Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Engineering ethics

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I have a situation on a job where, per the UBC, special inspection was
required on the structural roof deck.  The contract was written such
that the special inspection for the deck welding was provided by the
contractor.  (I know this is contrary to the UBC, but we find that this
happens on a number of jobs since owners like to roll the inspection
costs into one "pot of money". This client happens to be a city.
Instead of the city hiring an inspection company (which is the logical
way of doing it since no conflict of interest exists when the owner is
paying for the inspections) we found out later that the contractor was
telling the inspector when to appear on the site and specifically what
to inspect.  We were not hired to do any construction administration
aside from some shop drawing review.

After the job was nearly completed structurally, the Architect called
and requested that we go to the site and perform a site observation walk
through.  On the walk through I noted major collector elements that were
not welded and also structural deck diaphragm welding like I had never
seen before.  80% of the roof deck had already been covered with
insulation and roofing.  On the exposed portions of the deck I noted
seam welds that did not even appear to tie the deck sheets together.
The welds were supposed to be top seam welds  but instead of looking
like a normal top seam weld, the sheets were not crimped at the weld
location and at the weld location a hole existed.  It did not appear
that the weld was engaging both sheets.   (At one location a support
near a deck seam was omitted and the deck was spanning for two span
lengths rather than only one.  I was able to step on the one sheet
adjacent to the seam and the sheets totally separated indicating that
there was indeed no tie between the sheets at the seam at this

I wrote up a site observation report clearly stating our concerns for
the structure's adequacy.  I understand that the strut and collector
welds were made where they had been omitted  This all occurred a number
of months ago.  The architect currently owes us a major amount of fee
and we are at a point now where we have stated that we will do no more
work until we get paid.  We have also found out through the grape vine
that no special inspection or welding prequalification was ever
performed on the roof deck as was specified.  (I could have guessed
this.)  To our knowledge nothing has been done to remedy the problems on
the roof deck and the structure is currently being used by the public.
We have informed the registered architect of our concerns in writing and
in our opinion, the structure is deficient and will not carry the design
shear forces under design lateral loads.   Nothing appears to have been
done to remedy the situation.  The structure is in a moderate wind zone
and seisimic zone 2B  and the deck shears are 300 to 400 plf. (not very
high)  What is our professional, ethical, responsibility in this matter.
On the one hand we have informed our client of our concerns in writing,
and he is a registered professional.  On the other hand is the concern
for public safety.  Risk management folks indicate we have done
everything professionally we are required to do by informing our client,
who is a registered professional, of our concerns in writing.  Have we
done everything we should do, or is more action on our part required?

Thanks in advance for any input / opinions
Jim Hagensen SE