We arranged the column grid so that the jibs would coincide with building columns, and designed the footings accordingly. We then made sure the jib reactions were conveyed to the metal building engineer.

As part of a long list of "cost-cutting" items (I could rant for hours about the negotiations between owner and contractor, without A/E input), the GC changed these jibs to free-standing jib cranes. Our resulting directive was that the footings would be designed by the crane manufacturer, and we wouldn't have to worry about it. Sounds great--less I have to worry about. Except, of course, that now my column footings will interfere with someone else's crane footings.

And now I have begun seeing these crane submittals come through, with footings designed, but there is no seal on the drawings. I also looked the crane company up on the state's website, and they are not authorized to practice engineering.

The first question, I suppose, is does the footing for a single crane (at multiple locations) require an engineer's seal? I say yes, and I'm about to notify the GC that he has to submit sealed drawings for these footings. Further, I'm also going to require the CA number for the firm that designs the footings. This will likely end up with me having to design the footings after all.

The next question is: Should I report the crane supplier to the Board for "practicing or offering to practice engineering..." without a license or certificate of authorization?

 

[JStephen]

The approach I've seen more often is just to request sealed drawings. (That's not necessarily what the state rules say you ought to do.)

The actual engineering may be done by the crane company or by a consultant. It's not uncommon for state rules to require a PE seal only on "final" drawings, so these wouldn't necessarily require them.

The CA programs are typically set up assuming every engineer is a consultant, and there is a wide variation among states as to how non-consultants are handled. Make sure you're not misapplying a CA rule.

 

[swertel]

This falls in the grey area of industry exempt.

If the in-house engineers are engineering the crane system for their company to install, and the crane system designs will never be sold to another company to install, then they are not practicing engineering without a license. It falls more to the fact that the company is selling a product, like a cell phone, not an engineering service and therefore if there are any recalls on the product, the crane company gets sued, not the engineer. The grey area also comes into play because the engineer is not performing engineering duties for the public, but rather for the company he works for. See below.

If the crane company doesn't have any in-house engineers and a consultant does the engineering work for them, then the plans need to be stamped by the engineer. Although the engineer is performing the same design work for the same company as the in-house engineer example above, he is actually selling his services (not a product) and the result of his services will be a product used by the public. Therefore he needs to be a licensed engineer and he needs to stamp his plans.

Another example, airplanes. Airplanes are used by the public but not every engineer at Boeing has a P.E. because all they do is design a product for the company and likewise Boeing only sells products, not engineering services. So even though airplanes are used by the public and require extensive engineering, you don't have to be a licensed engineer to design one IF you don't sell your design to another company to build the airplane for you.

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro

 

[JAE]

Scott I mostly agree with what you are saying but I think that the industry exempt concept is for the products the company makes and sells, not the building they inhabit.

 

[swertel]

Just had this topic come up at my local chapter's NSPE meeting on Wednesday night (today being Friday). But the example was for a fire system, not a crane system.

Also, the topic branched into truss design. For example, as a PE I can stamp plans for structural engineering on my own house that I currently live in, even though it is outside my registered proficiency. But, I better not do that for my neighbor's house. Actually, if I were to do all the calculations myself and design the trusses, I wouldn't have to stamp the plans at all. YSMV (Your State May Vary)

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro

 

[whyun]

"Our resulting directive was that the footings would be designed by the crane manufacturer, and we wouldn't have to worry about it." Who made this decision?

Typically, when you have a manufactured item, the EOR, not the manufacturer, designs the attachment and the members supporting the manufactured item. This includes the foundation. Manufacturer can not have a universal foundation design for their product due to varying soil conditions.

 

[sundale]

How does one recall a footing?

To quote Colorado's rules:
"Licensees may specify manufactured components that are exempted by statute as part of design documents. 'Manufactured components' for the purposes of this rule consist of such items as a pump, motor, pre-fabricated truss, or other type of item that is manufactured in multiple units for selection and use in projects that must be designed by professional engineers. Systems of manufactured components that are specific to a particular use or application must also be designed by a professional engineer. The licensee may show the manufactured component on the drawing or document and is responsible for the correct selection and specification of the manufactured components, but is not responsible for the proper design and manufacturer of the manufactured components selected."

Most states have similar such verbage. Per this rule, the jib crane is a manufactured component suitable for any generic application, but the crane and footing system, being unique to the soils of the particular project, need to be engineered by a PE/SE.

 

[rholder98]

whyun: The GC sold the owner on this as a way to cut cost. So the directive came from our client. Also, I agree with you. The reason I am requiring sealed drawings is precisely because one size does not fit all.
*****

I'm not worried about the crane itself. I view that as equipment, or a manufactured component. I see whatever holds the crane up--be it a column or a footing--as structural, and requiring an engineered design.

I was prepared to believe that these were just preliminary drawings, and that the finals would be sealed. The first warning flags came up thus: Each crane has a footing with it, with dimensions varying according to the capacity and reach--as expected. However, when the GC pointed out to them that several of these cranes are close enough to each other that the footings will overlap, and suggested that they just place one large equivalent footing, the crane manufacturer's response was that it should not be a problem, but the project engineer should verify this. That tells me: A) they're expecting me to take responsibility for their design, and B) the footings are not being engineered for each condition.

I sent the notification out today that I expect sealed drawings. I figure they're going to ask me to design them, and I'm sure I will. At least then I'll know they were designed correctly.

 

[whyun]

If the client already decided to save costs by the alternate scheme, they may already realize there will be and expect to pay for extra design costs involved. Hopefully the savings outweigh the design fee.

When you obtain the sealed and signed crane submittal, you need only review its impact on the superstructure. If there are many footings that need to be combined, I also feel that you'd feel more comfortable designing them yourself (and get paid for the work).

 

[JStephen]

"Most states have similar such verbage." In fact, most states have widely varying verbiage that is oftentimes not clear. Actually, I would expect that the crane would likely be exempt everywhere, and the foundation not exempt anywhere. But you'd really have to read the state rules and/or actually ask the state boards to find out some of this stuff- the guys on the boards are all consultants and they just don't realize that not everyone is.

 

[DRC1]

Do you really want to design the combined footings? This whole concept is a change from your design and it does not sound like it has the level of engineering you would like. If you are only revewing the proposed design for impact on your structure, then if the crane has a problem, you are out of the loop. If you design the revised footings, you have been sucked in. I would pass on the design oppertunity.

 

[mrMikee]

I think another justification for the industry exemption is the issue of what the PE would be certifying with his seal. Most of what I do is specified in the IBC or codes/specs referenced in the IBC. In other words, wind and seismic loads, steel stresses, bolts, welds, and so on. There's not much on crane loads, even less on crane design, and nothing on designing airplanes. There are industry standards such as the CMAA spec but I've never seen it mentioned in any building codes.

However, as pointed out by others the jib crane needs to be supported on a footing the design of which involves soil bearing stresses, anchor bolt stresses, pullout, etc., things that are regulated by building codes. I would want these to be designed by a PE.

Regards,
-Mike

 

[MikeHalloran]

The jib crane footing also has to be wide enough and heavy enough that it won't just roll over from the huge moment applied at the mast base.

A bridge crane makes _so_ much more sense than multiple jib cranes, especially inside a new steel building, where you can support the runway from the building columns.






Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[rholder98]

Oh, there are overhead bridgecranes also. Even going over the jibs.

I've been thinking about this, wondering just what my responsibility is. Assuming they throw a freestanding jib crane out in the middle, where it won't affect my structure at all, what do I care, right? That's probably what they're thinking.

I don't necessarily want to design the footings, but I do feel an obligation to the client if I see something I believe to be potentially unsafe. I guess technically they don't have to answer to me if they are not affecting my structure or footings, but who's to hold them accountable?

 

[dozer]

Hmm, I'm having some difficulty with a crane manufacturer and I'm wondering if it's the same company. If it is, I would be keep an eye on them. The guys I'm thinking of seem to have a good product from what I've seen but I think their method for calculating uplift on the anchor bolts is flawed.

Regardless of who they are, if they end up designing the footing be sure you're comfortable with it. It seems like a lot of these equipment vendors don't really have the right staff to do things like this.

 

[michfan]

Dozer,
You are exactly right - not just equipment vendors, but small manufacturing in general, I think.

I worked (briefly) for a small company that made steel gazebos. The owner, a PE, had a spreadsheet for designing the footings. Didn't matter what the soil type, location, etc. - I was supposed to use this spreadsheet to design footings for every job and then we'd charge $400 for "engineered footings". Nine times out of ten the footing would be 24" deep, which got me looking even more carefully at just how his spreadsheet was made (I think he, or maybe the engineer before me, had doctored one of those DIY structural spreadsheets you can buy off the net)...and it got me out of there after just a few months of work.

You get into these small companies and the first thing they ask is "how soon can you take the PE?" Well, I'm learning that my answer usually turns out to be, "shortly after I leave your company..." Odds are they are using some design method that they've used for years and nobody there really understands where the numbers come from. I've seen that first-hand.


Now I'm running into it again at my present job, another small manufacturing company. How soon can you get your PE??? We want to stamp our own work. Etc, etc.

 

[mrMikee]

Years ago I saw a jib crane catalog with suggested block footings based on a specific soil bearing capacity, but with a carefully worded warning about its use. It seems that most companies don't want anything to do with this responsibility.

I've done some of these calculations and from what I remember the critical loading is a moment from a load over the corners. You need to design for a maximum soil pressure but also be concerned about the uplift on the far side. If there is uplift the neutral axis changes depending on the load making the maximum stress a non-linear relationship. The overturning FS might not be what you would expect. Maybe someone with more recent experience can help here.

For anchor bolts you might want to check the RISA site for their transmission tower program which has a link to a monopole base plate and anchor bolt spec.

Regards,
-Mike

 

[mrMikee]

I don't remember the capacities or spans but we had some jib foundations 8' square in plan view by 8' deep, for example. These seemed too big for most people but my calcs showed them to be about right. They were designed by a consultant PE hired by my employer, not the crane vendor.

-Mike

 

[Ron]

I agree with JAE that "industry exemption" would not apply in this case. Further, it is possible that they company does not need a certificate of authorization to practice engineering, if the only engineering they do is incidental to their products. However, I believe that the design of the crane jib and the foundation for such should be signed and sealed as they are clearly health, safety, and welfare issues, though not necessarily for the general public.

Such designs in my state of residence would be considered "delegated design" from the SEOR. The SEOR has the obligation to pass on the design parameters/expectations to the delegate engineer, but the delegate must then design the system and submit back to the SEOR for review and approval with the conceptual intent.