Nov 3 2008 14:03 NOW-B3-2868 15:81 From: 18585216521 Pagse:a*d STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS TLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, Petitioner, v. FEMC Case No. 2007020504 RICIIARD P. WASILEWSKL, P.E., Respondent, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC) on behalf of Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” and files this Administrative Complaint against RICIIARD P. WASILEWSKI, P.E., hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”. This Administrative Complaint is issued pursuant to Sections 120.60 and 471,038, Mlorida Statutes. Any proceeding concerning this complaint shall be conducted pursuanl to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. In support of this complaint, Petitioner alleges the following: 1. Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, is charged with regulating the practice of engincering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. This complaint is filed by the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC) on behalf of Petitioner. FEMC is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Florida Board of Professional Engincers pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Statutes (1997). Nov 3 2008 14:03 NOW-B3-286S 15:82 From: 18565216521 Page:4°9 2. Respondent is, and has been at all timcs matcrial hereto, a licensed professional engincer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 15586. Respondent’s last known address is 1520 Chateauwood Dr., Clearwater, FL 33764. 3. Respondent prepared plans for a hip screen enclosure for a projeci located at 8601 Winsome Way. (Winsome Way Project) 4. Respondent prepared plans for a mansard style screen enclosure for a project described as Lake Cascade Lot 17, Block 1. (Lake Cascade Project) COUNT I (Winsome Way Project) 5. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through three (3) as if fully set forth in this Count I. 6. Respondent’s hip screen enclosure plans are deficient in one or more of the following ways: a. Comments on the plans indicate a Hip-Gable roof and there is some indication of a ndge location by some small parallel lines adjacent to the beams, but there is no note which neither explains the meaning of these lines nor is the roof shown on the elevation views. It is difficult to determine the shape and extent of the roof and the typical section on Sheet 2 does not specify a roof slope. b, No roof or wall bracing is indicated or specified on Sheet 1. Some type of lateral bracing is required to resist forces on the structure from lateral wind flow. None is shown on the plans. c. The 2X9 SMB’s shown spanning 35 ft are overstressed with the then required 10 psflive load. FBPE v. Richard P. Wasilewski, P.E., Case No, 2007020504 ” NOW-B3-286S 15:82 Nov 3 2008 14:03 From: 18585216521 Pagse:S¢9 d. Acceptable alloys are listed as either 6063T5 or 6063T6. The TS alloy has a maximum allowable tensile stress of 9.5 ksi while the T6 alloy has a maximum allowable tensile stress of 15 ksi. While T6 is commercially available in the market place, offering the option of utilizing the weaker alloy has a potential of creating a much weaker frame. €, ‘The cable wall brace detail shows a 3/32” @ cable “(1750 Ibs)”. Tlem #8 in the general notes on the same sheet indicates that “Cables shall be 300 Series Stainless Steel of 1200 Ib. strength.” Searching the internet for specifications for 300 Series Stainless Steel cable produced tables that indicatc, for a 3/32” @ stainless steel “minimum breaking strength” of 1,200 lbs. A factor of safety (typically 1.5 min.) would have to be applied to this value, and, the resultant value is on a 45° slope, so that the resulting horizontal allowable force will be reduced by these 2 factors and result in a magnitude of approximately 5604. This is significantly lower than the valuc used in Respondent’s calculations. fi The moment splice al the ridge is a gusseted connection. The splice plates are spccificd as 8” deep for the 9” beam. The thickness is specified as equal to the “beam thickness”. The 2X9 specified has a web thickness of .072”. The plate alloy is unspecified. If it were 6061176, a high strength plate, then its allowable bending stress would be 19ksi (on the gross section}, The allowable moment for the plate would then be; ((.072" X 2) X 87/6) X 19 ksi or 29,2 kip-in, The moment calculated for the beam is 124 kip-in. FBPE y Richard P. Wasilewski. PE, Case No 20070203504 yal Nov 3 2008 14:03 NOW-B3-286S 15:82 From: 18585216521 Pase:6°9 7. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1) (g). Florida Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. COUNT IL (Lake Cascade Project) 8. Petitioncr realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through two (2) and four (4) as if fully set forth in this Count TT. 9. Respondent’s mansard style screen cnclosure plans are deficient in one or more of the following ways: a, The schematic plan view on Sheet 1 does not show the roof height or in this case, the mansard rise. It also is not dimensioned in such a way so that the actual 2X8 SMB beam span can be determined. While the “Structural Items” indicates a span of 20’ 7”, there is an offset shown for the host structure fascia and the length of the enclosure side wall is also shown at 20° 7”, The dimension 20° 7° is used for the calculations, and, as 36” is a typical industry mansard rise, this is the value used for the calculation of the applied bending moment for simultaneously applied loads. b. The three beams for this enclosure were analyzed using Visual Analysis (a finite element analysis and design program) for the spacing and span specified on the drawings with one simultaneous load case with horizontal pressure from the outside in simultancously applied with roof uplift. c. The columns shown are 2X4 Hollow (listed as .055”, however, the typical profile sold has a 0.050" wall thickness). This columm has an allowable moment of 8.7 kip-in per the included ADM requirements. Given a spacmg of 97”, a pressure of 15 psf, and a span of 9°8”. The induced bending moment is 17 in-kips. TRPF. v Richard P, Wasilewski, P.E., Case No. 2007020504 Nov 3 2008 14:04 NOW-B3-286S 15:83 From: 18585216521 Page: 7“ In Respondent’s calculations for this project, the beam moments are underestimated because the horizontal and vertical wind loads were not applied simultaneously and no axial stress was considered, And while the columns were checked for simultaneous loading, the allowable compressive and allowable bending stresses were overestimated as shown in item 2 ahove. d. Shect 2 has a cable detail similar to the one presented on the Winsome Way project. The same comments apply to this project as stated in the Winsome Way comments and opinion as to cable assembly strength. A gable moment splice is shown on Sheet 3 and the same comment applies as discussed for the Winsome Way project, The gusset thickness and depth are far loo small to resist the applied moment (thickness shown as 1/8” per plate), and fastener location and arrangement are not specified. 10. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471,033(1) (g), Florida Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Professional Engineers to enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: permanent revocation or suspension of the Respondent’s license, restriction of the Respondent’s practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of the Respondent on probation, the assesstnent of costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, other than costs associated with an altorney’s time, as provided for in Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, and/or any other relief that the Board deems appropriate. FOPE v. Richard P. Wasilewski, P-E., Case No 2007020504 Nov 3 2008 14:04 NOV-B3-2888 15:03 From: 18505210521 Pave: 8-9 SIGNED this _ 974 day of ff of 2008. De Carrie Flynn barineat of Businass and Pratessionai R Executive Director DATE - Mihaly vi ~2OOR BY: Patrick Crechan Prosecuting Attorney COUNSEL FOR FEMC: Patrick Creehan Prosecuting Attorncy Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 FILED Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Florida Engineers Managesent Corporation Florida Bar No. 0063540 PC/jt CLERK PCP DATE: May 20, 2008 DATE PCP Members: Rebane, Seckinger CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was furnished to Richard P. Wasilewski, P.E., 1520 Chateauwood Dr., Clearwater, FL 33764, by certified mail, on the 277 _ of , 2008. FRPE v. Richard P. Wasilewski, PE, Case No. 2007020504

Docket for Case No: 08-005489PL