How to fix this? 7

[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.

 

[Eng16080]

 

[KootK]

But risk shouldn't be viewed as a leveraging tactic to please your clients: we are being paid for our professional opinions.

I think you've misplaced the role of risk in our profession.

I disagree. Rather, I feel that my perspective on risk management in structural engineering is both clear eyed and uncommonly frank.

And my perspective is this:

1) Yes, according to board regulations and college ethics classes, engineers should NOT use risk as a leveraging tactic to please their clients.

2) In practice, most of the successful engineers that I have observed DO use risk as a leveraging tactic to please their clients.

Of a twenty five year career in structural engineering, I was confused about this for the first fifteen years. That, precisely because I love the technical stuff and I desperately wanted the "right" answers to matter more than the profitable answers. A world in which that were true would have played well to my personal strengths.

My confusion regarding risk lead to fifteen years where, if only I'd known then what I know now, I could have earned more, been promoted more, worked less, stressed less, AND have been involved in more challenging technical work (this last one is the real kick in the ovaries). Once the blinders came off, it was as though the proverbial clouds parted. Everything got easier.

Structural engineering managers often do their staffs a great disservice by tip toeing around this. Most engineering managers know full well that leveraging risk as a tactic to please clients is a functional business necessity. But they downplay this in their messaging because of some combination of:

a) They are concerned for their own reputations as ethical engineers;

b) They recognize that they need to motivate a stable of junior engineers who may be disheartened to know the truth about their chosen profession. When you manage a team, esprit de corps is everything.

c) Sometimes managers just fool themselves into "unseeing" the truth somehow.

So we perpetuate the needless suffering.

 

[KootK]

2) In practice, most of the successful engineers that I have observed DO use risk as a leveraging tactic to please their clients.

How do I know this? Lots of ways. I could probably share at least half a dozen personal anecdotes where I've essentially been kicked in the face with this fact of our work. In retrospect, I'm ashamed that it took me SOOO LONG to get the message.

The simplest demonstration of all, I feel, is simply the language that is used in our industry.

1) How many times have you seen a job posting where the ideal candidate was described as some variant of "client focused" or "solution focused"?

2) How many times have you seen a LinkedIn profile where a successful engineer described themselves to the world as "client focused" or "solutions focused".

3) How many firms websites have you seen where the firm presented themselves as "client focused" or "solutions focused"?

Client focused <> rigidly enforced compliance. Rather, it's thinly veiled code for the tacit understanding that part of the job is using risk as a leveraging tactic to please clients. Even "creative" is usually a euphemism for fellating clients in my experience.

Even Arup's website doesn't contain any boasting to the effect of "Choose us for your next project. We promise to be utterly inflexible and enforce our design intent without mercy!!"

 

[gte447f]

@KootK, I don't disagree that you can leverage risk to differentiate yourself and help your clients achieve their goals. For example, you might take on the design of an innovative or creative new structural concept, product, or methodology. Examples might be something like cross laminated timber design (admittedly becoming more mainstream), or steel speedcore highrise shearwalls. Many engineers might view innovative technologies as risky because of lack of experience, lack of historical precedence, and lack of code or industry guidelines. An engineer that is willing to accept these risks and navigate these uncharted waters can enjoy an advantage over more risk averse competitors.

However, you aren't being rational with your seeming obsession with this topic of leveraging risk for your Clients' benefit. You are just being cavalier, because you are expanding the idea into areas that aren't beneficial to you, your clients, the public, or the profession. The OP in this thread is a prime example. The work shown in the OP is quite obviously an unauthorized deviation from the construction documents. One for which their is no good reason. Just lack of attention to detail, or outright willful disregard for complying with the approved plans, combined with what is obviously very poor workmanship. There is absolutely no reason to approve such work as this. In the case of the OP, the shoddy contractor isn't even the OP's client. The homeowner is the client, so approving the poor workmanship is actually at odds with the client's best interest. Additionally, the engineer probably doesn't even have a contractual obligation to approve or deny or reject the work, beyond notifying the client/owner that the work does not conform with the engineer's design or the approved plans. It is up to the Owner to enforce their rights utilizing the information and advice of the engineer. In the OP's case, the contractor ultimately agreed to redo the work after the OP did their duty and notified the owner/their client of the nonconforming work. That should be a sign that the contractor knew full well that the work was crap. There is absolutely no reason to jump up and down to blow off simple poor workmanship like what is shown in the OP. Certainly one of your previously stated justifications of helping the contractor to maintain their reputation for performing quality work isn't a good reason, since it is tantamount to fraud in this case, since that is exactly what they did not do (good work). Contractors with integrity try to do good work, and when they discover something like this, they redo it on their own to preserve their reputation. They don't cover it up and pretend they did good work.

If you have worked in the residential design and construction market for any time at all, you should have discovered by now that there are just as many jack legs as there are good, honest contractors, if not more. You should be actively trying to avoid these characters and to call them out when you do encounter them rather than enabling them to keep up their ruse.