Is this an acceptable design letter

[Mark K]

There appears to be some misunderstanding regarding structural observation. First it is the intent that structural observation will be performed by the structural designer but provisions are made for those cases where this cannot happen.

Structural observations as defined by the code are not detailed inspections of the work. Structural observations are intended to give the structural designer an general idea as to the quality of the work.

 

[north star]

= + =

DennisK,

Thank you for your reply!.....By accountable, I mean to say that "Sifu"

seems to be trying to do the right thing on this project and that he is

trying to follow some resemblance of the codes in his area, ...of

trying to be "accountable" [ if you will ] to the project requirements,

...the codes, ...himself and the owner....."If" the engineer in his

postings has submitted a broad coverage type of cursory CYA

statement, that, IMO, does not satisfy what "Sifu" [ seems to be ]

seeking......That the contractor did not request an inspection is

just more indication that he [ "Sifu" ] is in a very difficult position

without much support, and that the owner of the project is not

getting what he is paying for.....It is painfully obvious that he

[ "Sifu" ] does not have much support from the "powers-that-be".

I agree that if / when he requested engineered plans, the

project should have stopped until those requested plans were

received and approved by the AHJ.......Because the foundation

wall has altready been poured, and because of "Sifu's" lack of

support, there's not much that can be done now, except to

record his concerns / lack of inspections, ...keep documenting

and move forward.

IMO, it is a very sad commentary on "only through litigation that

design professionals are be held accountable", when plans are

submitted, ...codes are available to apply and situations like

this are completely avoidable.

No disrepect was intended to the engineering profession, but a

vague approval letter does not meet the intent or the letter of

the codes IMO......Litigation should not be the vehicle for

compliance or accountability!

"Sifu's" topic; and the associated discussion, is just more

evidence that a pandemic is underway, ...on multiple sides!



+ = +

 

[Mark K]

The building official can only require what the code makes provisions for. The IBC only provides for structural observation or special inspection. While the design professional can perform special inspections the default assumption is that they are provided by specialist inspectors. The decision as to who performs the special inspections is made by the Owner. The building departments approval of the special inspectors is to be based on whether the individual has the technical qualificaitons to perform the special inspections.

The building official's job is to enforce the building code not to try to hold an individual accountable. That is a job for the courts.

An engineer who signed the letters that some seem to be asking for could find himself responsible for work that he had no control over. If these letters were seen to be a guarantee that the work was in total compliance with the code the design professional would likely find that his errors and ommissions insurance would not cover it. This would mean that there would be no money to pay any claims which would not be doing the building owner any favors.

 

[DennisK]

Definitely some good points there. I can't agree with Mark K on structural observation.

SECTION 1710 STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS

1710.1 General. Where required by the provisions of Section 1710.2 or 1710.3, the owner shall employ a registered design professional to perform structural observations as defined in Section 1702.

Prior to the commencement of observations, the structural observer shall submit to the building official a written statement identifying the frequency and extent of structural observations.

At the conclusion of the work included in the permit, the structural observer shall submit to the building official a written statement that the site visits have been made and identify any reported deficiencies which, to the best of the structural observer's knowledge, have not been resolved.

That does not sound to me like it's the designer. The point about an engineer being responsible for someone else's design I really don't credit either. Engineers are targets for litigation because we have professional liability insurance. Some without insurance are targets. The story about the aerospace engineer who drove by a bridge under construction on his way to work getting sued because there were problems on the bridge is a great example (true or not). If the engineer was knowledgeable about bridges and bridge construction and saw the problem but didn't report it to anyone, he violated the rules of professional practice. If someone doesn't want to pony up and be a responsible engineer maybe he should be selling cars.

Just because we're targets for lawsuits doesn't mean we should hide in holes. Engineers get locked out of areas where they have expertise because they have more liability than other people. It's a lot easier to get an engineer fined by the board than it is to sue someone. Try it sometime. But we end up with an industry where individuals with high school diplomas perform functions that should be handled by engineers because of---what---we're scared?

I agree that building departments can only enforce the code but some here seem to agree with me that the wheels are falling off the current system. If we can't get building departments to enforce the letter of the code (due to lack of budget, lack of support, lack of training, whatever) we can attack this by getting people with a sworn obligation to abide by well defined rules---architects and engineers--- to obey those rules.

Thoreau's said the way to change the world was to be the kind of person you want everybody else to be. That doesn't seem to be enough anymore. I'm ready to be more of an advocate.

(mostly just a rant, sorry for dumping)

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

I liked the spirit of the rant Dennis, and no need to apologize for dumping. However, I don't think the physics of ethics and life safety are as well defined as the physics of construction. With common sense no longer common, and discernment being a rare commodity, there may be some unforseen circumstances to making the box of rules too narrow, or over-simplified. When the ICC can't even spell out the letter of the code consistently from one code cycle to the next, then the systemic problems associated with enforcing that letter of the code is farther reaching than a lack of effort at the AHJ level.

 

[Mark K]

Dennis K

You seem to be promoting a system where the engineer is responsible for making the world right when he does not have the authority to control the situation.

Fundamentally design professionals are advisors to our clients and have only limited authority to control what happens on a project. Except in rare situations the design professional has no legal obligation to comment on projects where he is not contracturaly involved.

If you are living up to what you say I would expect that you will be up to your eyeballs in litigation and out of a job. In the mean time you will have given others a distorted idea as to the obligations of design professionals.

 

[DennisK]

I'm new to this forum and don't want to start off with a feud but I am somewhat passionate about this subject.

When I was in school, the expertise in engineering was assumed to be in the practicioners. I gave up my license in one state because the board, whose members included an industrial engineer, an argricultural engineer and a lay person, thought I needed continuing education. After being a code official, I realized that engineers do need continuing education or at least some kind of education. I saw structural drawings that just about made me cry.

What I want is a return to a society where people in all areas of endeavor take responsibility for their own actions and have pride in their work. I think design professionals should be held to a higher standard in that framework than others. The duty of licensed engineers is to public safety. That's why they're licensed by the state. I would hope structural engineers have carte blanche authority to control the structural design. Isn't that what affixing their seal means? As for legal obligation to comment on others work, the state board's on line Rules of Proffesional Responsibility won't let me cut and paste so I'll have to include the applicable section as an attachment, if I can.

Well, can't do that either. This forum's limit for attachments is mighty small. The rules of professional conduct in every state, as far as I know, require that an individual who becomes aware of a discrepancy in work by another license holder, bring that discrepancy to the attention of the other professional. This is also known as professional courtesy. In this state, if the other guy doesn’t respond in 20 days, you then notify him in writing after which he has 20 days to respond. The rules, in this state, stop short of requiring action on the part of the guy who caught the error but the intent is clear. We are professionals, held to a higher standard and need to reclaim the trust the public once had in our profession.

Wouldn't it have been nice if someone, who may not have been directly involved in the design, noticed the error with the hangers for the Hyatt skywalk?

 

[Mark K]

Dennis

I take great pride in being a structural engineer but a few facts.

Engineering registration was insitituted because there were problems with individuals providing engineering services to members of the public. It was a consumer protection mechanism. Engineers were not issued licenses in because they were more moral.

If you look at licensing laws in many states it is clear that the rules varry widely.

The structural engineer does not have carte blanche to control the structural design. He must comply with the building codes as interpreted by the building official. There are many other constraints. Engineering is about constraints.

Our primary obligation is to our client. We must also comply with the adopted laws and regulations. At the same time we have a somewhat lesser obligation to the public that is generally satisfied if our designs comply with the building code.

If you want people to take responsibilities for their own actions we could start with building owners and many governmental officials.

 

[Phil]

If a design was requested, I would expect drawings (or at least a sketch). At a minimum, it should describe the structure, not "appears to meet normal industry standards for residential construction." If the foundation wall is typical residential construction conforming to the residential code, it probably would not need an engineer's design.

Mark,

In my opinion, engineers are registerd for public saftey, not necessarily consumer protection. California began registering engineers after the Saint Francis dam failed according to the BPELS Sunset Review. Over 450 people died when the dam failed in 1928.

 

[Sifu]

This has turned into a very interesting debate. Seems like the DP's are subject to the same types of issues as us regular folk, albeit probably with a whole lot more at stake. Back to the origin of this post, here is what I think occured. The owner and/or contractor realized they may be a little over their head, or at least figured the job would be over the inspectors head so they retained an engineer. What the extent of the engineers involvement was supposed to be I don't know but obviously by accident or on purpose the walls were not included. When I made my 3rd request for the proper documentation I guess they figured I wasn't going to forget about it. So they went back to the engineer who came back to the job to render an opinion of the as built walls. I guess my questions would be this; should a footing be designed without knowing the loads imposed on it? If not then the engineer would had to have known that a 20' tall poured wall and a house would be placed on it. Shouldn't some attention have been paid to this? Also, IMO the engineer, in writing the "appears to" paragraph could probably guess that that is going to be questionable. Wouldn't it at least be prudent, if not obligatory to expand on the situation a little more. After all, if the engineer must comply with the code, and the conditions are so obviously outside the limits of the prescriptive code (typically where an engineer would step in) it would seem that some simple customer service would dictate that everybody put there heads together to figure out what to do with the engineer leading the way.

I am going to take everyones advice and document what has occured, inspect the walls and get the specs on how they were built and move on. Anything more invasive would probably not gain any more than that anyway. I will have taken reasonable steps given the circumstances to ensure compliance. If somebody misrepresents, its on them, not me. Thanks to this thread I have a little better understanding of how I could have better handled it and hopefully if something like this occurs again I can be more proactive.

Great advice and insight, great forum!

 

[ICE]

I guess my questions would be this; should a footing be designed without knowing the loads imposed on it? If not then the engineer would had to have known that a 20' tall poured wall and a house would be placed on it. Shouldn't some attention have been paid to this?

This is the first time that you have mentioned that the retaining wall is 20' high.

You're gonna need a couple of letters for that.

I wonder what sort of stationary God uses.

 

[north star]

= = =

Sifu,

Maybe you could record your inspection observations in this way:

"I formally requested a [ code ] compliant design on this foundation

on " date".........Since no plans were submitted for review, and since

concrete was placed without any type of inspection prior to the

placement, ...the foundation inspection is officially failed......A

letter from "ABC engineer" was submitted [ see the attached ]."

As has been stated already, ...document, ...document, ...document

and keep duplicate records in a safe, undisclosed location away

from work and not at your personal residence........FWIW, if you

desire to, take pictures as well.

Also, thanks for allowing this Forum to assist you.......I, for one,

am hoping that a new employment door opens quickly for you.

= = =

 

[DennisK]

If the wall is 20-ft tall, is it holding back soil? In other words, this is a 20-ft tall retaining wall? If that’s the case, the engineer’s letter might have mentioned something about the thickness (which should be substantial) and therefore appears to meet… And, no, a responsible engineer wouldn’t design a footing without knowing what wall was on it.

Mark, You seem to have said that other registered engineers shouldn’t be doing structural observation. Did you really mean that? Do you really think registered engineers can’t comment on another’s work? What about plan review? Shouldn’t we be advocating that any jurisdiction unwilling or unable to provide competent plan review use a peer review process?

I’ve made some outlandish comments so I thought I’d give a little history. I moved from a city where I did a lot of commercial and industrial work to a ski resort where the projects were a lot smaller. I won’t dwell on code enforcement here at the time; let’s just skip to where, after working here for 15 years as a structural engineer, I became the building official of 1 out of 5 jurisdictions in this valley. By the way, I kept my registration while a building official.

Being a building official where enforcement has been a bit on the light side can be educational. You ask for calculations and find out a #12 screw is good for 850#, a 90% reduction of snow load for pitch is reasonable and other enlightening revelations. And I find I have zero tolerance for an engineer who can’t resolve orthogonal components of a reaction on a sloped bearing surface. (Dude! It’s a button on your calculator!).

There are, of course, engineers competent to practice who might cheat a little or just miss something. An architect approaches a guy with a custom home and says, “We realize there may be a little steel.” So he’s got a moment frame in residential construction but no room to detail that up to meet AISC 341. He’s stuck with R=3 to use AISC 360 but we use 35 psf snow added to the seismic dead load so designing the whole house for the resultant base shear is going to make the shear wall stuff look pretty heavy handed. He uses an R of 6.5 but factors up the load to the moment frame by 6.5/3. Has he cheated? If you are doing the plan review do you call him on it or let him slide? If you have thought of doing the same thing when you were a designer because there wasn’t anybody in this half of the state that knew more than you anyway, then do you call him on it? What if you now know how poorly custom homes perform in an earthquake?

What about the mixed commercial/ residential building that takes up 4/5 of a block with the 1st story being mixed concrete and CMU walls supporting a 3-hour PT slab to allow a change of type of construction but the architect has a solid band of windows on 2 sides? You pull out the computer-generated calcs and find the center of rigidity is 2.67’ off the alley side of the building. The guy running the calculations is probably young and just used to pushing data through his desktop so the implication hadn’t clicked. You notice he didn’t use all the available CMU walls so you do a hand check of his number and find out it’s closer to 5’ but that still doesn’t look too good. You suspect a torsion irregularity but that would mean the whole lateral analysis is wrong and higher design loads should have been used. The drift calcs that would show if the irregularity exists aren’t there. You ask for them along with some other items from a semi-thorough plan check but 3 or 4 weeks later you haven’t heard anything from the engineer. The architect hasn’t responded either and you think there are some serious issues with fire-resistant rated construction.

Of course this is a pet project of the mayor who wasn’t the mayor who swore you in because that guy got replaced by the guy on the city council who was so adamantly opposed to the department budget increase that brought you on board.

Ah well, just another disgruntled employee but I survived for 5 years.

dkengineer.com

 

[Mark K]

I am saying that the preference is that the engineer of record perform the structural observation bu that the code recognizes that the Owner can have another engineer perform that function.

What I said has nothing to do with the question of reviewing another engineers work. Structural observation is not about reviewing the appropriateness of the design but is focused on whether the work being constructed complies with the intent of the design. Similarly structural observation is totally distinct from the plan review process.

The plan review process in the code is toally workable. If the jurisdiction does not have the expertise there are multiple firms willing to do the reviews on a contract basis. If the jurisdiction is unwilling there is no hope. Peer review implies that the reviewer will look at all aspects of the design. The building department only has the authority to require compliance with the adopted building code. Thus it would be improper for a building official to require a peer review if the designers interntion is to provied a code compliant design. Some form of peer review may be appropritate if the designer whishes to do somethin innovative that is not addressed in the code in accordance with IBC Section 104.11.

 

[Sifu]

Some pics of the job in question. From the front it looks normal, from the rear you get an idea of the slope (down to a river/lake). The wall pictured is 10' and it continues down behind the floo 6 more feet so I was off with the 20' estimate. It does retain earth....all of it hence another reason for requireing engineering. The crawl pic is the shallow side of that wall, showing the type of crawlspace and how they suppported the floor system. I havn't had a chance to take a good look at my file but right on the surface of it I found where I requested the engineering on the footer, walls and framing system-in writing. I also noted and dated a follow up conversation where I made the same request. I have several e-mails of the same. North Star, wwas thinking of a similar type of document but yours is better than what I was tinkering with. Still going to get the specs on the wall and maybe contact the engineer. Still bothered by the fact that the engineer didn't follow through with this (a 16' retaining wall????) but maybe he was only doing what he was paid to do. Also may visit the BO/CBO in the next door jurisdiction (actually only a mile from this job) and get his take on it as well. They seem to have a pretty decent system over there.

http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj584/raspicher/HPIM0047.jpg

http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj584/raspicher/HPIM0041.jpg

http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj584/raspicher/HPIM0043.jpg

http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj584/raspicher/HPIM0040.jpg

 

[Sifu]

Update on this muck. I again (for the 6th time) informed the builder/owner that no approval of the foundation could come from me and that the engineering on the walls would need to be submitted. I was contacted by the engineer who did the footings and told that he had no involvement on the walls until he was asked to evaluate them after they were constructed. I told him of my concerns and was told that he was only a geotechnical engineer and couldn't provide the technical expertise the walls would require. He ended the conversation by saying that he would try to find a structural engineer to figure it out. Weeks passed and I was contacted by another engineer, one I have worked with in the past. He had not been to the site yet but since my name was brought up by the builder (in not too favorable light I don't think) he wanted my take on it. After informing him of the issues he also said there would need to be significant work involved and that unfortunately his x-ray vision was on the blink. He will be looking into it. I looked back at my notes and found that since January I have made 6 requests for the engineering on the walls, each time being told it was coming. Turns out it never was and now they are in a scramble to find someone to sign off on them. There may be a lot that could have been done defferently, but 6 attempts met with assurances seems like I did my part. All I know is I can't sign an approval for those walls.

 

[pwood]

i would not green tag the meter for electrical service until the issues were resolved to your satisfaction. let BO tag it. does this house have pressure treated mudsills? in the picture it doesn't look like there is one?

 

[Sifu]

Pretty sure it does, I usually wouldn't miss that but to be honest I haven't been there in so long who knows. Engineer called me back, turns out he was consulted about this very job, on site well over a year ago. His recommendation was that because of the scope of the house design and the critical nature of the lot the job would require a serious and complete structural analysis and design. He never heard from them again. Now it turns out he is the one that was recommended to the builder/owner. Funny how things work out. The owner/builder is playing ignorant even though I told him six times since January and it turns out the engineer told him 15 months ago.