Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09022004 BSC Agenda Item 5 I GET GEOTECH ENGINEERING and TESTING ACCREDITED Consulting Engineers •Environmental•Construction Materials •Forensic By Fax and Regular Mail City of West University Place August 6, 2004 Development Services Center Tel.: 713-662-5833 3826 Amherst St. Fax: 713-349-2704 Houston, Texas 77005 Attention: Ms. Annette Rae Arriaga Subject: Accredited Companies Dear Annette: Attached is the list of approved testing laboratories from the City of Houston. All of these companies are accredited in construction materials testing. Some of them are accredited in geotechnical engineering. Therefore, as you can see there are a lot of accredited firms in Houston who can do work in West University. Very truly yours, GEOTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING David A. Eastwood, P.E. Principal Engineer DAE/vpb Enclosure - City of Houston List 800 Victoria Drive•Houston,Texas 77022-2908•Tel.:713-699-4000•Fax:713-699-9200 word\letters\city of west university Texas •Louisiana•New Mexico•Oklahoma Website:www.geotecheng.com • o Page l of l David Eastwood From: Pezeshki, Mike - PWE [Mike.Pezeshki @cityofhouston.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 9:24 AM To: 'david.eastwood @geotecheng.com' Subject: List of Approved CMT Labs Atser, L.P. A& R Engineering and Testing, Inc. Alliance Laboratories, Inc. Associated Testing Laboratories, Inc. Aviles Engineering Corporation Bandy and Associates, Inc. C3S, Inc. Coastal Testing Laboratories, !nc. Earth Engineering, Inc. Fugro Consultants, LP Geoscience Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geotech Engineering and Testing Geotest Engineering, Inc. Ground Technology, Inc. HBC /Terracon Hercules Engineering &Testing Services, Inc. HTS, Inc. Consultants HVJ Associates, Inc. Paradigm Consultants, Inc. PSI QC Laboratories, Inc. Raba-Kistner Consultants, Inc. Remington Support Services, Inc. Stork Southwestern Laboratories, Inc. Terra-Mar, Inc. The Murillo Company Tolunay-Wong Engineers, Inc. Mike Pezeshki, P.E. Senior Engineer Geo-Environmental Services Branch 713-837-7389 713-837-0709 Fax mike.pezeshki@cityofhouston.net 8/3/2004 • • Michael M. Talianchich 3819 Arnold St., Houston, Tx., 77005 8/14/04 713-6608799 To the following: Mr Burt Ballanfant,Mayor Mr Mike Farley Ms Teresa Fogler Mr Steven Segal Mr Mike Woods Mr Michael Ross, City Manager Mr Dennis Mack, Chief Building Official To All Building and Standards Committee members Dear Ladies and Gentleman I have put pen to paper and expressed my comments and concerns regarding the proposed changes to the International Building Code, 2000 Ed, item number 3.pertaining to foundations. I have spent 8 hours of my free time today,in preparing this document. I personally would have preferred to have been whacking a little white ball between the trees and occasionally off the short grass in pursuit of a good score,but instead I was labouring over this article. I chose to make this effort in the hope that the City will reconsider it's direction regarding this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Yours Sincerely Michael M. Talianchich P.E. #67205 (STR) • 40 The State of Texas Engineering Practice Act governs the profession of engineering, and henceforth the Texas Board of Professional Engineers, licenses engineers under the title of P.E. to practice engineering in the State of Texas. There is no such thing as a Structural, Geotechnical, Electrical, etc engineer licensed by the State, however there is an engineer licensed by the State and referred to as a P.E. who has been determined to be competent to practice the profession in a branch of engineering such as Structural,Geotechnical,Electrical , etc. The proof of competency required by the board is usually gained by education in the designated branch of engineering and experience in same,however it does not preclude for example, a mechanical or electrical engineer from practicing in the structural field if he has gained sufficient practical experience in the non designated branch of engineering. The definitions of RLPE and RLGE need to be revised and changed in my opinion. I humbly suggest the following: The P.E. who stamps and signs the drawings and provides the stamped and signed design calculations, is the only individual who is responsible for same. This individual may or may not work for a firm. He may be a sole practitioner, which means the buck stops with him. If this individual works for a firm,then the buck stops with the individual and the chain of command in the firm. The suggestion that the individual be "employed by a registered engineering firm" is both discriminatory and possibly, not legal. If this requirement was for work for the City Of West U itself,then the above statement would be fine, however for the City to make the same determination on behalf of all its citizens, is in my opinion, stepping over the line. As I have been critical of these definitions, I think it would be appropriate for me to offer a solution. The structural integrity of a building including the supporting foundation, must be certified by an "LPE". Certification means that the engineering drawings and documents must be stamped and signed and dated by the design engineer. In addition,the"LPE"must provide certification(a stamped, signed and dated letter)to the City upon completion of the foundation,that the foundation is structurally sound and will not adversely effect the supported structure above and has been built according to the "sealed"documents. Also the "LPE" must provide certification(a stamped, signed and dated letter) to the City upon completion of the framing and before "drying in", that the structure is sound and has been built according to the "sealed" documents. An "LPE" is defined as a P.E. licensed by the State of Texas to practice the branch of engineering of his competency garnered by education and experience as defined by the board,or experience alone with sufficient documentation to support the claim The branch of engineering which is acceptable to the City with regard to the Structure, is "Structural" (STR)and the branch/s of engineering which are acceptable to the City with regard to the Foundation is "Geological" (GEO)for the analysis and determination of soil constants and "Structural" (STR)for the determination of support system and analysis of piers/beams/slabs/floor structure. If the "LPE" determines that the site requires a soils report,then the soil testing and analysis must be done by a certified testing laboratory. If the "LPE" understands the soils in an area, he may choose not to request one. It is clearly understood by the writer of this article that the intention of the City is honourable, in trying to protect the owners of property against mediocre engineering design and construction and thus hopefully alleviating engineering type failures. The proposed section 3 (a)thru(g)demonstrates the aforementioned. • I would like to point out the following: Governing bodies such as cities, etc cannot by legislation or forced insurance carry, magically turn a mediocre engineer into a thoughtful, attentive to detail, good engineer. Each engineer who seals the drawings and designs for a building, makes his own engineering judgments on how best to proceed with the total design and thus is totally responsible for his actions, and if part of a firm,then his judgments are shared in the line of command. The City cannot partake in this process without incurring tremendous general liability, which I as a property owner in the City of West U do not wish the City to be involved with. Section 3 as proposed, has the City making all kinds of engineering judgment calls on how things should be designed and what the engineer can choose from the basket of goodies. I, as a licensed P.E. in the State of Texas (STR),take offence at the City being involved in my engineering judgment. I, as a P.E. take all responsibility for my design and I do not care to share this responsibility with the City unless they are prepared to stamp the drawings as well, as a P.E. (firm). A point to consider-- I am also a builder,and in 1993 before I built my first house in West U, I was told by the chief building official that I must use piers to support the foundation, as City council had included this statement in a section of the code. I told the building official that I did not want to use piers. He told me - no piers - no permitee. So as I was leaving his office with my tail between my legs, I mentioned to him about the general liability problem with the City getting involved in the engineering design process. Within 6 months, that section of the code was removed. I originally in 1993 wanted to use a very stiff(at least 60" deep) concrete beam system floating on the soil. Another way, is to use a raft slab which again requires no piers. As you can see,there are numerous ways to skin a cat from an engineering perspective and it is up to the design engineer to do whatever is most appropriate for the owner of the property. As a matter of fact, I did choose to use drilled piers for my construction in West U. However, in the future I may choose not to use piers. I suggest the following --that the City get out of the engineering business and leave the design engineering to the engineers, but instead, help educate it's own citizens. Typically, a property owner spends a great deal of effort in securing a builder or architect for their new building, but spend scant effort in selecting a structural engineer. In fact, very few people would know who the engineer was by sight or name. Thus, in a few cases,they pay a hefty price for ignoring one of the most important components of their new building. I would suggest that the City place it's good intentions in an advertising campaign, reminding people to check out the capabilities of the design engineer,to personally meet the engineer and ask some pertinent questions and obtain references. It is up to the property owner to do his own research regarding engineering competence and not to rely solely on the builder, architect or City for guidance. I also oppose the mandatory requirement for$500,000 of errors and omissions insurance by the engineer, as this will boost the cost of a building substantially across the board. Some property owners are very "penny" conscious and would choose to risk using a sole engineering practitioner who has no E&O insurance. Another property owner may be "dime" conscious and wish to use a sole practitioner with insurance. Another property owner may not care about the economics and choose a prestigious firm with insurance. As you can see, if the City refrains from legislating "choice", then we all benefit, as the choice inevitably rests with the property owner and the property owner must take responsibility for his choice. If the owner does not research carefully, then a steep financial price may be paid for such action. Also, insurance claims do not restore a building back to it's original perceived condition. Good engineering, with or without insurance, keeps a building in it's original perceived condition. So, hopefully,the City will recommend to it's citizens, concerted engineering research effort when planning a building and not insurance as the be all, end all, solution. Addendum §133.13 Branches of Engineering Applicants shall indicate a primary branch of engineering under which experience has been gained. The Board recognizes the following list of disciplines to assist in determining an applicant's competency although license holders are not designated as a specific discipline engineer nor are restricted to practice only in the branch designated. The Board recognized branches are listed below. Those branches in which a National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying(NCEES) examination is offered are followed by the acronym (NCEES). (1) (AGR) agricultural(NCEES); (2) (BAR)architectural (NCEES); (3) (CHE) chemical (NCEES); (4) (CIV) civil (NCEES); (5) (CSE) control systems (NCEES); (6) (ELE) electrical, electronic, computer,communications (NCEES); (7) (ENV)environmental(NCEES); (8) (FIR)fire protection(NCEES); (9) (IND) industrial(NCEES); 39 Texas Engineering Practice Act and Rules- Page 40 of 73 (10) (MEC) mechanical (NCEES); (11) (MIN) mining/mineral (NCEES); (12) (MET) metallurgical(NCEES); (13) (MAN) manufacturing; (14)(NUC) nuclear(NCEES); (15) (PET) petroleum (NCEES); (16) (SDE)naval architecture/marine engineering(NCEES); (17) (STR) structural (NCEES); (18) (A/A) aeronautical/aerospace; (19) (BIO)biomedical; (20) (CRM)ceramic; (21) (ESG) engineering sciences/general; (22) (GEO) geological; (23) (OCE) ocean; (24) (TEX)textile; (25) (SAN) sanitary; (26) (SWE) software; (27) (OTH) other. Draft amendment of the Standard Codes Schedule regarding foundations With changes from the "markup"at BSC meeting 8-5-04 (document revised 8-27-04) Standard Codes Schedule Adoption. Subject to the amendments and deletions indicated beneath each code, each of the following codes, including all of its published appendices and attachments, is adopted, ordained and made a part of the Code of Ordinances of the City and of each chapter where it is referenced, except as otherwise expressly provided. Procedure for amendments,etc. The procedure for adopting new codes, updated codes, local amendments and provisions for administration and enforcement of these codes is as follows: (1)proposal by the building official or other appropriate City official, (2)referral to the Building&Standards Commission, (3)consideration by the City Council, after giving required meeting notices, and(4)adoption and publication, as required by Article II of the City Charter. International Building Code,2000 Ed., International Code Council, Inc.. * * * professional engineer("RPE"), and the work shall bc- illustrated in complete plans and specifications signed and sealed by the RPE; b based on a soils report from a recognized and reputable find or agency C7 inspected by an RPE who certifies/mope,. construction, b.,foic work piocecdb further. 3. All foundations for new buildings (or additions to existing buildings)with more than one story, or with a gross floor area of 485 square feet or more, must meet the criteria in this section, as applicable. In this section: "RLPE"means a licensed or registered professional engineer who is: (1) employed by a registered engineering firm and (2) covered by professional errors and omissions insurance with limits of at least$500,000 per year, aggregate; and "RLGE"means a licensed or registered geotechnical engineer who is: (1) employed by a registered engineering firm; and Page 1 3 • • , (2) covered by professional errors and omissions insurance with limits of at least$500,000 per year, aggregate. a. Engineering. Foundations must be constructed in accordance with complete plans and specifications prepared, signed and sealed by a RLPE. The plans and specifications must be prepared specifically for the site of the work, and they must meet criteria as to scope, content and form specified by the building official. If there are existing trees (either to remain or to be removed)that could affect a foundation,the RLPE must certify that the trees have been taken into account in the preparation of the plans and specifications. b. Geotechnical Report. The plans and specifications for each foundation must be based on a written geotechnical report prepared, signed and sealed by a RLGE. The report must cover all testing and site evaluation, and all must meet all applicable criteria in"Recommended Practice for Geotechnical Explorations and Reports"published by the Structural Committee of the Foundation Performance Association,Houston, Texas (Document#FPA-SC-04-0,Rev#0, 11 April 2001, issued for website publishing), a copy of which is on file in the City Secretary's office. Partial exception: If the basic type of foundation is"structural slab with void space and deep foundations"or"structural floor with crawl space and deep foundations,"as described below,the testing, evaluation and report may be limited to a determination of the appropriate depth for the deep foundations,but they must meet the other applicable criteria. The minimum depth of borings is 20 feet in all cases. All tests and other laboratory work must be performed by a laboratory accredited for such work by the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation on the basis of ISO/IEC 17025:1999 ("general requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories"). c. Foundation Performance Standard. The plans and specifications for each foundation must be prepared to achieve a foundation soil movement potential of one inch or less, determined by the estimated depth of the active zone in combination with at least two of the following methods: Page 2 a • • ` t (1) Potential vertical rise (PVR) determined in accordance with Test Method Tex-124-E, Rev. January 1, 1978/December 1982, Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation,Materials and Test Division, "Method for Determining the Potential Vertical Rise,PVR"(a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Secretary). For this purpose, the "dry"moisture condition(from which little shrinkage is experienced,but where volumetric swell potential is greatest) shall be used for each sample and test. (2) Swell tests performed in accordance with ASTM D4546-03, "Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of Cohesive Soils"as last revised prior to June 1,2004. (3) Suction and hydrometer swell tests performed in accordance with ASTM D5298-03 "Standard Test Method for Measurement of Soil Potential (Suction)Using Filter Paper"and ASTM D6836-02 "Standard Test Methods for Determination of the Soil Water Characteristic Curve for Desorption Using a Hanging Column,Pressure Extractor, Chilled Mirror Hygrometer, and/or Centrifuge,"as such methods were last revised prior to June 1, 2004. (Partial exception: If the basic type of foundation is"structural slab with void space and deep foundations"or"structural floor with crawl space and deep foundations,"as described below, neither a PVR determination nor a swell, suction or hydrometer test is required.) d. Foundations, Basic Types. Each foundation must be of an approved basic type. Approved basic types are listed below. In this list,types of foundations are defined and described in"Foundation Design Options For Residential and Other Low-Rise Buildings on Expansive Soils"published by the Structural Committee of the Foundation Performance Association,Houston, Texas(Document#FPA- SC-01-0, Rev#0, 30 Jun 04, marked"For Website Publishing"), a copy of which is on file in the City Secretary's office("FDO"). (1) Structural slab with void space and deep foundations. (2) Structural floor with crawl space and deep foundations. (3) Stiffened structural slab with deep foundations. (4) Stiffened non-structural slab with deep foundations. Page 3 (1) Potential vertical rise(PVR) determined in accordance with Test Method Tex-124-E,Rev. January 1, 1978/December 1982, Texas State Department of Highways apd Public Transportation, Materials and Test Division, `Method for Determining the Potential Vertical Rise,PVR"(a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Secretary). For this purpose,the "dry"moisture condition(from which little shrinkage is experienced,but _ where volumetric swell potential is greatest) shall be used for each sample ;. .and test. . (2) Swell tests performed in accordance with ASTM D4546-03, "Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of Cohesive.Soils"as last revised prior to June 1, 2004. • (3). .<:_ Suction and hydrometer swell tests performed in accordance with ASTM D5298-03 "Standard Test Method for Measurement of Soil Potential (Suction)Using Filter Paper"and ASTM D6836-02 "Standard Test Methods for Determination of the Soil Water Characteristic Curve for Desorption Using a Hanging Column,Pressure Extractor, Chilled Mirror . Hygrometer;and/or'Centrifuge,"as such methods were last revised prior to June 1, 2004. (Partial exception: If the basic type of foundation is"structural slab with void - • space and deep foundations"or"structural floor with crawl space and deep foundations,"as described below,neither a PVR determination nor a swell, suction or hydrometer test is required.) d. Foundations, Basic Types. Each foundation must be of an approved basic type. Approved basic types are listed below. In this list,types of foundations are defined and described in"Foundation Design Options For Residential and Other Low-Rise Buildings on Expansive Soils"published by the Structural Committee of the Foundation Performance Association,Houston, Texas (Document#FPA- SC-01-0, Rev#0, 30 Jun 04, marked"For Website Publishing"), a copy of which is on file in the City Secretary's office("FDO"). (1) Structural slab with void space and deep foundations. (2) Structural floor with crawl space and deep foundations. (3) Stiffened structural slab with deep foundations. (4) Stiffened non-structural slab with deep foundations. Page 3 • . (5) Grade-supported stiffened structural slab. (6) Grade-supported stiffened non-structural slab. (7) Grade-supported non-stiffened slab of uniform thickness(approved for one-story buildings--or additions to buildings--containing only garage or storage space,not habitable space). (8) Mixed-depth system for all new building construction. (9) Mixed-depth system for building additions with deep foundations. (10) Another type approved by special exception issued by the BSC. See(h), below. e. Foundations, Deep Support Components. Deep support components must be of an approved type. Approved types are listed below. In this list, types of deep support components are defined and described in FDO. (1) Drilled and underreamed concrete piers. (2) Drilled straight-shaft concrete piers. (3) Auger-cast concrete piles. (4) Another type approved by special exception issued by the BSC. See(h), below. f. Foundations, reinforcement. Reinforcement for each foundation must be of an approved type. Approved types are listed below. In this list,types of reinforcement are defined and described in FDO. (1) Deformed bar reinforcing. (2) Welded wire fabric reinforcing(approved for one-story buildings--or additions to buildings--containing only garage or storage space,not habitable space). (3) Another type approved by special exception issued by the BSC. See(h), below. g. Foundations, Observation & Certification. Each foundation must be professionally observed and must be certified by an RLPE, as more fully described below: (1) Observations must: Page 4 • • • (i) be performed either by the certifying RLPE or by one or more persons under that RLPE's direct supervision and control whose professional qualifications are approved by the RLPE(any such person may be an RLGE, with respect to geophysical matters), (ii) include actual measurement of piers, fill, compaction, reinforcement, forms,materials, dimensions, structural elements, stressing, tendons, tensions, attachments, etc. before the work is covered or concrete is placed, (iii) be performed continuously during placement of concrete and any stressing or tensioning operations, and (iv) be documented in a form and manner approved by the building official (which may include photographs). (2) Certifications must: (i) refer to and be based upon the professional observations required by this section, (ii) state that the work complies with the plans and specifications last approved by the building official(with any field changes that are ordered by the RLPE and reported to the building official and that comply with applicable regulations), (iii) state that the work complies with sound engineering practices, (iv) comply with criteria as to form and content as may be specified by the building official, (v) be signed and sealed by the certifying RLPE,and (vi) be filed with the building official. (3) Certifications may: (i) rely in part upon an attached certification by a RLGE, as to geophysical matters, and (ii) be kept on file by the City, for public inspection, for an indefinite period of time. Before framing or other work commences atop a foundation(and before the foundation is otherwise covered),the permittee must obtain written Page 5 • • acknowledgment from the building official that the certification for the foundation was duly filed as required above. h. Special Exceptions. The BSC may issue a special exception from any requirement in subsection"a"through"g,"above,but only upon a showing that: (1) the requirement will not affect life safety or the performance of a structure for its estimated useful life); or (2) an alternate requirement to be imposed by the special exception will provide equal or better protection for life safety and long-term structural performance. In connection with any such special exception,the BSC may require that the applicant provide supporting engineering data and opinion, and the BSC may impose conditions to carry out the purpose and intent of applicable regulations. 4. All concrete piers, footings and foundations must be cured for at least 72 hours before any significant load is placed on them. 5. All walls and ceilings within a R-1, R-2,R-3 and R-4 type occupancy shall be sheathed with Type X gypsum board at least 5/8-inch(15.9 mm)thick. Exception: Where this code(IBC)requires otherwise for moisture protection. 6. Delete: Appendices A(Employee Qualifications), B (Board of Appeals) and D (Fire Districts). * * * Page 6 09!17/2004 08:51 7136999200 GEOTECH ENGINEERING PAGE 02/03 • GEOTECH fiG!? EER ING and T GET - TESTING Ct��tsuJfR ACCREDITED Engineers*Environmental•Construuction Materials•Forensic By Fax and Regular Mail City of West University Place Development Services Center August 6,2004 3826 Amherst St. Tel.: 713-662-5833 Houston, Texas 77005 Fax: 713-349-2704 Attention:Ms. Anrette Rae Arriaga Subject: Accredited Companies Dear Annette: Attached is the list of approved testing laboratories from the City of Houston. All of these companies are accredited in construction materials testing. Some of them are accredited in geotechnical engineering. Therefore, as you can sec there are a lot of accredited firms in Houston who can do work ork in West Very truly yours, GEOTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING David A. Eastwood, P.E. Principal Engineer DAE/vpla Enclosure - City of Houston List BOO wordlkttereeizy or west university cborla brave•�oeemn,Iexaa 77D2�zgpg,Tel.:713.699.4000. Texas •Louisiana•New Mexico•Oklahoma Fix:713499-9200 Wcbeite:wremgestcehesa.com 08/171 @04 @8:51 7136999 00 GEOTECH ENGINEERING PAGE @3/@3 • Page l. of1 David Eastwood From: Pezeshki, Mike-PWE[Mike_Pezeshkf©cityofhouston.net) Sent: Tuesday, August 03,2004 9:24 AM To: `devid_eastwoodageotecheng.com` Subject: List of Approved CMT Labs Atser,L_P, A& R Engineering and Testing, Inc. Affiance Laboratories, Inc_ Associated Testing Laboratories, Inc. Avifes Engineering Corporation Bandy and Associates, Inc. C3S, Inc. Coastal Testing Laboratories, Inc, Earth Engineering, Inc. Fugro Consultants, LP Geoscience Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geotech Engineering and Testing Geotest Engineering, Inc. Ground Technology, Inc. I-IBC/Terracon Hercules Engineering&Testing Services, Inc. t-ITS, Inc.Consultants . HVJ Associates, Inc. Paradigm Consultants, Inc. PSI QC Laboratories, Inc. Raba-Kistner Consultants, Inc, Remington Support Services, Inc. Stork Southwestern Laboratories, Inc_ Terra-Mar, Inc. The Murillo Company Tolunay-Wong Engineers, Inc. Mike Pezeshki, P_E- Senior Engineer Geo-Envirorrrttentaf Services Branch 713-837-7389 713-837-0709 Fax mike_pezeshk/@cityoTouston.net 8/3/2004 E18/17/2004 08:51 7136955200 GEOTECH ENGINEERING PAGE 01/63 i • r � .7 t rA< . ; s :� ft^r Date: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 To: City of West University Place Ms. Annette Rae Arriaga Phone: 713-662-5833 Fax: 713-349-2704 From: Geotech Engineering and Testing Ms, Vicky Bonds Phone: 713-699-4000 Fax: 713-699-9200 Pages: 3 ....._ ... . , , Subject: • • Michael M. Talianchich 3819 Arnold St., Houston, Tx., 77005 8/14/04 713-6608799 To the following: Mr Burt Ballanfant,Mayor Mr Mike Farley Ms Teresa Fogler Mr Steven Segal Mr Mike Woods Mr Michael Ross, City Manager Mr Dennis Mack, Chief Building Official To All Building and Standards Committee members Dear Ladies and Gentleman I have put pen to paper and expressed my comments and concerns regarding the proposed changes to the International Building Code,2000 Ed, item number 3.pertaining to foundations. I have spent 8 hours of my free time today, in preparing this document. I personally would have preferred to have been whacking a little white ball between the trees and occasionally off the short grass in pursuit of a good score,but instead I was labouring over this article. I chose to make this effort in the hope that the City will reconsider it's direction regarding this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Yours Sincerely 17,,(21._• Michael M. Talianchich P.E. #67205 (STR) • • The State of Texas Engineering Practice Act governs the profession of engineering, and henceforth the Texas Board of Professional Engineers, licenses engineers under the title of P.E. to practice engineering in the State of Texas. There is no such thing as a Structural, Geotechnical, Electrical, etc engineer licensed by the State, however there is an engineer licensed by the State and referred to as a P.E. who has been determined to be competent to practice the profession in a branch of engineering such as Structural,Geotechnical,Electrical , etc. The proof of competency required by the board is usually gained by education in the designated branch of engineering and experience in same, however it does not preclude for example, a mechanical or electrical engineer from practicing in the structural field if he has gained sufficient practical experience in the non designated branch of engineering. The definitions of RLPE and RLGE need to be revised and changed in my opinion. I humbly suggest the following: The P.E. who stamps and signs the drawings and provides the stamped and signed design calculations, is the only individual who is responsible for same. This individual may or may not work for a firm. He may be a sole practitioner, which means the buck stops with him. If this individual works for a firm,then the buck stops with the individual and the chain of command in the firm. The suggestion that the individual be "employed by a registered engineering firm" is both discriminatory and possibly, not legal. If this requirement was for work for the City Of West U itself,then the above statement would be fine, however for the City to make the same determination on behalf of all its citizens, is in my opinion, stepping over the line. As I have been critical of these definitions,I think it would be appropriate for me to offer a solution. The structural integrity of a building including the supporting foundation,must be certified by an "LPE". Certification means that the engineering drawings and documents must be stamped and signed and dated by the design engineer. In addition,the "LPE" must provide certification(a stamped, signed and dated letter)to the City upon completion of the foundation,that the foundation is structurally sound and will not adversely effect the supported structure above and has been built according to the "sealed"documents. Also the "LPE" must provide certification(a stamped, signed and dated letter) to the City upon completion of the framing and before "drying in", that the structure is sound and has been built according to the "sealed" documents. An "LPE" is defined as a P.E. licensed by the State of Texas to practice the branch of engineering of his competency garnered by education and experience as defined by the board, or experience alone with sufficient documentation to support the claim The branch of engineering which is acceptable to the City with regard to the Structure, is "Structural" (STR)and the branch/s of engineering which are acceptable to the City with regard to the Foundation is "Geological" (GEO)for the analysis and determination of soil constants and "Structural"(STR)for the determination of support system and analysis of piers/beams/slabs/floor structure. If the "LPE" determines that the site requires a soils report,then the soil testing and analysis must be done by a certified testing laboratory. If the "LPE" understands the soils in an area, he may choose not to request one. It is clearly understood by the writer of this article that the intention of the City is honourable, in trying to protect the owners of property against mediocre engineering design and construction and thus hopefully alleviating engineering type failures. The proposed section 3 (a)thru(g)demonstrates the aforementioned. • • I would like to point out the following: Governing bodies such as cities, etc cannot by legislation or forced insurance carry, magically turn a mediocre engineer into a thoughtful, attentive to detail, good engineer. Each engineer who seals the drawings and designs for a building, makes his own engineering judgments on how best to proceed with the total design and thus is totally responsible for his actions, and if part of a firm, then his judgments are shared in the line of command. The City cannot partake in this process without incurring tremendous general liability, which I as a property owner in the City of West U do not wish the City to be involved with. Section 3 as proposed, has the City making all kinds of engineering judgment calls on how things should be designed and what the engineer can choose from the basket of goodies. I, as a licensed P.E. in the State of Texas (STR), take offence at the City being involved in my engineering judgment. I, as a P.E. take all responsibility for my design and I do not care to share this responsibility with the City unless they are prepared to stamp the drawings as well, as a P.E. (firm). A point to consider-- I am also a builder, and in 1993 before I built my first house in West U, I was told by the chief building official that I must use piers to support the foundation,as City council had included this statement in a section of the code. I told the building official that I did not want to use piers. He told me -no piers -no permitee. So as I was leaving his office with my tail between my legs, I mentioned to him about the general liability problem with the City getting involved in the engineering design process. Within 6 months, that section of the code was removed. I originally in 1993 wanted to use a very stiff(at least 60" deep) concrete beam system floating on the soil. Another way, is to use a raft slab which again requires no piers. As you can see, there are numerous ways to skin a cat from an engineering perspective and it is up to the design engineer to do whatever is most appropriate for the owner of the property. As a matter of fact, I did choose to use drilled piers for my construction in West U. However, in the future I may choose not to use piers. I suggest the following --that the City get out of the engineering business and leave the design engineering to the engineers, but instead, help educate it's own citizens. Typically, a property owner spends a great deal of effort in securing a builder or architect for their new building, but spend scant effort in selecting a structural engineer. In fact, very few people would know who the engineer was by sight or name. Thus, in a few cases, they pay a hefty price for ignoring one of the most important components of their new building. I would suggest that the City place it's good intentions in an advertising campaign, reminding people to check out the capabilities of the design engineer, to personally meet the engineer and ask some pertinent questions and obtain references. It is up to the property owner to do his own research regarding engineering competence and not to rely solely on the builder, architect or City for guidance. I also oppose the mandatory requirement for$500,000 of errors and omissions insurance by the engineer, as this will boost the cost of a building substantially across the board. Some property owners are very "penny" conscious and would choose to risk using a sole engineering practitioner who has no E&O insurance. Another property owner may be "dime" conscious and wish to use a sole practitioner with insurance. Another property owner may not care about the economics and choose a prestigious firm with insurance. As you can see, if the City refrains from legislating "choice", then we all benefit, as the choice inevitably rests with the property owner and the property owner must take responsibility for his choice. If the owner does not research carefully, then a steep financial price may be paid for such action. Also, insurance claims do not restore a building back to it's original perceived condition. Good engineering, with or without insurance, keeps a building in it's original perceived condition. So, hopefully, the City will recommend to it's citizens, concerted engineering research effort when planning a building and not insurance as the be all, end all, solution. • • Addendum §133.13 Branches of Engineering Applicants shall indicate a primary branch of engineering under which experience has been gained. The Board recognizes the following list of disciplines to assist in determining an applicant's competency although license holders are not designated as a specific discipline engineer nor are restricted to practice only in the branch designated. The Board recognized branches are listed below. Those branches in which a National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying(NCEES) examination is offered are followed by the acronym (NCEES). (1) (AGR) agricultural (NCEES); (2) (BAR) architectural (NCEES); (3) (CHE) chemical (NCEES); (4) (CIV)civil (NCEES); (5)(CSE) control systems (NCEES); (6)(ELE) electrical, electronic, computer, communications(NCEES); (7) (ENV) environmental (NCEES); (8) (FIR) fire protection(NCEES); (9) (IND) industrial (NCEES); 39 Texas Engineering Practice Act and Rules—Page 40 of 73 (10)(MEC) mechanical (NCEES); (11) (MIN)mining/mineral (NCEES); (12) (MET)metallurgical (NCEES); (13) (MAN)manufacturing; (14)(NUC) nuclear(NCEES); (15)(PET) petroleum (NCEES); (16) (SDE) naval architecture/marine engineering(NCEES); (17) (STR) structural (NCEES); (18)(A/A) aeronautical/aerospace; (19) (BIO)biomedical; (20) (CRM)ceramic; (21) (ESG) engineering sciences/general; (22) (GEO) geological; (23) (OCE) ocean; (24) (TEX)textile; (25) (SAN) sanitary; (26)(SWE) software; (27) (OTH) other.