My client is changing and/or ignoring my advice and design 18

[Aton2]

It has been a very long time since I last was active on Eng-Tips. So long, in fact, that I have misplaced my old password, and my old e-mail has changed. I had used the handle, "Aton". Thus now "Aton2"

But to my question (I am hoping that other engineers who have had my experience can comment and help me resolve my dilemma):

I have designed a foundation for a client in the high Arctic. [I have had much experience designing and living in permafrost regions, and have designed other buildings and foundation systems in the North successfully. I am not a geotechnical engineer, and have worked with geotechs in the past to obtain optimum foundation systems.] So my question is not a technical one - rather, it is how to manage my client's expectations and inject some reality ...

The situation: My foundation is (was supposed to be) for a minimally-heated storage garage (pre-manufactured steel moment-frame) on relatively flat tundra (composed of post-glacial till and raised beaches). The active layer is approx. 2 m. An airport terminal building is very close to my site, and it has an RC slab, underlain by a system of thermosyphons. It has stood the test of time for at least 20 years.

However, a minimally-heated storage building does not call for the expense of thermosyphons. Originally, I had a long discussion with my client regarding the advantages of thermosyphons, but the expense had been an issue, understandably. Instead, I have designed a series of RC grade beams resting on 1 m thick well-compacted gravel, supporting a 150 mm (6") RC slab. 4" (100 mm) of extruded polystyrene insulation Type VII (for high compressive strength) will be placed under the grade beams, and 4" of Type IV under the RC slab. This is equivalent to (Imperial) R-20. This should take care of any residual heat being conducted down from a low-heat building.

The general approach to building on permafrost is to remove (isolate) the source of heat from conducting into the ground by elevating the building on ad-freeze (or ideally, rock-socketed) steel piles - or, in the case of a small building, to place it on wood cribs or adjustable steel jacks so the air can wash underneath. An insulated RC slab-on-grade supported by such piles would work in my case too, but it is expensive and not called for in a building with a very low heating regime. I have known simple warehouses to be placed directly on the ground on some gravel, but I will not take the chance that the permafrost will not melt and the building subside - even with minimal heat. For "unheated" warehouses, a thick pad of compacted gravel, as I have designed, is normally recommended, as I have designed in the past.

This design is complete and is due to go to the AHJs for permits. HOWEVER, I now have learned that:

1. my client is ignoring his initial written assurance that the building will have minimal heat, and is now planning on creating offices in one portion of the building, going ahead with oil-burning boilers and forced-hot air throughout.

2. Has also asked me to remove the 1 m gravel pad so access is at grade level.

Yikes!

I cannot allow my design as completed to be built (not with my seal on it!).

My intention is to immediately write a letter to my client, (re)explaining the technical problems of heating the permafrost, and the advantages of thermosyphons or ad-freeze piles (rock-socketing is not an option at my site). Either system would require me to engage a qualified geotech at my client's expense. I have also previously laboriously explained to my client that insulation only SLOWS or delays heat flow, but cannot entirely stop it...

My letter would also explain that I cannot affix my seal to a heated building unless the issues are properly dealt with in an appropriate design. The first step would be to engage a geotech to provide me with, as a first step, a desk-top study which hopefully I may be able to use to design a less conservative foundation. Even if my client agrees that he will take full responsibility for any subsidence issues should he opt to go ahead with his intentions. Ethically, I do not want my foundation to fail and some other owner (or, by default the government) have to bear the cost of remediation (huge or impractical) - or demolition - should the building become untenable.

The alternative is that I explain that I must remove myself as the EOR (a situation that my contract provides for).

I do not want to lose my client (who clearly does not comprehend the concerns, and is convinced that such measures as I have recommended are not necessary).

Any thoughts would be much appreciated. I have searched Eng-Tips, but cannot find any posts that seem to address this issue.

 

[dik]

Aton: Being Canadian... I always considered myself being the moderate one...


Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[Aton2]

Dik, I hear you. Sometimes it means that we Canucks simply mask our strength in dulcet tones, while leaving our meaning crystal-clear.

Regards, Aton

 

[Rabbit12]

@Enable. Good post. Can't believe an engineer would readily admit to what r6155 just said. Makes me cringe.

As engineers our first and most important obligation is to protect the health and welfare of the public. That comes before a client that gives me money.

 

[dik]

They like to think that, but I don't think it's really the case. The Florida profession is strangely silent about the recent collapse... In Winnipeg, our Public Safety Building 'fell apart', likely costing millions of dollars and our profession was strangely silent about this likely building envelope failure... They spout it, but don't really mean it... not a peep out of them on climate change...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[Aton2]

Dik, that is a sad and disheartening (but too often true, in my experience) statement wrt our fellow engineers - and many other professionals, for that matter.

Way back in early 2002, four of us on the Environment Committee of my Nova Scotia Engineering Association spent a year researching for what we hoped to be a Position Paper on how Engineers should approach climate change in our designs. We wrote articles for our provincial engineering mag "The Engineer", held workshops, and made presentations before Council. It took us a year, but, to our surprise and gratification, Council officially adopted our PP verbatim in '03 - which essentially stated that Engineers should follow the Precautionary Principle and produce designs that would take climate change into consideration. This was when IPCC's Third Assessment Report (TAR) was current. I do not know whether the PP is still "up" on the Association website...

The Position Paper seems rather feeble now - but two decades ago, relatively few folks were alarmed - and too many were skeptical of climate change science. The PP was a start, and sadly, we are still going through the same old nonsense from those who are not knowledgeable.

When we asked other Provincial and Territorial Associations if they had taken (or were considering) similar stands, none had, and one of the largest Associations wrote back to say that their position was that "they had no position." It was too hot a potato for some...

However, encouragingly, Engineers Canada took up the challenge that year, developed a committee (on which one of the four of us served), and began to seriously pursue the concerns regarding climate change.

It baffles and discourages me that there is still controversy regarding the dangers posed by this world-destroying phenomenon. Even when I apply a modest climate change coefficient for snow loads, it has caused a severe negative reaction among many of my colleagues, who do not have an understanding of the dangerously unreliable limitations of the climate loads in Appendix C of our Building Code.

Enough ranting.

Regards, Aton

 

[r6155]

Real example: my calculations show 38mm anchor bolts. The Client acknowledges that it is correct but wants 50 mm anchor bolts. This generated an extra cost that they paid and accepted that a clarification be placed in the calculations.

Regards

 

[Rabbit12]

dik, I think the boards are serious about that provision but maybe lack the power/resources to really enact change.

With the Surfside collapse there isn't anyone on the planet that knows what caused that collapse yet. Might have nothing to do with the original structural design. What should our profession be saying about that right now? IMO, anything that could be said right now would really be nothing but empty PR.

I haven't heard anything recently on the FIU bridge collapse but from what I've seen Denny Pate needs to lose his license. FIGG sat in front of the NTSB and said their bridge design was redundant. Not sure how anyone can argue that design was redundant.

With the Surfside thing hopefully that brings about some changes to the inspection report process. Currently we as engineers don't have much power to force repairs recommended in reports. Much like Enable was talking about, our reports generally go into the hands of someone that doesn't really understand the severity and in the case of the Surfside building are affected negatively financially if they perform the repairs. That's a recipe for needed maintenance to not happen.

 

[phamENG]

r6155 - consider the context, please. Your example and the apparent intent of your first post are polar opposites. The OP is about a client who want's to do something that will likely cause damage to the structure and could potentially be unsafe. Your response: do what the client says and just say so on the drawing. Based on the context, you're endorsing going along with the client's bad idea. Then in your example, you bring up a situation where the client wanted to (potentially) make your design stronger. Those are not the same thing.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I was taught that engineering assessments were meant to have teeth. If you say 'fix this problem or something could fail', you make sure it happens. If it doesn't, then you report the building to the AHJ. Case in point: I recently inspected a building with 'cracks in the wall'. Turned out the wall buckled and the building is no longer stable. I wrote the letter, and informed them that they were to prevent access to that portion of the building until repaired, and that I was to be notified within a certain time frame of the plan to repair. Failure to do so would result in a call to the building official for consideration of condemnation. Got a call last week to start the shoring design.

I realize this won't work all the time, and it must be wielded carefully. But I was taught that, as a structural engineer, once I've seen it I own it. And I've always taken that charge seriously.

 

[NorthCivil]

Unfortunately in building consulting, we are hired not because we are wanted, but because our involvement is legally required.

How this relationship works, is you pay me to say no to all your bad ideas, & in turn I will give you some good ideas. You may not like my ideas, because they are likely to be more costly and time consuming than your ideas. Yes, there is room to meet in the middle & by all means I try to accommodate you as much as I can.

I know it can be frustrating to you mr client, that you pay me to make this whole process more difficult. Though don't be confused. Even though you are paying me, my duty is not to serve you. My duty is to stand up for the guy you will be selling this building to. Because he will be buying the place based on the fancy tiles and carpet, not based on how well the building is built. My job is to make sure there is a proper pig beneath all the lipstick!

 

[dik]

contrary to their mission statement, they just don't want to get involved. hypocracy?

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[dik]

Great comment and more than often, it's true...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[phamENG]

NorthCivil - well put.

 

[r6155]

@ phamENG
Increasing the diameter of the anchor bolt from 38 mm to 50 mm is dangerous if the distance between them is maintained as for 38 mm. Also for embedment depth. The Client only decides to change the diameter of the bolt, this is the difference that requires a note in the calculation "As suggested by the Client".

Regards

 

[phamENG]

And that's why I said (potentially). If the client wanted larger anchors and you failed to adjust the design to accommodate it, that's on you. What you're suggesting flies in the face of the ethical tenets of this profession. Not sure how things are done in your part of the world, but where I am I would be 100% responsible for approving that regardless of who 'suggested' we do it. Now if I approve the 38mm and the client calls the fabricator and says cut the holes for 50mm, that would be on the owner. But the information on documents bearing my seal belongs to me.

 

[BridgeSmith]

But the information on documents bearing my seal belongs to me.

Exactly. As the design engineer, everything in my design that has my seal on it is my domain and my responsibility. Nobody changes something in my design. If I'm asked to change something in the design, I check it, and if the design is still adequate with the change, then I'll change the design. If not, the design stays as is. My boss puts his seal on the details taking responsibility that the details are consistent with the design, so it's the same for him; he's in charge of what's in the details

A PE doesn't get off the hook, morally or legally, by adding a note that 'the client, who's not an engineer, told me to change it'.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[Aton2]

Well said, BridgeSmith. Unfortunately, with the

[ul]
[li]proliferation of U-Tube "How-To" shows,[/li]
[li]increase in corporate engineering mills,[/li]
[li]creeping populist mistrust in science/technology/medicine/engineering,[/li]
[li]growth of the internet, where anyone can pose as an expert and expound on some nonsense, and the[/li]
[li]general reduction of rigour in our education system,[/li]
[/ul]

everyone and anyone feels he or she is qualified to over-ride the design advice of those who have spent many years perfecting their crafts. Thus, Qanon, climate change denial, anti-vaxx, and any number of other whacko, uninformed theories.

Regards, Aton

 

[r6155]

Not even a nuclear plant can be completed if it is intended to comply with all codes.
That is why the non-conformity report was created, but it is used excessively.

Regards

 

[human909]

Quote (As engineers our first and most important obligation is to protect the health and welfare of the public.)

They like to think that, but I don't think it's really the case. The Florida profession is strangely silent about the recent collapse...

Too many lawyers and too many people covering their own asses. Investigations and reporting about failures or near misses is extremely important especially if they are a serious or novel failure. Learning from mistakes (preferably other peoples) is an excellent way of avoiding repeating them.

One of my hobbies is rock climbing. I might be hanging or occasionally falling when I'm several 100m off the deck. I am continually relying on my own ability to risk assess, assess the strength of temporary rock anchors and most importantly avoid complacency. My point is that I've learnt alot by reading about serious accidents and deaths in climbing. I don't want to be one of them.

Unfortunately in building consulting, we are hired not because we are wanted, but because our involvement is legally required.

Yes that is unfortunate. In that sense I might be lucky because I work as an inhouse structural engineer for a mechanical/process engineering company so I don't have this problem. I initially had the problem WITHIN the company, but now they've realised how essential the work is so it is valued.
(I sorta fell into this company because several years back on paper I wasn't highly employable by your typical structural engineering firm. After a couple years not really doing structural stuff, I'm now neck deep in interesting and diverse stuff.)

 

[phamENG]

r6155 - I spent 6 years in naval nuclear power operations before getting my civil engineering degree. I can say both as a Nuclear Operator and now a licensed Professional Engineer (Structural), your attitude sends a chill to my very core. The requirements of the building code do not represent the ideal - they represent the bare minimum structure you can legally design and build. The average engineer produces designs that are better than the building code.

I have to ask - where do you practice engineering? Is that Argentina?

 

[Agent666]

The average engineer produces designs that are better than the building code.

Fixed this for you...

The good engineer produces designs that are better than the building code.

https://engineervsheep.com