What to do when you discover insufficient drawings?

[CBSE]

I have been working for a larger industrial corporation for the last 8 months and have come across a number of design issues with past engineers. I have pulled together stamped drawings and they are for the most part inadequate and cannot be built off of as is (that is my story). The connections are the biggest concern and there is an extreme lack of detail.

A short list of things:

1) The engineer has been using the "Educational" version of Autocad for the past 6+ years...it has it written on every stamped drawing.
2) A partial foundation failure in a steel storage building: it appears the sub-grade was not prepared correctly.
3) Moment frame connections are poorly detailed and constructed...small plates, few welds.
4) Adding double the vertical load to a structure and not checking bearing pressures.
5) No detail for connecting elevated concrete floor systems to concrete walls.
6) No calcs.

What is the ethical thing to do here? I want to have a meeting with him to understand his thought process and better understand his designs. But there are some pretty erroneous issues at hand and he has been practicing structural for a couple of decades.

 

[JedClampett]

Talking to the engineer is the right thing to do. Maybe the engineer had an understanding with the construction crews on some details. Maybe he was stopped from adding more details.
Going through your issues:
1) Sounds like an issue between your employer and AutoCad. They should provide up to date, legally licensed copies of software. If they don't, they're liable. Has someone asked for licensed software?
2) Might or might not be a design issue.
3) This is your opinion.
4) I don't understand, but if he used double the load, that's conservative. And are bearing pressures an issue?
5) Bad practice. should have everything detailed. Maybe there's another project he could point to and say, "Do it like that."
6) Yeah, in an ideal world, everything is calculated and documented. But I do pretty complete calculations and there's still things I leave out due to experience. No calculations is not acceptable.

 

[dcarr82775]

1. The AutoCad thing isn't really a problem form an engineering design standpoint, so I don't see why you care about it. Tell Autodesk if you are bothered by it, maybe they will give you a slight discount on your next renewal.
2. Ok, but what does this have to do with the other engineer?
4. How do you know this? I do a lot of scratch calcs and everything doesn't always make it into the file. Not a great habit I will admit, but it happens.
6. I routinely look at things where calcs are not available for a multitude of reasons. Client's rarely ever keep calculations, if they keep the drawings you are already ahead of the curve.

IMO Items 3, 4, and 5 are the ones where you need to take a look and see if you think there is a real problem. If there is, bring it to your client's attention. If you think it is a life safety issue then bring it to your client's attention asap. I wouldn't go to your client or the other engineer with just ideas, I would firm up my opinion 1st so I have something to stand on before I start pointing the finger at another person.

Some states require you to inform the State Board when you find problems with another engineer's work so if you really believe there are problems, check your State's rules.

 

[JStephen]

It's not real clear what your involvement is here, or why it matters how the other guy does it.

I will point out that there's a big difference between knowing something was done wrong and not knowing if it was done right. Or knowing it is substandard/dangerous vs not knowing if it's adequate. Generally, you're not expected to go back and verify all the engineering work that's ever been done in your vicinity.
On Item #3, are the connections actually inadequate for the design loads? Or just not standard connections?
The other items sound like paperwork and recordkeeping issues, and may or may not involve any ethical lapses.

 

[a2mfk]

"Trust, but verify"- Ronald Reagan reusing a Russian proverb.

I had a similar issue with a former company on a building design I was supposed to "reuse" from a former and fairly respected engineer who was no longer with the company. It was a fairly simple to see gable wall bracing issue that I brought to their attention, said this just does not work, and they agreed. The sticky thing was explaining to the architectural client why this building was going to be quite a bit different then the last one.

In your case, I would pick a couple of the most glaring and critical errors you SUSPECT, and then run some calculations, and most importantly verify if possible what was actually built. Still, if you find and verify an error, when you approach the other engineer, do it tactfully and give him the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise. I may even phrase it like, "Maybe there was a communication issue in the field or..." and see how it goes.

But don't ignore any real problems you confirm and hopefully your employer sees you as the guy doing the right thing, trying to protect people and possible property damage, and ultimately trying to save your company money against future liabilities. Like others said, you likely have a responsibility to file a complaint with the board of PEs and let them do an investigation if you uncover egregious mistakes.

 

[CBSE]

Sounds good.

This engineer was not employed by this company, he was an outside consultant and the only person around that did structural engineering. I have decided that we will fix things as they come up. I know the deficiencies in drawings, calculations, and some code issues with some drawings at this point and it will take some work to do repairs. He will no longer be doing consulting work for us...but he will continue to practice for other public and private entities.

 

[a2mfk]

With that information, once you have a couple of solid examples of the most glaring mistakes, I think you must report them to the board. In fact, you have a responsibility under the code of ethics of engineering- protecting the welfare and safety of the public is foremost.

 

[ztengguy]

If I hire a consultant, I would make it clear in my contract that he is to provide calculations for my approval. That way, nothing gets overlooked, or judged to be ok. If consultant doesnt want to provide, then he can opt not to work for me, I will find one that will provide calcs. Same with drawings, it doesnt get built till they are approved. Its really not that hard to control a consultant if they work for YOU.

 

[dik]

as above with added comments:

3) are the loads provided? or design forces?
5) maybe he didn't want to connect them... is there flexcel or some type of 'breaker'?
6) it's not often that I provide calcs to a client

Dik

 

[JedClampett]

It wasn't clear from your original post that the engineer was a subcontractor. And that adds another layer of reasons. Maybe the guy just wasn't paid enough to produce every detail. We're told all the time that not every client has the budget for the Cadillac project with every detail drafted. And we need to adjust our level of effort accordingly. We're not to do shoddy work, but maybe just calculate the most important members and eyeball or conservatively assume the rest. It's a crappy way to work, but there's a lot of engineers out there who will do it.

 

[a2mfk]

Jed- The trick is how do you determine which members of a structure are the most important?

Dangit, turns out that those little bolts were actually very important...

 

[dhoward26]

No loads provided...in one instance the snow load assumed is 10psf light for the given area and snow load maps (I verified with prior snow load information).

Jed: I agree, some engineers do minimal amounts based on budgets...but this engineer has made a habit out of it.

Water under the bridge now and we will be doing cleanup as we find more.