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.

 

[BridgeSmith]

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.

That may be true is some instances, but someone overriding my design makes them liable for the consequences. If I see something that is unsafe, whether it's something different than my design, or completely unrelated to one of my designs, I have an obligation to alert the proper authorities, but but I am not responsible if that warning goes unheeded.

That is a significantly different situation than someone asking or telling me to alter a design that bears my seal. My seal will not go on anything that I am not completely confident is adequate, and once my seal goes on it, I keep a scanned copy secured.

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

 

[Aton2]

That may be true is some instances, but someone overriding my design makes them liable for the consequences.

Good in theory, Bridgesmith, but lawyers tend to take shot-gun approaches to lawsuits, and let the facts surface later - leading to much angst and expense prior to ultimate exoneration. Usually, there is not much we engineers can do to stop a client from altering our design AFTER occupancy - in which case, if failure occurs, the client may easily "forget" that the change was not authorized by the EOR.

This is one of the concerns I am having with my dilemma - that my client may agree with me now, just to keep the project rolling, but will heat the hell out of the space once Occupancy has been granted - and so I need to clip it in the offing by some written agreement that this scenario will not happen. In reality, I have lost enough faith that I am thinking of simply walking away at this stage anyway - but that approach has its own issues. I must handle it carefully.

Update: I have sent my letter to my client explaining (once more) the dangers of a melting permafrost, and outlined the history of our correspondence (wherein my client clearly stated that they would put no more than minimal heat into the building), I said that I wanted to work with them to find a satisfactory and safe solution, and provided some alternative theoretical options that we could pursue (flat-loop thermosyphons being one)...no mention at this time that I would not stamp unsafe designs, but did state that the AHJ would not allow the building to proceed without an engineer's seal. Thanks again, for all your good advice and comments.

I am not too sanguine as to a happy outcome. We shall see....

 

[dik]

Can you suggest an alternative that would allow him to proceed with his approach? More insulation, whatever?

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

-Dik

 

[Settingsun]

 so I need to clip it in the offing by some written agreement that this scenario will not happen

This is what a Design Basis Memorandum is for. You set out what you're designing for, and in this case what you aren't because of your specific concerns, and you get the client to agree to this in writing. Then reflect the critical stuff on the first drawing with a reference to the full document.

If you're still worried with that in place, you should walk away. It means the legal environment isn't right for engineering.

The owner has the right to modify the building in future. You shouldn't be seeking to limit them. But they do it knowing it requires a modification.

 

[Aton2]

Dik, thanks again. Back in April, I had gone through some conceptual drawing scenarios with my client to try to see what could be done if they wanted to heat the conditioned space, but, after the exercise, I immediately told the him that I was not happy with those options, and discarded them as being unworkable and impractical. That was when they told me that they would not heat the warehouse (or would install only very minimal heat).

Now, you have got me thinking once more, and I will re-visit the issue with more insulation under the concrete pads and grade beams - and no thick gravel pad. I plan to run a few back-of-envelope heat transfer scenarios and see... I doubt it will produce any great results, but it is worth the exercise on my part - if nothing else to ease my mind. Appreciate your continuing input!

Regards, Aton

 

[Aton2]

steveh49, thanks. Your advice is good. While I agree that what the owner does after the building is constructed is beyond my control, I feel that my responsibility is to make very clear that, as I designed it, the structure will probably not be stable if it is heated to human comfort levels by present or future owners. Maybe I am worried excessively, but...

 

[dik]

Insulation sometimes only delays a process... I was thinking that it may be time to talk to a lawyer to see how you can be insulated, yourself...

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, yes, I have explained this to the client - insulation only slows heat. I just want to go through the maths to demonstrate the model. If I decide to remove myself from the project, I think I am insulated legally by my contract and by the multitude of meeting minutes and e-mails throughout.

 

[BridgeSmith]

there is not much we engineers can do to stop a client from altering our design AFTER occupancy

How a building is constructed or used does not alter the design.

I understand that in the case of a catastrophic failure, the lawyers do tend to try to nail everybody, but if the engineer has done their due diligence and acted responsibly, things will get straightened out, eventually.

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

 

[dik]

Maybe not in Florida, but in permafrost, how a building is used can definitely affect how it is designed.

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

-Dik

 

[kingnero]

BridgeSmith,
I do not question your intent, but I also have my doubts on the way you put it into writing.
Different uses will for example give different live loads. If your client asks you to design a bridge on a rural road, and afterwards he changes the road in a highway (or allow much hiogher axle roads), I'm sure you'll agree that a change is use alters the design criteria.

Here, the OP foresees changes in use afterwards, and tries to anticipate on them. He (she/it*) is clearly aware of the problems that can arise if the client doesn not follow his advice. No reaction from the OP's side will certainly come back to bite him in the rear end.

* I'm trying to be inclusive, but I don't know how in English...

 

[Settingsun]

 Maybe I am worried excessively, but...

Maybe, maybe not. You can only protect yourself as best you can. Walking away doesn't feed the family though.

One thing I'd also do, in addition to the agreed design basis, is advise (in writing) that alterations in future to withstand heating are likely to be more expensive than doing it initially. I sat through a legal training course once where the lesson was that clients may be given the privilege of being considered ignorant even if they're experienced developers. Engineer lost out for not advising that column-free space makes the roof structure pricy. (Duh)

 

[dik]

almost a new word... had an elderly neighbour in Oshawa that had a cat she called..."Heshe" because she didn't know if it was male or female.

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

-Dik

 

[BridgeSmith]

...in permafrost, how a building is used can definitely affect how it is designed.

Different uses will for example give different live loads. If your client asks you to design a bridge on a rural road, and afterwards he changes the road in a highway (or allow much higher axle roads), I'm sure you'll agree that a change is use alters the design criteria.

No, a change in use at a later time does not alter the design criteria. The design loads are to be clearly documented in the design, and a change of use does not alter that, or make me responsible if it falls down because someone drove a truck over it that it was not designed to carry.

I get it, guys. Yes, buildings should be designed by the engineer to meet the design criteria, and for the conditions of use, which are given to the engineer, and then documented in the design. What I'm saying is that if something I designed is later on used for a purpose or in a way it was not designed for, that is not a change to the design criteria, and it is not my responsibility.

However, if I know, or find out, that it is to be used in a way that it was not designed to be used, I have a responsibility to alert the client/owner. If they ignore me, and it could pose a danger to people's safety, then I have a responsibility to report it the AHJ.

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

 

[Aton2]

Update: First, I want to thank all of you who provided helpful suggestions, encouragement, and advice. It was greatly appreciated - and sustained me during a period of stress!

As an update to this saga, I have not budged, despite further on-going remonstrance from my client. I will not design the foundation the way my client demands. I have cancelled my contract (following the terms set out in the contract), and have tendered my final invoice. So, at this stage, although my client has not told me they no longer need my services, the project is "on hold" (during which time I assume my client is looking for a more compliant engineer).

Again, my thanks.

-Aton

 

[Enable]

Way to go Aton2! Glad to hear you stuck to your guns.

 

[dik]

Great... hope this is resolved. The cost to accommodate the heating issue is much cheaper at this end, than 'down the road'.

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

-Dik

 

[dik]

@Bridge...


For loads, you are most correct. For permafrost construction, any change in use that affects the thermal aspects of the building can have a major impact if this change affects the foundation strength. This is easy to do in permafrost if you're not sure of what you are doing.

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

-Dik

 

[BridgeSmith]

Agreed dik. That's why the limitations of the design must be clearly spelled out in the design documents. If the OP was asked to design the foundation for an unheated space, and he designs for an unheated space, that is the design criteria, which should be clearly noted in the design. If the client then takes the design and uses it to construct the foundation for a heated space, the client is liable for whatever damage or injuries occur. If the engineer does not specify in the design that it is only suitable for an unheated space, then the engineer would be liable in the case of a failure. If the client wants a foundation designed for a heated space, then the client must be prepared to pay for that design and build according to it. If the client doesn't want to pay for a proper design and the extra construction costs, then the engineer needs to walk away. It sounds like that is what the OP did, and it was the right call.

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