How to fix this? 4

[XR250]

W8x67 flush beam w/ 2x10 joists on each side. This is how I showed the beam being packed out....

This is what I got.. Basically, they did not put the OSB in and just cranked the (2)2x8 into the kern of the beam so it is sitting about 3/8" inside the edge of the flange...


Now the hangers are not plumb and are bent. Not sure how to put a number to this. I realize the lower nails are missing but I am not even close to the hanger capacity. I'd like GC to take it down and do the padding correctly if not adding a bit thicker so it sits 1/4" proud of the beam as this will give them the opportunity to clean up the joist cuts. He will be upset to say the least. The entire installation is not great. I mean it is only an 1800 lb beam x 25 ft. long.

 

[XR250]

KootK the G.O.A.T.

In the context of a new build like this, I would never do a load test unless I was 99.5% sure of it passing. Here, I'm 99.999995% sure of it passing. I would literally be willing to place my head in a guillotine and watch the test be performed with the consequence of failure being my demise.

Honestly, I only even suggested the load test to mollify the folks that I knew would not be comfortable handwaving this. I wouldn't do the load testing here because I simply would not need that for me to be sufficiently confident of the outcome.

View attachment 8934

 

[Flotsam7018]

I'm 99.999995% sure of it passing. I

Passing what? Would it hold the load for some arbitrary amount of time, yeah probably. Job done?

Could there be issues that lead to a lesser than intended performance, excessive nail slip (for the lucky few that made it into the hanger) for instance? Perhaps. I don’t know how you could possibly be so confident in the long term performance, but it’s your head on the line so it’s yours to risk.

 

[rb1957]

"Mrs. KootK, who is also a structural engineer, ..."

damn ! I can just imagine the dinner table discussions ! (c'mon, smile)

 

[KootK]

damn ! I can just imagine the dinner table discussions ! (c'mon, smile)

Honestly, I don't recommend it as a marital setup. There definitely are moments where it is fun / useful but, on balance:

1) It can be a bit incestuous with respect to the information that both parties are collecting out in the wider world and sharing with each other. If I could snap my fingers and make it happen, I would currently turn Mrs. KootK into a geneticist or an AI developer. I could use peripheral access to those spaces.

2) There can be moments when what you want from your time with your partner is escape from your job. I loved structural engineering so much when I was younger that I glossed over this entirely. I didn't see it until later in my career when my responsibilities grew and the potential for frustration increased. In this respect, I'd almost entertain turning Mrs. KootK into someone with *shudder* a humanities degree??? That's probably going to far.

 

[KootK]

Passing what? Would it hold the load for some arbitrary amount of time, yeah probably. Job done?

Exactly that. I would argue that the ASCE guidance on load testing also has a fair bit of "arbitrary" built into it.

Guides like that are put together mostly by committees of other engineer using their judgments. Do those guys and gals have better judgment than I do? Surely. Does a committee formed consensus add weight to it? Absolutely. But it is still a far cry from anything resembling hard science.

One of the main reasons that practitioners lean on load testing guides is because they allow us to abrogate risk. If something goes wrong, you can just point to the document and claim to have been following orders. I'm not saying that's bad in any way. It's mostly good. But I do feel that acknowledging the truth of the situation with respect to the state of knowledge and our own motivations is germane to discussions like this.

Could there be issues that lead to a lesser than intended performance, excessive nail slip (for the lucky few that made it into the hanger) for instance?

Sure, I acknowledge that. If we're going to do a deeper dive on the philosophy of risk, then I'll add some meat to the bones of my previous comments:

1) Like most decisions that a human takes, this one is multi faceted with respect to risk, weighting factors, and probabilities.

2) A more nuanced version of my risk assessment here would be:

a) Collapse / guillotine. 1:50,000.

b) Serviceability issue that winds up negatively affecting my business. 1:500.

c) Developing a reputation for inflexibility that negatively affects my business. 1:50.

I don’t know how you could possibly be so confident in the long term performance, but it’s your head on the line so it’s yours to risk.

I had to train myself, painfully slowly and at great emotional cost, to approach engineering in this way. I came from the factory with a temperament not at all suited to making difficult, rational, risk based decisions involving public safety under conditions of great uncertainty. Truly, though, I consider this to be the single most valuable thing that I have ever learned as an engineer (or as a person really).

Early in my career, I was all about "Do it as I specified it! The end. Why should I assume more risk because of your mistake?". I now feel that previous version of me was speaking mostly from a place of immaturity and fear with respect to both engineering and business.

I now consider one of my most important engineering duties to serve as a risk sink for my clients.

Expanding upon that a bit, it's using my well honed engineering judgement to take strategic risks that solve business problems for my clients.

I know, this will be anathema to how many folks participating in this thread feel. And it no doubt runs counter the letter of the law expressed in some of the board regulations. Regardless, this is how I feel that one ought to do the job of being a structural engineer.

Many people here, and in real life, prize me mostly for my technical skills. But, then, where am I able to use those skills to the meaningful benefit of anyone? Is it in laying out a bar joist roof at 6.5' o/c for the hundredth time? Or in berating some junior engineer in the finer points of stability. NOPE. The very best place for me to employ that technical skill is precisely in issues like this. It facilitates my bending rather than breaking.

 

[KootK]

a) Collapse / guillotine. 1:50,000.

I doubt this actually needs saying but I'll say it anyhow for the sake of completeness.

I won't take any risk, no matter how small, if it is not balanced by some manner of reward.

That reward might be money. That reward might be influence. That reward might just be a good dopamine hit. But there definitely needs to be some reward.

I wouldn't just risk my life playing Russian roulette with a 50,000 chamber revolver for nothing.

 

[gte447f]

I now consider one of my most important engineering duties to be serve as a risk sink for my clients.

This seems to me to be a very strange way to look at your engineering duties, but taking it as a given, how does empowering them to do shoddy work and lower standards mitigate their risk? It seems like helping them build more robust structures would mitigate their risks more effectively.

You do have something about this correct. Clients that are inclined to do shoddy work do indeed view you (and all engineers) as a risk sink. They view your stamp as a risk transfer mechanism from them to you and hope that it will shield and alleviate them from liability for anything that goes wrong, since it will have been blessed by the engineer. This is why giving in and giving your blessing to their seemingly never ending cascade of incremental changes and screw-ups is so dangerous.

 

[KootK]

how does empowering them to do shoddy work and lower standards mitigate their risk?

I do not feel that it empowers clients to do shoddy work in any meaningful sense. Rather, I accept that everyone makes mistakes and I only approve errors that I feel deserve to be approved based on technical merit which is, often, just my technical judgment.

This mitigates business risk for my clients by allowing them to:

1) Reduce costs.

2) Maintain their schedules.

3) Preserve their reputations for doing good work.

All of those things are elements of business risk of course.

It seems like helping them build more robust structures would mitigate their risks more effectively.

I disagree, strongly. So few things ever develop meaningful structural problems that the business risk associated with a lack of structural robustness is effectively zero. Forensically, real consequences are almost always a result of multiple errors by multiple parties. The classic example being the Hyatt Regency walkway thing.

I feel that this is something that can be proven to be functionally correct by making recourse to the principles of evolution. If the structural fragility of errors represented meaningful business risk, you can bet that the MBA's running large contracting firms would be proactive in mitigating that risk. And, overwhelmingly, they're not.

 

[gte447f]

3) Preserve their reputations for doing good work.

This one in particular is really rich in the context of the discussion at hand and the OP. Allow them to preserve their reputations for doing good work by helping them to cover up evidence to the contrary, their bad work. And then to expect that this will not result in a compounding effect of more and more bad work. Seems naive to me. Maybe I'm too pessimistic.

I disagree, strongly. So few things ever develop meaningful structural problems that the business risk associated with a lack of structural robustness is effectively zero.

I disagree strongly with this statement. Meaningful structural problems are common place. It doesn't take injuries and deaths to make a structural problem meaningful. I have no idea what the number is, but construction litigation is a easily way beyond a multi-billion $$$ business in the U.S. That money is meaningful to everyone involved. You can bet that it is a major business risk for everyone involved in construction. I honestly can hardly believe that you think otherwise. I assume Canada is similar.

I feel that this is something that can be proven to be functionally correct by making recourse to the principles of evolution. If the structural fragility of errors represented meaningful business risk, you can bet that the MBA's running large contracting firms would be proactive in mitigating that risk. And, overwhelmingly, they're not.

What? I don't really follow the evolution bit, but the rest of this is off the wall. You seriously think that large contracting firms are not heavily invested in mitigating risk? Have you ever read one of their contracts? Do you know how much $$$ they spend on insurance and lawyers?

Bringing this discussion back toward the crappy work in the OP picture. This small time stuff is only less risky for folks involved in the construction because the owners are generally less knowledgeable and less sophisticated and have less means to protect their interests, so they are more easily taken advantage of by unskilled or unscrupulous contractors.

 

[KootK]

Allow them to preserve their reputations for doing good work by helping them to cover up evidence to the contrary, their bad work....Maybe I'm too pessimistic.

Rephrased more optimistically: allow them to avoid suffering undue reputational damage as a result of having made an error that an experienced structural engineer will recognize as having no meaningful consequences.

And then to expect that this will not result in a compounding effect of more and more bad work. Seems naive to me.

I've no doubt that it does occasionally result in a compounding effect of more and more bad work. I'm simply not willing to:

1) Live my life and conduct my work assuming the worst outcomes in all situations, all of the time.

2) Punish the many good contractors that I work with along with the rare bad one.

You can bet that it is a major business risk for everyone involved in construction. I honestly can hardly believe that you think otherwise. I assume Canada is similar.

I've been working on US projects for twenty five years now and Canadian projects for fifteen. In all of that time, and on all of those projects, I've not once seen a contractor suffer any financial consequence for shoddy structural work unless it was the structural engineer who brought those consequences about. Outside of my own work, the only examples that I can think of are just the handful of extreme situations that we all learn about in ethics class.

What? I don't really follow the evolution bit, but the rest of this is off the wall.

In business, as with biology, nothing can be relied upon so much as self interest. If a lack of structural robustness was costing business people real money, they would pay real attention to it. They don't. The business climate has evolved in response such that contractors rarely sweat future structural problems.

You seriously think that large contracting firms are not heavily invested in mitigating risk? Have you ever read one of their contracts? Do you know how much $$$ they spend on insurance and lawyers?

I never said that large contracting firms are not heavily invested in mitigating risk. That they are is precisely the crux of my evolution argument.

What I said is that contracting firms are not heavily invested in mitigating the risk associated with a lack of structural robustness. That is a pretty important distinction in the context of this discussion.

Sure, the MBA's and legal departments are most definitely working to avoid sexual harassment lawsuits, workplace injuries, and the like.