incidental practice 2

[struct_eeyore]

Hi all,

I've wanted to get everyone's opinion on the issue of incidental practice. (In particular, I'm in Florida). In the case of our company, we often get clients who ask us to design the whole project (structural/architectural aspects), and as someone in line to start signing and sealing, I'm very wary of the architectural parts. The current engineer is signing off on everything, including life safety plans, electrical, plumbing, and all the misc arch sections details. I've always been under the impression that these things should be solely delegated to an architect - but then again, state law is not defined to specifically exclude them, and arguably, he can claim competence. Another question that follow - is it legitimate for an engineer to sign plans with an "A" as a sheet number designation? Thanks for the input.

 

[Lomarandil]

A1 is the sheet for anchorage to concrete right? And A2 is the aluminum shade structure?

I can't think it's codified anywhere that sheet numbers are anything more than a common convention.

----
The name is a long story -- just call me Lo.

 

[Celt83]

In several of my surrounding jurisdictions, East Coast, USA, they require specific sheet labels by discipline, So an Axxx sheet is reserved for Architectural Sxxx for Structural, etc. They also require that the stamp match the discipline of the sheet, there is an exception for small residential projects done under the International Residential Code (IRC).

Open Source Structural Applications:

https://github.com/buddyd16/Structural-Engineering

 

[Lomarandil]

Really? Oh, well, I stand corrected. Thanks Don!

----
The name is a long story -- just call me Lo.

 

[JStephen]

Read the rules, read the disciplinary actions.
This varies state by state, and varies from time to time- generally getting more strict as they go along, seems like. So someone that's been practicing 30 years may have started under a different set of rules. My state has clarified some of those specific issues, and has updated rules, etc., but that wouldn't help you in Florida.
This also varies depending on the individual, as to whether they are qualified for that particular aspect, whether exactly in their discipline or not. More to the point, the other guy could be appropriately sealing all that stuff, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should.

 

[JAE]

In almost all of the 24 states that I'm licensed in there is the requirement that you ONLY practice in areas of your education/experience/competence.

This is usually self-regulated to an extent but if someone raises a question with the engineering board they could investigate and unless you have experience in that discipline you could be subject to disciplinary actions by the board.

Now with minor "incidental" work that might be a different story but each state will have specific rules and descriptions of what is "incidental".

But singing a whole sheet of electrical design - not sure that is "incidental".

In most all cases like this you should thoroughly read through your state rules and regulations and I would highly recommend you have a conversation with your state board. They are always happy to discuss this kind of thing and more engineers should do this more often.



Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[struct_eeyore]

State board it is.

 

[Ron247]

In my opinion, the "incidental to engineering" or "incidental to architecture" is being stretched way out of proportion. I do not think it was ever intended to replace any discipline. Architects can do some very minor "engineering" and engineers can do very minor "architecture" but no one should be stamping any plans they did not oversee or did not do themselves. That is the purpose of the stamp. They should also not be doing work they are not competent to do. As far as sheet numbering, I guess that would be determined by state law. I have seen structural sheets with architect stamps on them.

In my state, there is only a Professional Engineer and Architect designation. There is no Electrical, Mechanical etc. I could stamp an Electrical Plan and no one would know from my stamp that I was not a EE. Now a word of caution because not all states are the same in how they handle violations, who investigates and who determines the penalty. Based on questions I have asked to both the Eng and Arch boards in my state and projects I have been involved in, the following used to be true in my state but they may have recently changed. Because of some questions and answers I gave them a few years ago, the Eng board got concerned but the Arch board did not.

The following "Rant" outlines what I mean in my state if you want to read it. I have seen numerous times Arch were in over their head from a structural standpoint.

-An Arch is allowed to stamp Eng drawings including structural under "Incidental to Arch"
-An Eng is allowed to stamp Arch drawings under "Incidental to Eng".
-When either trade decides to "cross-stamp" they can get reviewed especially if someone complains. An Arch can complain about a Eng and vice versa. The Arch complain a lot, Engs not enough.
-An Arch can review a PE stamping Arch plans, conclude they did a poor job and notify the Eng board. The PE has to almost do a perfect job. The bar is set real high to not be censured. The Eng board most likely includes the Arch board in the review. The Eng board deals out a harsh punishment if found guilty of sloppy work.
-An Eng can complain about an Arch stamping Eng plans to the Arch board. If the Arch made even a 15 minute phone call to an Eng to discuss the project, the Arch board is satisfied the Arch has done their due diligence. At that point they are satisfied. The Arch board does not hand out punishment near what the Eng board does for similar offenses. It also appears the Arch board does not include the Eng board in their review of an Arch doing Eng work. I think if you complain to the Eng board, they used to turn it over to the Arch board since it is an Arch you are complaining about.

This is the one that occurred that I am very aware of. I was called by a client to review a 3 story motel that they did not like the drawings they saw. One example, a steel W-section cantilevering 8' off of a column with a single tab, 2 bolt web plate connection. I think it held up a walkway. I called the Arch who stamped all the plans and did ALL the structural design. He explained to me how to design any connection. Take the shear load, divide by 13 and that will tell you how many 3/4 bolts you need. He was amazed I did not already know that being a structural engineer. That one only needed less than one bolt, but he put 2 bolts so it would not rotate. When I asked him how he designed that entire building (precast, steel frames, foundations) he said he called a SE friend of his and talked for about 15 minutes. When I told that to the Arch board, they said they felt that was satisfactory. I documented that answer, then called the Eng board to tell them what I had found out. They did not believe me. The literally were shocked. They called the Arch board and found out I was correct. For a year or so, I saw more Eng stamps on Eng drawings but now it seems to have gone back to the old days.

Some building codes require an architect, but not an engineer. Where I live, architects "do the walls" as part of their drawings, but all they do is call out a stud size. No lateral wind or seismic resistance etc. In short, the stamp means you certify the sheets you are stamping to have been done correctly and under YOUR supervision.

Let me end this Rant with some of my other favorite architect quotes germane to the post that I have heard from Architects:
"You engineers act like us architects don't know anything about structures. I guess I didn't learn anything in the 3 hour Structural Engineering course I took in college."
"Let me show you how easy it is to design a beam. Calculate moment and divide by 0.66Fy. The pick the lightest beam that has that for the Sx." In this case, I asked about a 25' long, light W6 (4" flange)that had no lateral bracing and had a roof post load in the middle. They wanted the post out of the middle of a large great room. So he ran a beam across the room to set the post on. The architect was about 70 years old and had been sizing his own beams for years he said.
"If a beam is designed to span across a room without any support other than the ends, then any wall under the beam is non-load bearing."
"Someone told me the beam was sagging too much so I am going to change it from a 36 ksi to a 65 ksi"

 

[struct_eeyore]

@Ron - architects ignorance has never ceased to amaze me. I generally don't like regulations, but I think here is a definite case where law should be waving a bigger stick.

 

[rb1957]

I wonder what they say about us on Arch-Tips ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[JAE]

So just to balance things a bit - a lot of architects I've known have amazed me at their breadth of knowledge.

While they definitely don't have the full depth we do, many do have a pretty good overall grasp of structural, mechanical, electrical, civil, acoustical, geotechnical design concepts and issues and some are very good at pulling all of we enginerds together into a coherent team of designers.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[Ron247]

Good point JAE. Of the ones who "assemble a team", they are very good. It is the ones who are the team, that I question mostly. I personally do not want to do their job. I have been called several times to do my work and theirs but have almost always declined. I leave all their work to them and their fees. I do very little architectural incidental to engineering. Many one-story buildings are almost done solely by an Arch, a Civil and a Mechanical/Electrical firm. Multi-stories are a little more work for SEs. It is frustrating to see work you do go to another discipline with very little oversight that they are doing it right.

 

[JLNJ]

Am I remembering right that the Structural Act in Illinois requires ALL structural work be performed by an SE? No PEs allowed, even with a million years of experience in a neighboring State.

Except that you can be an Registered Architect with no structural experience and seal all the Illinois structural drawings you want. It's a good thing architects are so honest and self-aware.

 

[JAE]

JLNJ...yes you are remembering right.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[Compositepro]

So all it takes is for the Structural board to sue the Architectural Board or individual Architects. No one else has standing to enforce the law.

 

[Ron]

structee....I practice in Florida, mostly construction and structural forensics. The issue of "incidental practice" comes up quite often for me, particularly when I'm opining on a building envelope issue or roofing issue that an architect has designed.

"Incidental practice" is not well defined, in either the engineering law or the architectural law in Florida. It's almost one of those issues that would require a complaint to the state board to get a ruling on it; however, I figure if an architect can design the structure or of one or two story building, I can design roofing, waterproofing or other envelope issues. I'm willing to go before either the engineering board or the architectural board to defend that, but it has never happened.

In my practice (forensics), I am often opposing architects who have designed some envelope detail that does not work and may have even caused structural damage. I have no issue criticizing those designs as I do a lot of remediation design for those details. My designs have gone through various jurisdictional plan reviews without any of them claiming I couldn't do that because I am not a licensed architect.

As for your colleague who is signing and sealing entire plan sets that include architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing....he's violating Florida law. He is crossing engineering discipline lines and probably architectural lines. He's asking for a complaint to be filed with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers.