Who is responsible

[stillfan]

I have a contractor telling me that I am responsible as the structural engineer for determining if we can switch from a IIB construction type to a IIIB. Is this correct, I see this as an architectural item, aside for designing the structural members for any loading due to fire.

 

[Ron]

You are not responsible for any redesign that is not in your contract.

 

[dik]

What is the distinction between IIB and IIIB construction?

Dik

 

[BAretired]

I found this link which may explain it.

BA

 

[stillfan]

BAretired, thank you that is exactly what I found. IIB is noncombustible material with no specific fire rating, IIIB must have a designated fire rating. Basically the site has another building that is within 5ft of our structure and they are trying to consolidate the buildings so they don't need a party wall. So they want to take the structure from a IIB to a IIIB but from my interpretation of the code the structural frame would have to be fire rated and there currently is no fire rating. I have been going back and forth with this guy about it not being a structural component. The contract is for structural design only, not a design build. He swears he has engineer friends that are telling him it would be the responsibility of the structural engineer. I don't see it and I believe you guys just confirmed that it is not something normally undertaken on part of the structural engineer.

Thank you,

 

[BAretired]

It seems strange that the contractor is attempting to set out your scope of work based on alleged conversations with his engineering friends. Does that mean that the contractor is your client? Is there an architect on the job? A mechanical or electrical engineer?

Perhaps it would be advisable for all affected parties to meet to discuss Fire Protection, Occupant Safety and Accessibility which is ordinarily within the scope of the Architect, not the Structural Engineer.



BA

 

[TXStructural]

I think you are being asked to do architecture, or fire protection engineering. It is certainly not a structural engineering role to determine the fire resistance rating requirements of a building. It is (or may be) the role of the structural engineer to design a structural system to meet a certain fire resistance rating, or the method of achieving a certain rating may need to be coordinated with others where the structure is protected by finishes or other systems.

Structural engineers are not qualified by virtue of their structural PE/SE licensure to evaluate life safety codes and standards in order to determine things like occupancy and fire ratings. Many are qualified, but these activities exceed the scope of practice of the SE in most states. Most places, this falls under "comprehensive building design", which is the scope of practice for an architect.

 

[steellion]

Maybe he is asking if the current structural system can meet IIIB, or what would need to be done to bump it up? But yes, that typically falls into the domain of the architect/FP engineer.

 

[msquared48]

AAh, but here's the rub. SE's can stamp Architectural plans in certain states, definitely here in Washington. This could be asn expectation of the contractor. I have done that in the past, but it does get into the grey area of stamping what you are comfortable with, and what you have directly supervised. Sounds like this contractor is hard to directly suprervise, so that could be a problem.

Expectations or not thoug, it does get into what is in your contract to SPECIFICALLY provide services for. Your contract should have the statement that "anything outside the scope of services listed is considered extra services".

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

http://mmcengineering.tripod.com

 

[charliealphabravo]

In FL too engineers can do incidental architecture and whatever they are qualified to do. No opinion on how it applies here tho. Something sounds backwards but without more details it's hard to tell what zactly.

 

[TXStructural]

Going from IIB to IIIB is a reduction in fire resistance, like changing from CMU with concrete floors to CMU with wood floors and roof. The change reduces the permissible square footage, amounts of flammable liquids, and changes many other things.

 

[MrHershey]

Sounds like something I would normally defer to the architect. Even though we (as a firm) may be technically qualified to do this work, it's usually not a liability we're looking to accept lightly since it's definitely not our area of expertise.

And are you directly contracted with the contractor? If not, then there's nothing here to discuss, have him take it up with whomever he's contracted to and let it come down (or up) the chain of command.