New PE Needs Advice

[CivilPE22]

I work for a smaller consulting firm. I have worked under a PE with 40 plus years of experience for the past five years as an EIT. I received my PE license about two months ago and will be stamping my first project in the next month.

The PE under which I trained directed me to use “old school” methods in analyzing and designing structures on the basis that a more conservative design would result. I used these methods for the past five years in analyzing and designing structures. As a new PE my designs will still be subject to review by this senior PE. I have decided to basically consider both the out dated methods taught to me as an EIT, and ACI 350-08 and let the most conservative criteria prevail.

While designing my first project using this new approach, I discovered a significant difference in calculations between the two methods. I researched older codes and determined that certain provisions had been misapplied in the methods I was taught as an EIT. The result of the “old school” methods I was taught and the misapplication of certain provisions results in a less conservative design than the methods described in ACI 350 – 08. In some instances, some portions of the structure need to be twice as thick.

The fact of the matter is, there are many, many, structures that have been designed and passed the test of time under the “ old-school “ design methods I was taught as and EIT. However, I feel that I cannot place my stamp on something that’s designed under these methods.

I would like some advice on how I should approach the senior PE with this issue. I thought about going ahead and pushing the project through drafting and simply handing him the design; however, I know it won’t pass his smell test. He will immediately pick up on the differences and say I have been way too conservative. Since he does not want to learn the methods described in newer codes, I will have to take the older code that he has been working from for the past 40 years and show him how it has been miss-interpreted. I can also see him making the argument that there are literally dozens of these structures that have been designed under the same criteria and have withstood the test of time, which in my opinion has significant merit.

Any suggestions?

 

[Ron]

You have several issues with which to deal.

First, designs are not only tested by time. That's just one criterion. Most buildings/pieces/parts never see their design loads. If they were underdesigned, there's a good chance that will never come to light. If it does, then there's hell to pay.

Secondly, by using older methods you are deviating from the standard of care practiced by other engineers providing the same services in your locale. If they are using current codes and standards, the standard of care requires that you do that as well. If you do not, you risk being adjudged negligent in your practice....which will significantly increase your liability and place your license at risk.

 

[CivilPE22]

Ron,

I agree, that’s why I will not seal a design that does not meet the minimum standards of the latest code being used. However, I don’t see a problem with being slightly more conservative as long as the design meets the current code.

What I really need is some advice on how to approach the Senior Engineer.
Thanks!

 

[Ron]

You have to be a little bit careful with how you approach him so that he doesn't just dismiss your approach as being a "newbie" who thinks he knows too much.

It sounds as though your "Senior" engineer could use a bit of professional liability training. I would approach him in this manner:

...let him know that since becoming a P.E., you felt that you needed to know the obligations and practice standards of a P.E. and that you had not given that as much thought before because you had always depended on him. Now that you carry an equal responsibility, you wanted to learn as much about those obligations and practices as possible so that you could practice in the manner that the profession expects and in a manner so as to best protect the liability and assets of the company.

Explain to him that engineering liability has increased over the years such that both the company and the individual often get brought into lawsuits as co-defendants, so you want to do what you can to first meet the standard of care and then to offer conservative yet cost-effective design solutions to your clients.

Let him know that you still consider him a mentor and that you appreciate the guidance and assistance he has given you. Further, let him know that you will continue to seek such, but that you have a need to achieve some independence in your practice approach and ask him to respect that as long as you don't ask him to compromise his own judgment and principles.

 

[CPENG78]

CivilPE22,
As a younger engineer, one of the challenges in your early career is to learn how to convey your point in an effective matter. That applies in writing, presentations, meetings and just day to day office communication. I have worked in various offices from a small start up to multi office civil firms. Certainly the dynamics of communication changes from the size of the company you work for to the individual you are trying to communicate with amongst other factors. Through my experience, I have come to find out that regardless of engineering experience and ability, many engineers lack a little in the communication skill. I feel like universities could do a better job at emphazising such skills in addition to the technical side.

I could not agree more with what Ron describes as your method of approach. The only point I would add, is that you want to protect the company as much as you would like to protect your license. Emphasize the word "we...." as much as possible. It will show your boss how you are trying to (or have) move towards taking ownership of not only your projects but also the well being of the company. I hope this helps.

 

[brandonbw]

My partner was going through this same situation at his job before. He is 33 and the boss was old school. He also had to tip toe around the subject of current standards. But he never had to stamp the plans so it wasn't as big of a deal.

I would definitely approach the mentor as more concerned for your license and liability than trying to be the new know it all. Maybe even mention that you used the new standards while studying for your test and now that you passed feel you should bring it to his attention.

B+W Engineering and Design
Los Angeles Civil and Structural Engineering

http://bwengr.com

 

[hokie66]

Good advice already given. Before approaching him, it might be a good idea to run the "significant difference" by us. There have been a lot of changes, but none that I can think of which would require doubling of member thickness.

 

[CivilPE22]

Thanks everyone for your comments.

Hokie66,
The doubling of member thickness is not due to a change in the code, but a misinterpretation of the old working stress code. Basically walls and slabs loaded like beams were sized for an allowable shear stress in the concrete of 2.0 X Sqrt(f’c) where the working stress code requires 1.1 X Sqrt(f’c). My interpretation of ACI 318 – 54 (I am sure everyone has a copy) is that the 2.0 X Sqrt (f’c) should apply to walls and slabs subject to punching shear.

I believe this would be the equivalent to applying the shear requirements ACI 350-06 11.12.1.2 to shear in slabs with beam action.

Thoughts?

Thank you!

 

[beton1]

On drawings, do you not submit the applicable codes being used? If the spec sheet has not been changed, then I am surprised no one has caught it at the City. This may be your approach with the 'senior' guy. If the codes have been updated, why are they being ignored or not used?

 

[CivilPE22]

beton 1,

These are environmental structures (tanks) not high rise apartment buildings. Public safety is not really a concern. We do not have to show the codes used on the Plans.

 

[Ron]

CivilPE22...your obligation is not only public safety, but health and welfare. That means if you have a tank failure, you might compromise public health by contamination and the welfare of the public is affected by an economic loss due to failure...

 

[CivilPE22]

Ron,

I agree, I should have thought about that before I said it. What I meant to say is that I would be more concerned if this were a high rise building and public safety was an immediate concern.

Look, I am attempting to have a casual conversation with other members of the same profession in an attempt to get advice on how to handle this situation. I understand my obligations as an engineer, those being the reason we are having this conversation in the first place.

If everything I say is going to be scrutinized and I am going to have to spend time defending myself then this is a waste of time.

 

[Ron]

CivilPE22...not attempting to scrutinize. This is a free-flow forum. It is intended that questions and answers benefit more than just the apparent conversation between two people. Yes, I was pretty sure that you understood your obligations as a P.E.; however, others reading this might not understand the reasons for some of the answers and the way they were answered.

My attempt was only to be complete...not to scrutinize nor judge. No offense intended.

I see that you are new to the forums. Welcome. Stick around. You'll be a good contributor.

 

[hokie66]

CivilPE22,
You are correct that the Working Stress Design value for beam shear in slabs and walls was 1.1 X Sqrt(fc'). However, I doubt the mistaken use of 2.0 would ever have halved the slab depth, as beam shear rarely controls in slabs and walls. The check may have been wrong, but the answer was probably unaffected, as bending and deflection are the main criteria.

 

[CivilPE22]

Hokie66,
Shear controls in this case. Walls should be 1.8 (2.0/1.1) times thicker.

 

[hokie66]

Then you are right to use the current standard, or at the very least use the Working Stress code with the correct interpretation. The fact that there have not been problems with the structures designed incorrectly doesn't mean the standard was wrong. It probably means that the structure is smarter than the engineer, which happens all the time. It could also mean the loading assumptions were overly conservative, or have not yet occurred.

 

[brandonbw]

My structural professor in college would joke about what buildings were more important. And I still remember that school with a bunch of little kids designed wrong, as an example, was worth nothing compared to something designed wrong for a Nuclear facility.

I also agree that plan checks through a city aren't exactly going to catch mistakes in numbers. This is exactly why I think the OP makes a good point in trying to figure out a nice way to tell the Old School PE something new. I have seen some pretty stupid stuff get passed by a city that wasn't paying attention 100%. Dealing with a job right now that is a complete disaster because of this.

B+W Engineering and Design
Los Angeles Civil and Structural Engineering

http://bwengr.com

 

[beej67]

What I really need is some advice on how to approach the Senior Engineer.

Tell him to stamp it if he wants it done his way?

"My stamp, my call" works both ways. It also works as "Your call? Your stamp."

My two cents anyway.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[brandonbw]

beej67: I am laughing at that one. As true as that is, that's stepping on some toes. But this is a good point, maybe you just go in as a hard headed, we are now equal, don't question me anymore type of guy. Be ready to prove yourself though, if you can't ugh.

I saw how an old Project Manager treated those types of guys, it was not pretty at all. Be ready for anything.

B+W Engineering and Design
Los Angeles Civil and Structural Engineering

http://bwengr.com

 

[CivilPE22]

Well guys, thanks for your help. I approached the Senior PE and explained the situation in a very respectful way. His response was “I have done it that way for years and nothing has failed”. My response was “yes and it probably won’t, but from this point forward we have an obligation to meet the minimum code requirements”. He agreed, end of discussion. I was worried about the situation for nothing.

Ron,

I understand what you are saying and I will keep that in mind from now on.