PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit" 2

[structuralsteelhead]

Any of you third party plan checkers facing this issue? I perform structural design and analysis services occasionally for PV systems,...mostly rooftops. In addition, I also provide third party plan checks of the same. Recently, I've been asked to give my blessing to a system that varies significantly from any cataloged, engineered, tested, or documented racking arrangement thus provided by the PV racking company in question. They have claimed "Proprietary Information",...no specific section/member or connection details and supporting calculations are apparently going to be submitted by the PV racking manufacturer. The company has chosen not to respond further to any more of my comments concerning their non-typical (cataloged/engineered) racking arrangements. The drawings showing the racking system will be stamped by a professional engineer. This plan check has taken months because of the failure of the manufacturer's cooperation in producing engineering data. Has anyone had the "Proprietary Information,..not for public consumption" card played while performing plan checks? In my opinion, I'm not "the public" when performing a plan check for my client, who in this case is a major county in the state of CA. Thanks in advance for any comments. Bill

 

[ztengguy]

Never experienced this, but as a reviewer, if your not satisfied, then I would reject. Your still taking some liability of this even if stamped by another engineer in one way or another. interesting why they wont submit a calc, not like the engineering or design is patentable or something.

 

[SLTA]

I bet they won't submit because they haven't gotten/can't find an engineer to seal it. Reject it till they come up with these mysterious calcs. (I know some good CA engineers if they need help...)

 

[nutte]

What is "PV"?

I've heard of concrete suppliers claiming their mix designs are proprietary information, but rather than not submit them, they let the engineer of record "borrow" them to review. You sign a disclaimer, promise not to divulge their trade secrets, and then return the mix design to them when you're through with it.

 

[SLTA]

nutte, "photovoltaic". ie solar electric panels for on top of roofs.

 

[Brad805]

I would bet the people buying the goods would have some pull to get the info. It sounds to me like you have done what you can, and it is time to toss the debate back to the owner to decide what is the next step.

I think there are a lot of manufacturers in the cold rolled steel industry that are reluctant to share this info. Years ago we reviewed a quonset building built with cold rolled steel and after pushing for the cross-sectional data information we finally got their calculations from 1966. The date of the calculations was a little surprising.

Brad

 

[structuralsteelhead]

Thanks all,...feeling my client will accept their plans as is with or without my approval, which is their option, my final advise to them is in effect that they request one of the many engineers involved in the producing the loading data for the racking system also take specific, written responsibility via letter or wet stamp notation, for the structural integrity of the non-typical racking arrangements shown on the layout plans before accepting the design package. I've fought the good fight. Or did I?

 

[JAE]

ztengguy, not to hi-jack this thread but you bring up an interesting point on this question. Is a plan reviewer, hired by an official city, county, whatever, really liable for anything? Really?

I know California can be sort of like a brave new world at times but how far does the state/country have to go to check work done by a company producing a product like that?

This sort of is in line with a long thread we had sometime back on the issue of engineers being forced to submit calculations for review ("I don't care if you are a licensed engineer in this state and have stamped/signed the plans - we still want to verify whether you did all your calculations correctly and nit-pick your methods and assumptions. We just don't trust our own ability to properly license engineers and we don't believe that you have any vested interest in doing a good job.")

 

[JAE]

Here's the old thread I referred to:
thread507-89434

 

[structuralsteelhead]

Thanks! JAE. Read the thread, with Ned,..near a shed. All good points! I'm a calc guy, personally, unless I know I can produce a quick supporting calc or code reference table or Simpson page number to support my drawings. In most of my submittals, calcs are required for the primary structural elements of my structures. Secondary structural elements sometimes receive a little more leeway in plan checks. Here we see the acceptance of drawings with simply the appropriate engineer's stamp sometimes taking care of the bill. Hoards of third party plan check companies, existing solely as such, making as much as, or maybe more than I do to design a building to check it, vary in intensity in their reviews. When spinning and redistributing rigid diaphragms forces in multistory buildings, it's not a bad idea to have someone glancing over your results,"or at least to see if you've done such". This is my theory on plan check reviews,....which I do, myself,...occasionally. I don't spend to much time checking math. I do check to see if major numbers look consistent, like story forces and whether collectors have been designed using the appropriate load combinations. Other than that, I look at the process to see if the major components are there, represented with some leeway as to the order and neatness of the package as we are all different animals with our own "means and methods of engineering". Above all, I do look for ownership for the components of the whole shebang, or at least that everyone got pecked at least once along the pecking order.

In my little PV example, we had a design/build company with engineers on staff, subbing out all engineering but stamping the construction documents as the design build company/contractor. The Wind Tunnel study stamped a letter saying that the project geometries appeared to be compliant to the loads derived in the small scale model used in their study. The structural engineer using the values from the wind tunnel study stamped his anchorage calculation package. The PV racking supplier, claiming all information proprietary finally, after much duress, provided a very simplified/typical FEA analysis by another structural engineer of a similar but not enveloping racking layout covering most of the racking configurations for the project. However, the main members in the FEA model were topped out in allowable capacities and the non-typical arrangements on the project documents appeared to double and triple the tributary load to the same members. Yet, the design/build engineer of record ready to okay and stand behind supplier based upon his warranty for "parts and labor".

In my mind, I see the future finger pointing legal battle of who was responsible for the design of what part of what component using whose design information since so many engineers had their fingers in the pudding on this one. I simply asked the million dollar question,...."Will the real racking system engineer please stand up?" Fine,...we don't need further calcs at this point, however, as a minimum we would like to see your exclusive stamp and notation stating such,...on the drawings, or in letter form to be kept with the job records and/or drawings. If you're sure of your work, calcs or no calcs, you can do this,..yes?

And that's where this story ended. Per slta's post above, in my opinion, either they don't have the engineering data, don't want to pay someone to produce it, or they don't like the results they got back from the man they paid for the results who thus will not stamp the drawings with my little note request.

Thus, I feel calcs are necessary and I'm not completely happy with myself that I've given up the good fight and not asked for even "more hard calcs". Like Jerry McGuire movie line, sort of,..."Show me the Calcs!" Come on people,...charge more for your projects, hey, why not, you can include time for calcs. We'll still lose our budget butt's anyway, but not by as much though. Where's the warranty on public safety? Isn't that what we've all sworn to protect. Parts and Labor? Stepping down now, soapbox relinquished. Have a good weekend. Thanks to JAE and all others who responded.

 

[Ron]

Reject. Reject. If the first two answers are not clear...reject.

PV systems have little or no engineering. I'm in a high wind area and I am going through an issue similar...no backup calcs. Not attachment calcs. Windborne debris....

 

[OHEcoEng]

My opinions, as a former (15 years) plan reviewer and currently a designer.

First, in Ohio, I did my best to review stamped plans, but in all reality, there is no way I could have gotten through everything. If everything looks OK and a PE is willing to put his/her license on the line, then that was good for me assuming my "spot checks" panned out. As an employee of the State of Ohio, the state took on any liability, not me. The EOR was the ultimate guilty party if there was a fatal mistake. Anyone submitting documents for permitting was able to claim confidentiality.

As far as your situation, I would think if someone wanted your services and was asking for a blessing, they would provide you with the requested documentation. Not being a regulator, I feel that you have the same responsibility as the person designing it, so I would walk away from it (at least that portion of it) unless they provide you with what you need to make an educated decision. As a professional, they need to respect your responsibilities and expect some integrity.

Having a racking system certified by the manufacturer is one thing, but having the racking/system certified/stamped for a particular installation is another. I personally don't know of any "proprietary" calculations...it's all spelled out in ASCE 7 and local codes.

Many flat-roof racking systems require upwards of 10 psf local ballast loads, requiring a good structural review of the roof. Those with direct attachment have to be evaluated for wind loading, among other things. Here in Ohio (90 mph basic wind speed), an encroachment into roof zone 2 can easily get you into 30+ psf uplift forces. I can only imagine what coastal zones look like...

I have also seen at least one non-ballasted, not attached racking system whose manufacturer claims it is held down "as if by magic". I would like to see the calculations for pixie dust and magic for this one. I haven't asked for them yet. Hopefully, someday soon, I'll get to see what "magic" looks like on paper.

 

[ztengguy]

I guess Im thinking that in a event of a collapse, injury, etc, The reviewer can be liable since he is a PE, and should have known better, etc. I can understand too if you work for a State agency, you might be protected.

Also, when it comes to suing, Lawyers will sue everyone and see who has the most/deepest pockets. It might cost you a arm or a leg just to prove that all you did was review, and not do the design.

If you want any of my calcs for something i designed, so be it. Maybe the PV will be a bit more, since you have to pay an engineer to do the calcs.

Customer can always go down the road to PV supplier that is willing to provide calcs. His money, his choice.

 

[JAE]

I really don't believe that city plan reviewers, or the city itself, or any public agency reviewing plans for construction signed and sealed by a private licensed engineer is liable for anything. I could be wrong but I've just not seen that as the way it works. The EOR is the liable party - not someone checking to see if the wind was 90 mph vs. 110 mph.

 

[OHEcoEng]

JAE: In this case, I read SteelHead's post as if he was being paid to review someone else's work, and then give it a "thumbs up". If I read it correctly, then I would say he does carry some liability, and (if it was me) require the proprietary calculations - with a confidentiality agreement - or let someone else take on the liability.

If he's a government-type reviewer, then I agree that there is little (or no) liability - but he still has the right to see the magical calculations.

 

[Lemony]

Hyatt walkway collapse ==> EOR is liable for everyone elses engineering IF someone dies.

 

[IDS]

Certainly the supplier should provide sufficient details of materials, dimensions etc to allow the actual proposed structure to be accurately defined, but why insist on seeing their calculations. Surely a verifier should be doing their own independent calculations?

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services

http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

 

[racookpe1978]

Deep pockets + Big lawyers + "fuzzy" "green energy" (non-existent) designs for a roof-mounted PV array?

The way I see it, you've got three threats here (looking at the building and its owner) to consider:

1) Junk blowing off of your owner's building due to a "sheet-metal and sheetrock screwed" PV panel and hurting somebody downwind.

2) The PV panel pulling off of your building's roof and hurting somebody or damaging your building, its waterproofing, its roof, its roof-mounted AC and HVAC equipment.

3. (Least important) The PV panel falling down under wind or shaking loads and only damaging the PV panels. Since they (the PV panels) are worthless (in my opinion) that's not a real fault.

I suspect that the "miraculous" green energy design is deliberately strong enough only to resist the static weights of the PV panels themselves. No uplift planning, no roof weight/lift planning, no downwind hazards to people or other structures are of concern.

 

[msquared48]

JAE:

I will have to take issue here on two points:

First, regarding the issue with the requirement to submit calculations, if I were the plan reviewer, I would want to see them. The code has become so complicated over the years, that unless you have these calcs for the review, you will never know if the structure has been properly designed. In my opinion, it's just not possible from a drawing set alone now.

Also, regarding the liability issue, I know many jurisdictions claim that they have no liability, but that has not been my experience. I just ran into a case where there was an unclear area regarding authority to approve between the inspectors and the plan reviewers. He relied on the inspector's opinion and was trumped by the plan reviewer, after the fact. No liablility here? I don't think so, but I'm not a lawyer or judge either. The outcome remains to be seen.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[JAE]

Mike -

I understand your points (good ones).

But even with calculations, unless you, as a plan reviewer, are going the whole way and are going to redesign the full frame (full analysis, full calculations, etc.) you won't know from reading someone's calc's whether everything is right.

My reference above was to a previous thread where we hashed out the issue of the purpose of calculations. As a reviewer, my job should be to verify general aspects of the design, check for use of the correct building code, appropriate loads, etc. on a more macro scale.

To suppose that a plan reviewer is there to ensure some level of quality assurance of the EOR's minute calculations is, to me, absurd.

The EOR is responsible to check and verify their own work. It is not some government-hired plan reviewer's job to look for errors....or at least it shouldn't be.

Submitting my calculations (my personal tool that serves my application of engineering principles) to a plan reviewer simply cheapens our profession in my view.

I know it is different in places like California but historically our profession was never meant to be a commodity where outside entities checked our math, our calculations, and our application of engineering principles.

(my feathers get ruffled on this topic so sorry for the rant)

Your second paragraph sort of makes my point. You describe a situation and yet you present a struggle between an inspector and a reviewer. Where the h*!! is the EOR in all of this? I would suggest that perhaps the EOR (and engineering) was cheapened and removed from the issue and it was the EOR's professional design that was at issue.