|
APEGGA DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
DECISION
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2004
Date of Decision: September 21, 2004
IN THE MATTER OF the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical
Professions Act
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF the conduct of Sven E. Hage, P.Eng. and
Jacobsen Hage Engineering, regarding structural design of
a Fountain Tire store in St. Albert, Alberta.
DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE PANEL
Bruce Alexander, P.Eng., Chair
Bill Hibbard, P.Eng.
Allan Doell, P.Eng.
Panel Counsel
Dwayne Chomyn, Neuman Thompson
PARTIES
APEGGA
Investigative Committee represented by Barry Massing, Hendrickson
Gower Massing Olivieri
Member Sven E. Hage, P.Eng.
Jacobsen Hage Engineering
BACKGROUND
On February 28, 2003, the Discipline Committee received, from
the Investigative Committee, the referral for a discipline
hearing concerning Mr. Sven E. Hage, P.Eng. and Jacobsen Hage
Engineering (the “Members”). The Discipline Committee
responded and requested that the Investigative Committee provide
particulars of the matters to be heard. The charges had not
been received by the specified time, and the case was removed
from the Discipline hearing list. On August 26, 2003, the
Investigative Committee provided its charges and applied to
have the matter put back on the list.
After obtaining the availability of all necessary parties,
hearing dates of April 21 and 22, 2004 were set. On October
15, 2003, the Discipline Committee issued a formal notice
of hearing and served copies on the Members and on the Investigative
Committee (the “parties”). At the same time, the
Discipline Committee, according to its standard process for
disclosure of documents, requested that the parties provide,
to the Panel and to each other, copies of documents on which
they intended to rely at the hearing.
The Investigative Committee submitted its documents on October
20, 2004. The Discipline Committee again wrote to the Members
on April 5, 2004 regarding production of documents. Neither
Mr. Hage nor Jacobsen Hage Engineering responded or submitted
documents. The Investigative Committee's submissions were
provided to the Panel on April 14, 2004.
THE HEARING
The hearing was held and concluded before the Panel at the
Association’s offices in Edmonton on April 21, 2004.
The Investigative Committee was represented by Mr. Massing.
Neither Mr. Hage nor Jacobsen Hage Engineering were present
or represented, Mr. Hage having forwarded a letter to the
Investigative Committee by fax on April 2, 2004, stating that
he would not be attending the hearing.
CHARGES (ALLEGATIONS)
The Members faced three charges in relation to a Fountain
Tire store project in St. Albert, Alberta. The matters to
be decided, as brought forward by the Investigative Committee,
were:
1. “In or about June to September, 2001, you prepared
design drawings for the above project, which design was deficient
or inadequate, or both, in that:
a. The piles did not meet the minimum length requirements
as required by the Geotechnical Report;
b. The reinforcing did not meet the requirements of the Geotechnical
Report;
c. Some of the piles did not have sufficient capacity to carry
the applied loads;
d. There was no indication on the drawing that a bond breaker
was required on all piles as they pass through 6 meters of
existing fill
e. The basement walls were under designed and below required
capacity;
f. The structural floor slab had serious deflections and did
not meet serviceability limit states;
g. The structural floor slab thickness was below Building
Code requirements;
h. The 8 inch masonry wall was not sufficiently reinforced
to withstand lateral wind loading;
i. Some of the structural steel roof components were over
stressed.”
2. “The drawings you prepared for the said project
were deficient in that they lacked information in the following
respects:
a. No dimensions or elevations were provided on the drawings
to determine the basement wall height and pile cut-off under
the walls;
b. There was no indication of the total roof dead load;
c. There was no note or indication that all piles must have
a bond breaker through the fill layer.”
3. “That your conduct in the foregoing respects constitutes
unskilled practice of the profession of engineering, or unprofessional
conduct, or both, and constitutes violation of the APEGGA
Code of Ethics Rules of Conduct #1 and #4.”
FINDINGS AND REASONS
With respect to each of the Investigative Committee's charges,
the Panel finds as follows:
1. In or about June to September, 2001, you prepared design
drawings for the above project, which design was deficient
or inadequate, or both, in that:
1.a. The piles did not meet the minimum length requirements
as required by the Geotechnical Report.
With the exception of four P1 Piles, one at Grid C-1 and
a cluster of three near Grid C-6, the piles satisfy the criteria
of the Shelby report. In particular, the P1 and P2 piles under
the basement walls were less than 12 meters in length but
were more than 12 meters in depth.
Page 5 of the Shelby report recommends a minimum pile length
of 12 meters. Near the bottom of page 11 the report reads
“The building will be supported on cast-in-place concrete
piles that extend approximately 12 meters below existing grade”.
A note in Section 6.4 “Findings” reads “The
building should be supported on Cast-In-Place Concrete Piles
extending approximately 12 meters below grade into the silt.
These excerpts from the Shelby report, together with the testimony
of Gordon Hunter, indicate that, with four exceptions, the
criteria of the geotechnical report respecting minimal pile
length have been met in the Hage design. The Panel is not
satisfied that alone or in conjunction with all of the facts
established in the case that non-compliance with the Shelby
report in these four instances constitutes unskilled practice
or unprofessional conduct, and we, therefore, dismiss this
charge.
1.b. The reinforcing did not meet the requirements of the
Geotechnical Report;
The Shelby report recommends that “the upper 10.0
meters of all piles should be reinforced to prevent adverse
effects of seasonal frost penetration or moisture content
variations”. The length of reinforcement specified by
Mr. Hage was 30 feet or 9.15 metres. The Panel deems this
to be a minor deviation from the Shelby recommendations and
is not, either alone or in conjunction with any other deficiencies,
evidence of unskilled practice or unprofessional conduct.
This charge is dismissed.
1.c. Some of the piles did not have sufficient capacity
to carry the applied loads;
Mr. Chambers indicated that the pile capacity was not significantly
below the applied load but, because some piles had been installed
prior to his involvement in the project, it was necessary
to place additional piles at midpoints between existing piles.
For example, along Gridline B, the overall length from Gridline
1 to Gridline 7 is 116 feet. Mr. Hage placed piles at one
seventh of the overall length, or about 16.5 feet. The piles
were installed before Mr. Chambers became involved with the
project. If the piles on Gridline B had not been installed,
Mr. Chambers would have added one pile in the line and changed
the spacing to 14.5 feet (116/8). In the circumstances, he
was forced to add seven piles, one between each of the existing
piles. The Hage pile design is deemed marginal, not blatantly
underdesigned and not, either alone or in conjunction with
any other deficiencies in the design, evidence of unskilled
practice or unprofessional conduct. This charge is dismissed.
1.d. There was no indication on the drawings that a bond
breaker was required on all piles as they pass through 6 meters
of existing fill;
The Shelby report recommends that “any portion of
pile encountering fill soils must be provided with a double
sleeve to counteract the effect of negative skin friction”.
This is a sufficiently unusual requirement that it should
have been prominently displayed on the drawings. The only
indication on the drawings is Note 11. on Drawing S-1 which
states in part that “All recommendations, procedures
and observations noted in the geotechnical report shall be
considered to be part of this specification”. The Panel
considers this to be insufficient instruction to the Contractor.
The evidence of Ms. J. Skeffington suggests that Mr. Hage
had not read the geotechnical report when he performed his
foundation design. Unfortunately, Mr. Hage chose not to be
present at the hearing to tell his side of the story. The
Panel tends to believe the evidence of Ms. Skeffington, and,
on a balance of probabilities, we find that Mr. Hage did not
read the geotechnical report. To design pile foundations on
a difficult site such as this without first becoming familiar
with the subsurface conditions is deemed unprofessional conduct.
1.e. The basement walls were underdesigned and below required
capacity;
A basement wall thickness of six inches is probably less
than most structural engineers would have selected. That does
not necessarily make it wrong but it does require better than
average precision on the part of the contractor in placing
reinforcement to ensure the wall has the required strength.
That is, there is not much room for error.
The reinforcement in the typical basement wall does not
satisfy the lateral pressure resulting from the formula “P
= 9.4 D + 0.5 S” as presented in the Shelby report.
The Panel believes that the value for 'D' should be 2.9 meters
and the value for 'S' should be 6.0 kPa, the Alberta Building
Code live load for light trucks and unloaded buses. On this
basis, the typical wall is underdesigned.
The 'L' shaped dowels shown on Section 1/S-2 scale about
3'-4” on each leg. Drawing S-1, Main Floor Foundation
Plan, shows the vertical leg to be only 2'-0” long which
means it would project approximately 1'-6” down the
outside face of the wall. In the absence of vertical bars
on the exterior face, a horizontal crack would likely develop
at the bottom of the dowels, caused by end rotation of the
structural slab. This is deemed to be a poor detail which
constitutes unskilled practice.
The basement wall on Gridline 7 is not laterally braced
at Main Floor Elevation for a length of 12'-0”, adjacent
to the stair opening. The wall is not adequately reinforced
to bridge the opening. A similar situation occurs at Gridline
1. This is a deficiency in design which is deemed to be unskilled
practice.
1.f. The structural floor slab had serious deflections and
did not meet serviceability limit states;
Mr. Strong's calculations found the structural floor slab
to be adequate for strength but it had serious deflections
and did not meet serviceability limit states. He based his
deflection calculations on a live load of 6.0 kPa (125 psf)
specified by the Alberta Building Code for light trucks and
unloaded buses rather than 4.8 kPa (100 psf) used by Mr. Hage.
But the choice of live load was not the only difference in
the deflection calculations. Mr. Strong found the instantaneous
dead load deflection to be 0.8” (20 mm). Using the “ADAPT
RC Version 4.01” program, Mr. Hage found the simple
span dead load deflection to be only 3.4 mm (Tab 9). This
is much too low when compared to the live load deflection.
The creep deflection, which is a multiple of dead load deflection,
is also substantially underestimated in the computer printout.
The Panel finds that the slab design is not in accordance
with the Alberta Building Code respecting serviceability limit
states. We deem this to be evidence of unskilled practice.
1.g. The structural floor slab thickness was below Building
Code requirements;
For one-way slabs, CSA A23.3 provides minimum thicknesses
below which deflections must be computed. They are L/20 for
Simply Supported Spans, L/24 for Spans with One End Continuous
and L/28 for Spans with Both Ends Continuous. The structural
slab in question has a thickness of 8” and a span of
17'-6”, so the span/depth ratio is about 26. The slab
between Gridlines A and B is partially restrained at both
ends but cannot be termed “continuous”. Continuity
at Gridline 'B' is provided by the grade slab which is connected
to the structural slab with 15M x 10'-0” at 8”
Top bars. Continuity at Gridline A cannot be relied upon as
the wall would simply crack at the bottom of the dowels and
relieve any negative moment from the slab.
The code permits slab thickness to be less than the limits
specified above if deflections are computed and found to be
acceptable. Mr. Hage did compute deflections, albeit incorrectly
and concluded they were acceptable. The Panel finds that Charge
1.f. above covers the issue of slab thickness as well as serviceability.
If slab thickness is increased, serviceability would improve.
There is no additional evidence of unskilled practice contained
in this charge and it is dismissed.
1.h. The 8 inch masonry wall was not sufficiently reinforced
to withstand lateral wind loading;
The evidence before the Panel is not very clear on this
issue. The complainant, Mr. Chambers, stated that the masonry
wall is under reinforced for wind loads. Mr. Chambers' calculations
have not been presented to the Panel.
Mr. Hage analyzed the masonry wall with “Masonry LSD
95” software using 10M bars at 800 mm and a wind pressure
of 0.4 kPa (8.3 psf). He found the design to be adequate.
Dr. M. Hatzinikolas checked the design using 15M bars at 800
mm and a wind pressure of 0.4 kPa. He also found the Hage
design to be adequate. The drawings indicate the reinforcement
to be 10M @ 32” centres, which is equivalent to 10M
@ 813 mm, near enough to 800 mm.
The Summary of Design Review, appended to the Investigative
Panel Report under the heading “Masonry Walls”
states, “I obtained a pressure of 13.5 psf or 0.65 kPa
using this approach. With this wind loading it is very likely
that the masonry wall will not have the capacity required”.
Mr. Strong's calculations dated Nov 29/02 (Tab 27.j) suggest
a design pressure of 0.85 kPa or 17.7 psf. His calculations
dated Feb. 3/03 (Tab 27.m) suggest a design pressure of 0.648
kPa or about 13.5 psf. Mr. Strong did not check the design
of the wall because he is not comfortable performing masonry
design. Mr. P. C. Ledi found in his calculation dated 17/6/01
(Tab 29) that design wind pressure should be taken as 30 psf
due to the presence of large openings, namely the overhead
doors. His E-mail to Mike Strong dated June 20, 2002 (Tab
31) indicates that the wall must be deemed unstable according
to the ABC and would require pilasters at 12' centres.
The design wind pressure varies from a low of 8.3 psf to
a high of 30 psf depending on whose engineering judgment is
used. The wall with 10M @ 32” has not been analyzed
for 13.5 psf or 17.7 psf wind pressure but the interaction
curve provided by Mr. Hage shows that the resisting moment
is approximately two times the factored moment when the pressure
is taken as 0.4 kPa or 8.3 psf. It is not clear to the panel
that the wall, as detailed, is incapable of carrying 13.5
psf.
A wall should be designed for the algebraic sum of exterior
and interior pressures, both of which are specified in the
Alberta Building Code. How Mr. Hage can justify the use of
0.4 kPa as a design wind pressure is a mystery to the Panel.
It does not appear to be in accordance with the code. But
the question before the Panel is whether or not the wall,
as detailed on the drawings, is adequate to resist the wind
pressure, not how Mr. Hage arrived at it.
There is not sufficient evidence before the Panel to convince
us that the wall, as detailed on the drawings, is not adequate
to sustain the wind load specified in the code. No finding
is made in this regard and Charge 1.h. is dismissed.
1.i. Some of the structural steel roof components were overstressed.
The roof dead load was not specified on the drawings. Mr.
Hage used a dead load of 1.0 kPa in his computer design. Mr.
Chambers found that this should be 1.25 kPa (26 psf). Mr.
Strong had used 37 psf in one calculation and 30 psf in another
for roof dead load. The steel beam on Gridline C between Grid
4 and 5 was found by Mr. Chambers and Mr. Strong to be overstressed.
Whether this was solely due to differences in dead load is
not known, but the issue is deemed to be relatively minor
and does not constitute unskilled practice or unprofessional
conduct. This charge is dismissed.
2. The drawings you prepared for the said project were deficient
in that they lacked information in the following respects:
2.a. No dimensions or elevations were provided on the drawings
to determine the basement wall height and pile cut-off under
the walls;
While this is true, it is deemed to be a minor oversight.
The Contractor could readily find this information from the
Architectural drawings. This charge is not deemed to be evidence
of unskilled practice or unprofessional conduct and is hereby
dismissed.
2.b. There was no indication of the total roof dead load;
This is true. Dead and live loads are required by Alberta
Building Code to be shown on the drawings. Without this information,
the roof joist fabricator does not have sufficient information
for joist design. The Panel finds that while this omission
on the drawings contravenes the Alberta Building Code, it
is not evidence of unskilled practice. This charge is dismissed.
2.c. There was no note or indication that all piles must
have a bond breaker through the fill layer.
This matter was covered under Charge 1.d. The Panel has
nothing further to say about it.
3. That your conduct in the foregoing respects constitutes
unskilled practice of the profession of engineering, or unprofessional
conduct, or both, and constitutes violation of the APEGGA
Code of Ethics Rules of Conduct #1 and #4.
Rule 1 states: Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists
shall have proper regard in all their work for the safety
and welfare of all persons and for the physical environment
affected by their work.
Rule 4 states: Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists
shall act for their clients or employers as faithful agents
or trustees and shall always act independently and with fairness
and justice to all parties.
As noted in the foregoing, the Panel finds elements of both
unskilled practice and unprofessional conduct contained in
the charges. In all cases, they are considered to be a violation
of APEGGA Code of Ethics Rule of Conduct #1. We could find
no violation of Rule #4.
ORDERS
On May 28, 2004, the Discipline Committee Panel’s written
findings and reasons were issued to the Members and to the
Investigative Committee. In its letter, the Panel indicated
that it would receive written submissions from the parties
on the matter of the orders to be made.
The Panel received two submissions dated June 11 and June
14, 2004 from Mr. Massing on behalf of the Investigative Committee.
Neither Mr. Hage nor any member of Jacobsen Hage Engineering
took the trouble to attend the hearing or to respond to the
Panel's request for submissions respecting orders.
In his first submission, Mr. Massing indicated that Mr. Hage
is currently under an interim suspension on another matter,
ordered by the Investigative Committee.
The Panel subsequently requested the Director of Professional
Practice (the Director) to provide information on the costs
associated with the hearing. The Director wrote to the parties
on July 29, 2004 indicating the costs that his office had
determined and noting that he would provide a copy of that
letter to the Panel on August 13, 2004 along with any comments
either party wished to make.
In response, Mr. Hage offered some commentary on the hearing
by way of two letters dated August 11 and 16, 2004. The Panel
received the Investigative Committee's response to those letters
on August 31, 2004.
Considering all of the evidence presented to date the Panel
orders as follows:
1. Mr. Sven E. Hage and Jacobsen Hage Engineering Ltd. shall
be reprimanded for unskilled practice and unprofessional conduct.
2. Jabcobsen Hage Engineering shall permit periodic inspections
by a senior engineer, authorized by the Discipline Committee,
on the following terms:
a) The periodic inspections shall be conducted at approximately
three-month intervals;
b) The period during which the inspections are conducted
shall be two years, unless otherwise ordered by this Panel,
beginning on the date of this decision;
c) Each periodic inspection will take no more than 20 hours
to complete;
d) The cost of such inspections shall be paid by Jacobsen
Hage Engineering.
3. Mr. Hage shall permit periodic inspections by a senior
engineer, authorized by the Discipline Committee, on the following
terms:
a) The periodic inspections shall be conducted at approximately
three-month intervals;
b) The period during which the inspections are conducted
shall be two years, unless otherwise ordered by this Panel,
beginning on the date that the suspension of Mr. Hage's registration
is removed;
c) Some or all of the periodic inspections of Mr. Hage's
practice may be carried out as part of the inspections of
Jacobsen Hage Engineering's practice in the event Mr. Hage's
suspension is removed prior to the completion of the inspections
of Jacobsen Hage Engineering;
d) Each periodic inspection will take no more than 20 hours
to complete;
e) The cost of such inspections shall be paid by Mr. Hage
or Jacobsen Hage Engineering.
4. Mr. Hage may be required to pass a particular course of
study or satisfy the Discipline Committee as to his competence
in the field of structural engineering based on the results
of any or all of the periodic inspections, and the Discipline
Committee reserves jurisdiction to issue such a specific directive.
5. Costs of the hearing shall be paid to APEGGA as follows:
a) Jacobsen Hage Engineering shall pay, within 60 days of
the date this decision is served on it, costs in the amount
of $1,271.04, being 12.5% of the costs of the hearing.
b) Mr. Hage shall pay, within 60 days of the date this decision
is served on him, costs in the amount of $1,271.04, being
12.5% of the costs of the hearing.
6. If Jacobsen Hage Engineering fails to comply with Orders
2 or 5(a) to the satisfaction of the Discipline committee,
its Permit to Practice shall be revoked until it complies
with those orders.
7. If Mr. Hage fails to comply with Orders 3 or 5(b) to the
satisfaction of the Discipline Committee, his registration
with APEGGA shall be suspended until he complies with those
orders.
Costs are assigned on the basis that, of the twelve charges,
nine were dismissed and three (25%) resulted in findings of
either unprofessional conduct or unskilled practice. Taken
together, Jacobsen Hage Engineering and Mr. Hage are assigned
25% of the hearing costs.
DATED this 21st day of September, 2004 at Edmonton, Alberta.
Bruce Alexander, P.Eng.
Chair, Discipline Hearing Panel
NOTE:
This decision is published in accordance with an APEGGA Council
policy that requires publication in The PEGG of all discipline
decisions.
|
