00-001526 Florida Engineers Management Corporation vs. Joseph C. Cash, P.E. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, December 28, 2000.

Summary: Reprimand for engineer who negligently failed to specify the number, weight, and location of nails to attach a strap to a rafter.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA ENGINEERS MANAGEMENT )

CORPORATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 00-1526

)

JOSEPH C. CASH, )

)

Respondent. )

______________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Robert E. Meale, Administrative Law Judge of the Division

of Administrative Hearings, conducted the final hearing in Port

Charlotte, Florida, on September 19, 2000.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: William H. Hollimon

Ausley & McMullen

227 South Calh oun Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Respondent: Joseph C. Cash

4422 Mundella Circle

Port Charlotte, Florida 33948

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Respondent engaged in negligence in

the practice of engineering, in violation of Section

471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By Administrative Complaint dated January 6, 2000,

Petitioner alleged that it is charged with providing

administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the

Board of Professional Engineers, which is responsible for

regulating the practice of engineering.

The Administrative Complaint alleges that on May 27, 1999,

Respondent submitted an engineering detail to the Charlotte

County Building Department for use in the Le Porin Residence

project. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent

submitted the detail sheet as a plans change to correct a

problem with truss straps.

The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent’s

corrective measures were deficient because they failed to

specify the required nailing to the truss, they loaded the

TAPCON anchors beyond the capacity permitted by the 1997

Standard Building Code, and they loaded the TAPCON anchors

beyond the capacity recommended by the manufacturer. The

Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent therefore

engaged in negligence in the practice of engineering, in

violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes.

Respondent requested a formal hearing.

At the hearing, Petitioner called one witness and offer ed

into evidence six exhibits. Respondent called three witnesses

and offered into evidence seven exhibits. All exhibits were

admitted.

The court reporter filed the Transcript on November 2,

2000.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent has been licensed as a professional engineer

in Florida since 1968, holding license number 18122. He is a

member of the American Society of Professional Engineers and the

Florida Engineering Society.

2. Respondent served as the engineer of record for the

Le Porin residence in Charlotte County, Florida. This case

arose from a complaint made by an official with the Charlotte

County Building Department (Building Department) following the

submission of what he concluded was an incomplete drawing by

Respondent in connection with the Le Porin job.

3. The present case addresses the sufficiency of the

strapping of the roof truss to the concrete block wall of the

Le Porin residence. Petitioner does not challenge the

sufficiency of the straps themselves. Petitioner challenges the

sufficiency of the nails attaching the top of the straps to the

roof truss and the sufficiency of the anchors screwing the

bottom of the straps into the concrete block wall.

4. In response to the request of the Building Department

official, Respondent submitted a “Correction Detail” on May 29,

1999, to the Charlotte County Building Department. The purpose

of the detail was to address a concern of the Building

Department official about missing or missed truss straps. The

text accompanying the detail asserts that the actual lift-up

value is 1482 pounds. The text adds: “Missed or missing truss

straps with less than 1000 lbs. of up-lift . . .”

5. The diagram accompanying the detail shows an RT22TW

retrofit strap extending from the truss down along the interior

of two filled concrete blocks, which represent the uppermost two

rows of blocks forming the exterior wall. The diagram depicts

the strap as attached to the concrete blocks by three 3/16” x 2”

tapcons: one is in the filled center of the uppermost concrete

block, one is in the solid base of the uppermost concrete block,

and one is in the filled center of the second uppermost concrete

block. The portion of the strap abutting the truss reveals six

dots on alternating sides of the upper portion of the strap,

although it is unclear if these dots represent nails.

6. The diagram depicts the upper portion of the strap as

running along the broad face of the rafter, but not extending

across the top of the rafter and down the opposite side.

Respondent supplied a sheet of specifications from the

manufacturer of the strap, Hughes Manufacturing, Inc., which

shows a strap extending along one face of the rafter, across the

top of the rafter, and then down a short distance along the

opposite face of the rafter. The manufacturer’s diagram depicts

a strap with a stronger grip on the rafter than the strap

depicted in Respondent’s diagram in his correction detail, which

shows a strap merely running along one face of the rafter. In

the manufacturer’s installation, nails are driven into both

sides of the rafter; in Respondent’s installation, nails are

driven into only one side of the rafter. Evidently, the

corrective nature of the retrofit straps precluded the

installation of them over the rafters that had already been

enclosed by the roof.

7. The manufacturer’s specifications show that the RT 22

strap, which Respondent has proposed, is 14-gauge galvanized

steel. The “TW” may refer to the fact that the strap is twisted

by 90 degrees, so that it can be attached to the wide face of

the rafter and the side of the concrete wall, which are

perpendicular to each other. According to the manufacturer’s

specifications, the RT 22 strap, which is 22 inches long and one

inch wide, contains at least 18 symmetrically spaced, 3/16-inch

holes for fasteners to attach the strap to the surfaces being

secured. The manufacturer’s specifications state that the RT 22

strap requires 18 16d nails, assuming that both surfaces to

which the strap is being attached are wood.

8. At least in a wood-on-wood application, the

manufacturer’s specifications provide that the normal design

load of the RT 22 strap is 1116 pounds and the uplift design

load is 1782 pounds. The specifications note that the

manufacturer has derived the design loads from the National

Design Specification for Wood Construction, 1991 Edition.

9. By letter dated June 1, 1999, to the Building

Department, Respondent provided additional information on the

strapping of the trusses at the LePorin residence. The letter

states that certain trusses were strapped with “one RT22TW

(1484)” instead of a previously indicated strap and that the

“remedial action is satisfactory when used with [three]

3/16 x 1 1/2 [long] (min.) Tapcons.”

10. By Plan Review Correction List dated June 3, 1999, the

Building Department cites, for two separate notes, the

requirement of Standard Building Code (SBC) B 1606.1, which

requires that all buildings must be designed to withstand

prescribed wind loads. The first note acknowledges the use in

the correction detail of three 3/16” Tapcons with straps to

correct a problem of missing truss straps. The first note

states that the attached specifications for Tapcons indicate

shear values of 510 pounds (680 pounds x 0.25 x 3 Tapcons) for

hollow block, and the note cautions that 510 pounds is

insufficient for 1000 pounds of uplift. The second note

requests a correction drawing for the missed straps showing a

value of at least 1000 pounds. This latter note appears to be

in reference to the truss straps with less than 1000 pounds

uplift, as described above in Respondent’s correction detail.

11. By letter dated June 9, 1999, to the Building

Department, Respondent included manufacturer’s specifications

from Concrete Anchor Systems for the Tapcons. Respondent

explained that he used the strength design method for building

design. He contended that using the 4:1 ratio as a safety

factor, as sought by the plans examiner with whom Respondent had

been dealing, would mix working stress design and strength

design, which would be a poor engineering practice.

12. The June 9 letter states that the manufacturer rates

at 1782 pounds uplift the RT22TW strap at 14-gauge thickness,

one inch width, and holes of 3/16” diameter. The letter

contends that this equates to 2004 pounds deformation load

(1 -.1875)(.0747)(33,000).

13. The June 9 letter asserts that the manufacturer rates

an HFTM strap using six 3/16” x 1 1/4 inch Tapcons as capable of

resisting 1700 pounds of uplift. Doing the calculations for an

eccentric strap, Respondent determined that the manufacturer’s

data yield a strength of 1037 pounds, which exceeds the design

load of 1000 pounds.

14. Noting that strength design uses factored loads, not

safety factors, Respondent contended in the June 9 letter that

the three Tapcons for the 3500-pound concrete at 3/16” x 1 1/4”

is equal to 852 x 3 = 2556 (shear); 2556 -1 x 1000 = 0.4; and

0.4 x the yield stress is equal to the nominal stress.

Combining this with the factored load, Respondent contended, is

good engineering practice and consistent with applicable codes.

15. Accompanying Respondent’s June 9 letter is a June 9,

1999, letter from ITWRamset/Red Head, which manufactures the

Tapcon anchors. The manufacturer’s letter sets forth the

“ultimate shear failure loads” of the 3/16” x 1 1/4” anchors; in

3000 psi concrete, the shear strength is 852 pounds. The

manufacturer’s letter adds that a safety factor of 4:1 (or 25

percent of this ultimate load capacity) is used for long-term

static loads, not for short-term hurricane loads. The letter

warns that the performance characteristics of Tapcon anchors are

based on the embedment depth of the anchor and the base material

into which the anchor is installed.

16. Accompanying materials describing the specifications

of the ITWRamset/Red Head Tapcon anchors state that, for

embedment in solid concrete, one 3/16” x 1 1/4” anchor provides

ultimate pullout strength of 581 pounds. (As noted by

Respondent in his proposed recommended order, 1 1/4 inches is

the depth to which the two-inch anchors would be embedded in

concrete.) The same materials describe the ultimate shear

strength for one 3/16” x 1 1/4” anchor, embedded in 3145 psi

hard rock concrete, as 852 pounds. A cautionary installation

note in the accompanying materials warns that “safe working

loads for single installations under static loading should not

exceed 25% of ultimate load capacity.”

17. At the hearing, a state-certified general contractor

testified for Respondent. He has worked extensively with

Respondent for the past five years. Testifying that the general

contractor is responsible for installing the straps, the

contractor testified that he could drive six nails into the

strap, but, if the strap had been wrapped over, he could have

driven three nails on each side of the rafter.

18. Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence

that Respondent’s proposed method of attachment of the strap to

the rafter does not conform to the manufacturer’s specifications

and constitutes negligence in the practice of engineering. The

inability of Respondent to wrap the rafter was exacerbated by

his failure to specify the number, weight, and location of

nails. Without regard to whether such specifications are

required in typical situations, in this situation, involving a

retrofit of straps where a contractor and carpenter might be

unable easily to drive nails, the engineer’s specification of

the number, weight, and location of the nails was imperative.

19. At the hearing, a state-registered structural engineer

testified for Respondent. Based on his analysis, the three

Tapcon anchors could safely withstand 1000 pounds of uplift.

20. Respondent’s calculations use strength-design

analysis, not allowable stress design analysis, and there is a

question, under the SBC, as to the use of strength design in

masonry, at least for wind loads. At the hearing, a state-

registered engineer testified for Petitioner. He explained that

the use of masonry, in strength-design analysis, is of limited

usefulness, except for earthquakes, because of the difficulty in

using the correct load and resistance factors, and the preferred

characteristic of wood, as for wind loads, to resist higher

forces for shorter durations (as contrasted to steel and

masonry, whose ability to resist loads is unrelated to the

duration of the load).

21. Petitioner’s engineer testified that the SBC employs a

testing affiliate, which has determined that the allowable

stress on each of the subject Tapcons is 183 pounds, so that

three Tapcons of the type specified could resist 549 pounds.

Even with the historical, although now controversial, factor

increasing the allowable stress for these three Tapcons by one-

third, they could still not resist a 1000-pound shear load.

22. Petitioner’s evidence challenging the sufficiency of

the three Tapcon anchors is persuasive, but not quite clear and

convincing. As noted below, negligence in engineering is

especially dependent upon applied engineering practices and

principles, and the testimony of Respondent’s expert is

sufficient to insulate Respondent from an adverse finding as to

the Tapcon anchors.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

23. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter. Section 120.57(1),

Florida Statutes. (All references to Sections are to Florida

Statutes. All references to Rules are to the Florida

Administrative Code.)

24. Section 471.038(3) authorizes Petitioner, a Florida

not-for-profit corporation, to provide administrative,

investigative, and prosecutorial service to the Board of

Professional Engineers.

25. Section 471.033(1)(g) authorizes the Board of

Engineering to impose discipline for negligence in the practice

of engineering.

26. Rule 61G15-19.001(4) defines negligence as “the

failure by a professional engineer to utilize due care in

performing in an engineering capacity or failing to have due

regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles.”

27. Rule 61G15-19.004(2)(m) provides that the minimum

penalty for negligence is a reprimand, two-year probation, and

$1000 fine. Such a combined penalty would be disproportionate

to the offense. Respondent has practiced engineering for many

years, and the record discloses no prior discipline. The

demonstrated insufficiency in his failure to specify the number,

weight, and location of nails, although significant, is an

omission that, given a careful contractor or even carpenter, may

well prove immaterial. The proper penalty is a reprimand.

RECOMMENDATION

It is

RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter

a final order finding Respondent guilty of negligence in the

practice of engineering and issuing a reprimand.

DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2000, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

ROBERT E. MEALE

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 28th day of December, 2000.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Dennis Barton, Executive Director

Board of Professional Engineers

Florida Engineers Management Corporation

1208 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire

V.P. for Legal Affairs

Florida Engineers Management Corporation

1208 Hays street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

William H. Hollimon

Ausley & McMullen

227 South Calhoun Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Joseph C. Cash

4422 Mundella Circle

Port Charlotte, Florida 33948

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions

to this recommended order must be filed with the agency that

will issue the final order in this case.