Reporting Code Violations 3

[dhoward26]

With this most recent project I have taken on with a new contractor, it's becoming apparent that there are numerous aspects of design by the previous engineer they used that are deficient in nature. The building departments have inspected and passed there construction in the past. Items are as follows:

1) No bracing to support double top plates at gable end walls.
2) Approval of simpson connectors not installed per simpson requirements (more of a personal opinion on that I suppose).
3) No blocking or direct load path connection at raised heel trusses...just found this one out. The drawings stop the structural sheathing at the double top plate and show no connections from there on up.
4) Improper rebar embedment at cantilevered retaining walls.
5) No blocking between I-Joists at interior bearing walls (the code says blocking is required at ends, but the code section is titled "Lateral Restraints at Supports" which should encompass bearing points in my opinion...IRCR502.7)

How do you report? Does my name get involved in a report? I'm licensed so it's my obligation correct?

 

[JedClampett]

If you're sure you need to report it. It's part of the ASCE Code of Ethics:
"Engineers who have knowledge or reason to believe that another person or firm may be in violation of any of the provisions of Canon 1 shall present such information to the proper authority in writing and shall cooperate with the proper authority in furnishing such further information or assistance as may be required. "
Canon 1 is statement about engineers are responsible for safeguard of health, safety, etc.
But you better be sure. If you're reporting engineers for violations and turn out to be wrong, you're going to be very unpopular. Except with your lawyer.

 

[ztengguy]

Perhaps a letter to the contractor, and let him follow up for answers from the original engineer, and if no response in a few weeks, then sorry, off to the building dept.

 

[JedClampett]

Yeah, but you're going to embarrass the engineer, the contractor and the building department. That's a lot of backsides that will need covering.
Just be careful. You might want to take some pictures of the conditions, so the contractor doesn't just fix them after your letter and say they were going to do it all along (or it was that way all along).

 

[woodman88]

Now I am not sure what rules apply in your case but in AZ (and CA?) the engineering rules state "A registrant shall apply the technical knowledge and skill that would be applied by other qualified registrants who practice the same profession in the same area and at the same time." So have you done so in regard to your comments?
Some things about your comments.
1) The 2009 IBC allows the use of gypsum ceiling diaphragms to brace walls. See Table 2508.5.
2) An engineer may the responsibility of modifying Simpson products. With their own design calculations on the detail.
3) The WTCA has a Technical note T-HeelBlocking08 which also talks about no blocking or partial blocking of wood trusses. Available at

http://www.sbcindustry.com.

4) I would have to look at the detail to have a comment on.
5) One may be able to provide a calculation to show that the blocking is not require.

Before you report this (as you may be providing information to the State Board that you have failed to "...apply the technical knowledge and skill that would be applied by other qualified registrants who practice the same profession in the same area and at the same time."), you may want to do the calculations for the comments I have stated above yourself.
Now I, typically, would not do any of the comments I made above. But that is not saying that someone else could not take the responsibility to approve them.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[JStephen]

One thing to consider is whether you're interested in code compliance (as your thread title indicates) or in actual safety of the structure, which is a different issue. The former is a questionable area to get involved in, particularly if the work is already being inspected by others. (I'm reminded of Goober running around shouting "Citizen's arrest! Citizen's arrest!" on Andy Griffith).

 

[dhoward26]

I suppose it's a gray area. You're supposed to follow code unless judgement says otherwise. Is not following code not putting the safety of the general public in jeopardy? I know a few good lawyers that could make a significant argument with that. I probably won't report the issues. These buildings have been going up like this for years. I guess I'm just somewhat surprised that no one in the building department has caught this, and that the engineer has been either ignoring it, or justifying it through his own calculations. But the Oregon Residential Specialty Code is pretty clear on what it requires...which is essentially the same as the IRC.

I guess what I need to report is more of the question I had and what do I need to have a legitimate report. I haven't ever seen this before so it's new to me and somewhat concerning as this has been the norm for the contractor and engineer.

 

[dik]

I would make a call to the engineer and inform him of your observations and let him make the necessary modifications; if the mods are not made, then another call and then register a complaint.

Dik

 

[woodman88]

The Building Code is to be followed as it is the minimum requirements for buildings. An alternate engineered design that provides this requirement is also acceptable, in most of the building codes. So an engineer could design a Building Code acceptable detail for the above conditions. Not that I am saying the above conditions work, just that they may work.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[ztengguy]

Why is the original engineer not doing these buildings, what reason is he off the job?

 

[dhoward26]

The contractor said he is not using the engineer anymore due to reliability issues and lack of communication. Surprised it has taken 8-10 years for them to get to this point and stop using the guy. I know him, and I have tried to contact him in the past...before I had seen his designs...to discuss work load in the area as he approached me and said he was overloaded. I've left probably 4 messages and a few e-mails with no response. I'm not surprised the contractor is fed up with it either. It's unfortunate on all fronts.

 

[dhengr]

Dhoward26:
Maybe the way to approach this problem, the first step, is to prepare a short report on each item that you have issues with; some calcs., photos, applicable code sections or paras., footnotes from hardware catalogs, etc., and tell the contractor that for these reasons you would have some trouble signing off on those items, for him. Would he please have the original design engineer respond to these issues. Then if nothing happens, or you get a bunch of B.S. in return, you are probably on firmer ground in taking action. This is really a tricky issue, as Jed and Garth have suggested, and at first I would give the other engineer the benefit-of-the-doubt, let them explain how they justify what appears to you to be non-compliant. You might learn something, or at least have a better understanding of his rational. Keep extemporaneous notes, sketches, etc. from meeting on these matters. And, you will want this as added ammo. in your reporting effort. We should all be self checking, but we can all miss something or make a mistake too, and if done properly we would appreciate the other engineer catching something before it became serious. Obviously, if you see something that is blatantly in error or of immanent danger, you have an obligation to act more quickly to prevent harm. I guess I just put more words to what Ztengguy said.

 

[Gumpmaster]

A couple of questions.

-What county are you in? Some of the counties vary wildly with respect to the quality of their inspectors.

-Could you call the building department and ask them if they would allow these things?

I would leave talking to OSBEELS as a last resort. Talk to the contractor first, then the building department.

 

[dhoward26]

I will leave talking with OSBEELS out. I will probably make a phone call to the building inspector. I will also make detailed notes a print out of code pages for my records if I decide to approach the engineer about it.

 

[Teguci]

First, know the local engineering ethics law. Second, state the truth. Third, idnetify imminent issues (they have to be handled by you).

For the cantilevered retaining wall, I'd send a letter to NSPE (or whoever) as follows: "I have recently been informed by a contractor on such and such project that several cantilevered retaining walls have their main bending reinforcement, #5s, embedded into the footing 11". My understanding, per ACI 318 chapter 12, is that the minimum development length into the footing is 12" regardless of all other factors. I believe this to be an unsafe condition that needs attention. Please let me know, within 2 weeks, what my ethical requirements are regarding this situation."

 

[Teguci]

OSBEELS has weasel words. NSPE clearly places the reporting action on the finding engineer:

"Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required."

Oregon states:

"Registrants having knowledge of any alleged violation of any of these Rules of Professional Conduct, shall cooperate with the Board in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required."

Oregon left out the requirement of reporting.

 

[Ron]

dik is correct. Contact the other engineer and let him "attempt" to resolve. If that doesn't happen in short order, your obligation is to protect the public, so do it by documenting and reporting. Only once or twice in 35 years of practice have I had to request a building department put a "stop order" on construction.

 

[dik]

Ron:
...or maybe explain his reasons for the details...

Dik

 

[charliealphabravo]

1) No bracing to support double top plates at gable end walls.
2) Approval of simpson connectors not installed per simpson requirements (more of a personal opinion on that I suppose).
3) No blocking or direct load path connection at raised heel trusses...just found this one out. The drawings stop the structural sheathing at the double top plate and show no connections from there on up.
4) Improper rebar embedment at cantilevered retaining walls.
5) No blocking between I-Joists at interior bearing walls (the code says blocking is required at ends, but the code section is titled "Lateral Restraints at Supports" which should encompass bearing points in my opinion...IRCR502.7)

Just a few thoughts...

1. In my opinion this is a function of load not code. If you have done the calculations and demonstrated that the ceiling diaphragm is inadequate then it is an issue. If not then I would leave it alone. Engineer's should always defend the right to deviate from the code when supported by rational analysis--and the code explicitly allows this. Especially when the code lower's itself to commenting on how an elaborate construction like a gable-end must be detailed.
2. Maybe I am missing something, how has the engineer approved the connector installation? It is the contractor's responsibility to install proprietary connectors according to the manufacturers requirements. If a particular connection cannot be managed by the contractor then this should be resolved in the normal course of construction. Why must it be a matter of discipline?
3. How high is the truss heel. What is the load? Are there no other elements or geometry that can resist shear or rollover? Again, rational analysis does not always require blocking and you should try to give the engineer the benefit of any residual strength that they may have accounted for.
4. No comment.
5. I- Joists are proprietary products and it is the contractor's responsibility to install them according to the manufacturer's shop drawings and installation details. If the standard components must be modified in some way to serve the engineer's LFR system then the additional requirements should be shown.

 

[Brad805]

I would sit down and try to think how these discussions will go. I am not saying this is the correct point of view at all, and I much prefer others suggestions, but once this starts rolling, you are stuck in the middle if you want to push it. I don't know if you are in a high seismic zone, or high wind zone, so the significance of your observations is unclear. I have personally conducted reviews of buildings from the 50's/60's without roof diaphragm code members and many other deficient connections, and these buildings were not in danger of collapse (low seismic/wind zones). I did prepare reports for those buildings and the owners eventually did do what they could afford. This is a case where your engineering judgement is critical to assess the level of danger.

Contractor: I installed as per the plans. Both the engineer and building inspector approved it. Who is paying me to go back? Not correct, but they are running a business.
Engineer: I think you already know the reality of that discussion. I bet his first comment will be those items were not required by calculation. That may not be true, but unless you have done the calculations to check them are you in a position to question him? Codes are wonderful, but we do have the power to deviate.
Building Official: If the same inspector is still there (unlikely) and it was not indicated on the plans, they will simply blame the engineer. I don't know the building inspector bylaws in your area, but in ours, they are quite sad. To the point, that sometimes I wonder about their value.
Professional Association: You will need to file a formal complaint with sealed drawings. It seems that there maybe some areas where your concerns are a case of personal preference. I have been involved in those, and they may be reluctant to go very far. Formal complaints involve lawyers, and expert evaluations, and those cost our professional associations. I was randomly selected for a practice review about three years ago, and they investigated me with a fine tooth comb. One project was evaluated independently and examined carefully. During that investigation I decided to lodge a complaint about a building style in our area that is used incorrectly (improper lateral load transfer mechanisms) by one supplier. I provided a set of sealed drawings, and a number of photographs. Four years later, nothing.

This might be a case where you could send your comments to the owner identifying your concerns about the previous design and let them decide how to proceed.

Best of luck, and I hope I did not offend anyone.

Brad