Designing specific parts of a residence - how do you handle? 1

[JStructsteel]

Architect wants specific beams designed for a bigger residence. I design the beams, send over.

How much 'extra' do you add or look into the plans? Check the column? Check the footing? Check the joists? This is a 4500sf house, that really should have its own framing plans, but they just call out 'reference lumber supplier shop drawings' for most headers, beams, etc. I only got involved due to the building department requiring specific designs for some of the longer beams.

I try and be economical, but in reality, this house would be a 2-3K engineering package for me. They are a good firm, but they are relying on a retired engineer and when hes not available, they get me involved in their residential stuff.

On the commercial side, they have no issues with my cost and/or designs.

Its their stamp, how much should i nit-pick their drawings without getting fired, lol?

 

[phamENG]

I get these occasionally. It can be a tough line to walk. My approach is usually to design the beam and its supports. I take the load path to the foundation, or to a transfer element designed by others. If by others, I provide a detailed load breakdown at the connection (D, L, L_r, S, etc.), not just an envelope. I try not to look at more than they asked me to because 1) I'm not getting paid for it and 2) I put a disclaimer saying I'm not the EOR, my involvement was limited to beam such and such and it's supports.

 

[JStructsteel]

phanENG, thanks. I dont even provide a drawing, I just give them the beam size. They put on their drawing.
I guess there is a email chain, and i could be held liable.

I know generally wood homes are generally forgiving, but these homes are small commercial buildings in my mind.

 

[phamENG]

Yep. I get people who try to get a break on my price by just giving them verbal direction or opinions - I say no and explain to them that having it in writing protects me as much as it protects them. Granted, those are mostly home owners who want to know why they have a crack in their drywall, but the reasoning extends to these. Even if it's just a screenshot of that part of the drawing with a red line where the beam goes and a bluebeam markup showing the size with a quick summary: "Annotated beam shall be (3)1.75"x14" LVL as manufactured by Weyerhauser or better. Fasten plies together in accordance with manufacturer directions for multi-ply beams, side loads, and point loads as required by the installation. Support each end on (4)2x6 studs. Minimum footing shall be 1'x3'x3' reinforced with (4) #5 bars each way." I'll usually throw in something about blocking between floors, and uplift straps if they are required. All this either on a sketch sheet with my title block and seal or in a letter with my letter head and seal.

At the very least I'd say give the end reaction and whether or not it can sit on a wood plate or if crushing is a concern and it needs some other form of support. That way they can pick a glulam column out of a catalog if needed and size a footing based on the IRC tables for presumptive bearing pressures. But that does feel like something we should be doing.

Wood homes are mostly forgiving if they're built like a 1950s ranch, or an 1890s 4-square. Some of the crazy stuff we're designing now is going to be anything but.

 

[skeletron]

Hmmm...I'm really hesitant to do what you are describing (supplying engineering design w/o drawings). Any of the following options might work:
1. Marking up Arch. plan by hand (or PDF) showing beam size, location, etc. Paste in standard specs for material.
2. Providing a one-page sketch showing limitations of beam design
3. Full drawings

Provide a "sheet" with your titleblock at the minimum. I think visual engineering design is less likely to be misinterpreted vs. written engineering design.

 

[oldrunner]

We don't work for architects. If we need an architect, we might hire them. To much hassle and to many times doing things over and over for the same fee! Been in business over 50 years. We've also done some small houses.

 

[XR250]

I handle it similar to Pham

 

[DayRooster]

Yeah I agree with Pham. It’s a delicate balance in these situations. Often if you give the contractor or architect everything that they want then you take on unwanted risk. I would only take the work knowing that I would feel covered in case anything went wrong. IMO, I feel that Pham has covered himself well. But in your situation there are too many unknowns and I would be feel uneasy about that arrangement. Again just my personal opinion. Everyone needs to decide how much risk they feel comfortable with…

 

[kipfoot]

I would definitely put the information in a sketch. I'd paste the relevant part of the architectural plan onto my 8 1/2" x 11" calculation title block and mark it up with a blue ultra fine point sharpie (supplemented with more extensive text in blue beam revu). I'd also hand draw a couple sections, show the column size, and column base condition with a footing. That scanned pdf defines my involvement.

If they seem like they need it, I'd probably also do a non-billable broader markup with a bunch of questions and comments. Things like: 'you need shear walls somewhere on the ground floor', or 'the basement walls should be thicker', and 'trus joist doesn't make a 9 1/2" TJI 360'.

 

[JLNJ]

If you are a licensed engineer, it might be against the laws of your practice to "issue" something non-preliminary without your seal on it.

Many States require that anything you send out into the world needs to be sealed unless it is explicitly marked "preliminary".

If something failed, they would find you. Email trail or not.

 

[JStructsteel]

Thanks everyone.

I guess find me or not, the architect is also at risk for not hiring a engineer to provide full design due to his seal being on the drawings. Yea, he can sue me, but his seal is in the shitter.

When I do bid a full package, i usually dont get the job because I am all inclusive.

The 20$ a hour at McDonalds might be shit, but at least its stress free.

 

[DayRooster]

Jstruct,

Yeah, I feel you. It is a shame that architects, owners or contractors have the ability to push their agenda even if it borders on the line of ethical. “He who has the money, makes the rules”. Often they can even argue that “they didn’t even know what they were asking for was wrong”. Now take that with a grain of salt but I think you understand what I’m implying.

Everyone just has to draw their line where they feel comfortable. Now if I “lose” a project because my services don’t align with an architects, owner or contractors requests then so be it. They are entitled to their opinion whether they feel I’m being too strict or rigid. I have to live with that outcome since it’s my career.

Only trying to offer some constructive feedback. Heck, I can say, I haven’t always made the smartest decisions in the past. But I sure have learned from them and it has molded me into who I am today.

Finally, I agree about the McDonald’s job. Structural engineering is lopsided when you compare risk to pay. Unless you happen to be part of the lucky few at the top

 

[Jo Ven]

Jstruct,

With no written contract you are working peace meal for him. He knows the responsibility and liability and is to cheep to pass pass along dollars to you. He can question a beam design , so what. You are working at his direction he is in responsible charge.
If I do like jobs like this and I have to stamp plans I bubble all the items several if need be on a sheet and write within the bubbled area by stamp "beam design only" or stamp only the a detail you provide.
Depending upon your city or state architects can stamp there own structural sheets.

 

[KootK]

This situation has both an ethical component to it and a business component. As licensed professionals, we've all agreed that we'll put ethical concerns ahead of business concerns when it comes to public safety. That is, to varying degrees, bullshit. And I'm not naïve to that.

Approached from an ethical perspective, I think that the question to be asked here is this:

Do you really have a high degree of confidence that the structural elements downstream of yours are being properly tended to?

If the answer to that question is no, then I would consider it unethical to take on the assignment. In my opinion, when you agree to take on an assignment, you are not just endorsing the quality of your own scope but, tacitly, endorsing the design process being used by the entire team as being one that can reasonably be expected to produce a satisfactory result with regard to public safety. If you don't' believe in the process, then I feel that you are ethically obligated to vote with your feet by refusing to participate in it.

I was involved in a legal action last summer pertaining to my engineering work as a sole practitioner. And, no doubt, that has skewed my current thinking on these matters. My current thinking is that my own, personal integrity matters to me a great deal more than does my success as a businessman. I view anything that would see me separated from my integrity as being very "expensive" even if it would, in fact, earn me a nice sack of gold doubloons (as it often does).

 

[JStructsteel]

Thanks KootK
I dont think its UN-ethical, If I didnt design the beam, then they might have shot from the hip and got lucky, or not so lucky. If I saw something that jumped out in my mind as being unsafe, I would say something, but I am just glancing, so if something was unsafe, how do I defend myself from liability, since i 'had the drawings'

Perhaps I will gently mention it to them that I dont want to do piece meal work. If the structure needs a EOR, then I will be the EOR.

 

[Greenalleycat]

This type of work is a huge part of our workflow here in NZ. Often we will only design a foundation and maybe a beam or two. Some thoughts from me:

- In NZ we issue two legally-type documents, a Producer Statement 1 (PS1) and a Memorandum of Design (MoD) at completion of a job. This clearly spells out what work we have completed. We would not accept liability for items not on these signoffs.

- We also issue a Design Features Report (DFR) which expands a bit further on our scope and design philosophy.

- Anything not covered on our plans is therefore taken on by the architect.

- Sometimes, if our scope is really tiny, we just get the architect to do all the drawings, so we don't do any formal issues ourselves.
In these cases, we will get the For Consent set from the architect, review our details, and stamp the appropriate sections only.
We do not stamp every page.

- When looking at a drawing set, we will cast a general eye over the structure.
We consider this to be engineering due diligence - if we can see obvious defects, we identify them to the architect.
If an area for improvement happens to jump out, we might ring the architect or client and suggest it.
This isn't a detailed or even a formal review, but we consider it necessary to at least look through the main elements in order to satisfy our own professional obligations

 

[JStructsteel]

Thanks Greenallycat

In ohio, an architect can stamp his or her work, structural included.

As for the 'general eye' look at the drawings, isnt that admitting you looked at the drawings, but didnt catch the error? My stance wants to be 'I designed the beam as asked' and wasnt paid to look at the rest of the drawings.

Again, they are stamping, so they are the EOR too.

 

[Greenalleycat]

Possibly it risks attracting some liability, yes.
However, we are also not keen on the thought of a building falling down due to architectural neglect, then standing up in court and having to admit we never looked at the plans lol

"Reasonable grounds" is a phrase that appears all throughout NZ engineering documentation, particularly the PS1 & PS4 (PS1 is issued to aid in consenting, PS4 is issued at completion of construction)
The way we view it is: we are doing a quick overview of the plans to satisfy ourselves on reasonable grounds that the other professionals involved in the job have done what seems to be a reasonable job
We are not checking details, we are not checking everything, it's just looking for glaring issues like a beam size that seems wrong, a bracing plan that seems on the piss, a foundation that has been specified as code-standard but should actually be specifically-engineered due to liquefaction, whatever