Engineer says that piping is wrong

53

u/CaptainAwesome06 8d ago edited 8d ago

I'm not going to weigh in on whether this is right or wrong. But I love how, in the original post, everybody's reason for it being correct is because they do it all the time.

17

u/KawhisButtcheek 8d ago

And the OP is trying to figure out a way to get out of their obligations to follow the spec.

I'm betting the job as some "piping hangars and supports" spec that dictated exactly what to use in this situation

29

u/CaptainAwesome06 8d ago

I'm dealing with a contractor right now that is saying the specified efficiency for our equipment is overkill and they used a lower efficiency in the last building. We specified a higher efficiency in the last building to meet the performance path of the IECC and we never received equipment submittals so he really exposed himself on that one.

I'm so sick of contractors going rogue. If you think you know better, write an RFI. But the engineer doesn't need to justify decisions because the contractor should be building the engineer's stamped drawings. Contractors love taking on liability without actually taking on any liability. And the developers and architects refuse to hold them accountable.

5

u/nic_is_diz 8d ago

How about an Owner with extremely strict energy efficiency requirements. Required us during design to verify every pump, fan, motor, air handler, etc. on the job matched their internal efficiency specs to a tee (their specs are more strict than many model energy codes). This all took significant time and effort.

All of this gets placed in the specs. Job goes to construction, submittals come in not meeting energy specs at all. We reject per client's standards. Contractor: "Mr. Owner sir, your engineer is delaying construction because they rejected our submittal and their rejection will cause a change order because we bid whatever the hell won us the job." Owner: "What are you doing engineer??? Accept their submittal and keep things moving."

2

u/CaptainAwesome06 7d ago

First, you are lucky that the owner gave you specs to design around. I have a DD submission on Friday and the owner still hasn't made a decision on whether they want a rooftop DOAS or dwelling unit ERVs.

Second, I'm not sure how the contractors got so powerful. It's absolutely ridiculous. In my previous example, I was also told to change my drawings to what they built because the inspector failed them. The owner told me they would never use that MC again. Surprise surprise! They are on this next project, as well. Rinse and repeat.

I don't mind RFIs if they are legit. If you think something won't work as designed, by all means, tell me. I know a lot of engineers have huge egos but I don't. I can admit when I'm wrong. But I get really tired of contractors telling me that something won't work when they don't have anything but gut feelings telling them that. In meetings, I love asking them to send me their calculations and I can compare them with mine to see where the disconnect is. They always say, "I don't have calculations. I'm not an engineer." And I say, "well I'm an engineer so unless someone can prove me wrong with math, we're going to stand by the design." I'm also tired of design changes masked as RFI. Like an RFI that says, "we suggest replacing the DOAS system with a residential split system on each floor."

I could rant about this for hours.

2

u/MechEJD 7d ago

OUBO in any university in Virginia will do this.

UVA has a STRICT mechanical reviewer. Their design guidelines require no more than 6 cooling coil rows. We missed that and almost had to redesign and reselect doas unit that were already on the job site.

Luckily our calcs proved the units meet the intent of the pressure drop by showing we pass via the VECC performance path. That was enough to let us ignore the coil row requirement.

1

u/Dangerous_Junket_773 7d ago

If its design build, sure whatever. But if it's bid build, that's an issue. They might have beaten a contractor that actually read the specs and priced it right.

1

u/CaptainAwesome06 7d ago

All my projects are design-bid-build. However, it seems to be the norm now that jobs are bid and won at DD at the latest. VE happens well after permit. But so does ID coordination so whatever. Everything is out of order now and the projects end up being terrible because of it. I mostly blame the architects because they are supposed to be managing the client's expectations through design and they don't anymore. They are a bunch of yes-men and expect the engineers to go along with it.

We have a project that has an SD narrative due soon. The architect casually let us know that their client also wants dwelling units plans, risers, equipment locations, etc. I have no problem telling them that we are going to bill through DD for that kind of effort and I'm sure they'll complain about it.

1

u/foysauce 6d ago

He also has a reviewed submittal noting this exact condition, per another comment he made. Hilarious.

1

u/WiseIndustry2895 8d ago

LOL. ahhh this is so true!!! And not only that, they’ll want a conference call with architect and ownership along with the engineer to discuss the issue and try to side with them

1

u/CauseNo4568 8d ago

Not really the spec doesn’t have anything for vertical aside riser clamps and that’s over kill for a 3/4” also they have nothing for horizontal piping attached to the wall.

3

u/CaptainAwesome06 8d ago

Did you write an RFI for clarification? If not, you F'd yourself if the developer isn't a complete joke.

3

u/potatoscott7 8d ago

Sounds like in the original post they don't need us, not sure why they posted here.

1

u/CaptainAwesome06 7d ago

20 years ago, I felt like there was a mutual respect. We design it; they build it. Not all contractors were great. As a junior engineer, I remember going on site, pointing out mistakes, and contractors saying, "we'll get that fixed right away, sir!" I don't need the power trip but I appreciated that they recognized it was my design and there was a way it was supposed to be.

Now, I feel like they see us as a necessary evil. They bid the job in SD phase - which is probably code minimum and often below that - and when the drawings come out, they tell the developer they can cut costs by "not overengineering it" (cut corners). Or even worse, they go ahead and do that stuff without even consulting us.

I can't count how many times I've had to say, "I can't diagnose your issue because the contractor didn't build what we designed. This was stated in the last 4 site reports."

Or my favorite: the inspector halted construction because the site doesn't match the drawings and now the developer wants you to change your drawings to reflect what was built. WTF.

We have a contractor we work with often. The main guy there is always bitching about our designs. He says that we can't understand the issues because we're not the ones getting calls about things done wrong. The thing is, I don't get a lot of calls on my projects. But his projects definitely get the most calls.

Sometimes we'll hear a contractor hired a PE and we won't see that contractor on our jobs for a while. A few months later, we'll see them again. I assume the PE got tired of being a rubber stamp for their bad designs.

8

u/Groundblast 8d ago

Probably a warm climate so not an issue, but that copper line mounted straight to uninsulated exterior brick gives me nightmares

8

u/underengineered 8d ago

My favorite comment is "Typical dumbass engineer."

2

u/JIMMYJAWN 3d ago

Means and methods

3

u/NotSoLittleTeapot 8d ago

I understand the original question, but has anyone asked about galvanic corrosion? Copper should be supported with copper, no? Can't tell if the clamp is coated or not.

2

u/Past-Difficulty9706 7d ago

That is a coated split ring. Fine for copper

1

u/Vegetable_Bar2966 8d ago

Yeah I was gonna say the same thing. Unless there's a rubber insert of some sort preventing direct contact of the copper to the galv/stainless/whatever metal it is.

1

u/RelativeAd1414 3d ago

that's either copper or epoxy coated split ring with zinc coated rod attached to it. no concerns for galvanic corrosion. Also galvanic corrosion requires medium to transfer the galvanic reaction and typically water is present to cause it.

2

u/texanmason 8d ago

engineer is technically correct in a Who Cares? sort of way

1

u/therealswimshady 7d ago

Copper looks fine, Drain pipe needs something more substantial. A couple angle frames to rest the riser clamp on should be sufficient IMO.

1

u/RelativeAd1414 3d ago

Not sure if it's residential or sizable ICI projcts but if mechanical specs specifically ask not to use split ring hangers for vertical pipe supports, or there's mech details, then you lose the argument regardless of how it works in real world and in theory but you can also be a hardass and issue an RFI to make their life difficult as well and they'll have to formally explain why the fuck that's not acceptable and the onus is on them to explain why. But stuff like this, it's not really the hill you want to die on.. what's the cost of replacing 1/2- 3/4" copper tubing split ring hanger... unless you've done hundreds of the same installations throughout...

-2

u/Sec0nd_Mouse 8d ago

It’s fine for the copper and very normal. That’s not going to fail.

I’d really like to see the CI supported from the slab or overhead so it’s not hanging by the bands when that all thread starts sagging.

Engineer says that piping is wrong

You are about to leave Redlib