Mar 2 2010 13:57 MAR-@2-2018 14:50 From:85@ Sel @5e1 Page: 4/35 FILED penn ever ement of freinen 200 Professional Deputy Agency Clerk} [O - | ONS PL CLERK Brandon Nichola Onte 1/2712010 Filles STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS FILED FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL Fh we "anagament Corparaton ENGINEERS, . CLER' high ee f lau 4 DAE ty Hi Petitioner, / Oo) BUI v. FLEMC Case No. 2008024826 & 2009020880 LAWRENCE E. BENNETT, P.E., Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC) on behalf of Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, hereinafter referred ta as “Petitioner,” and files this Administrative Complaint against LAWRENCE E£. BENNETT, P.E., hereinafter referred to as “Respondent” This Administrative Complaint is issued pursuant to Sections 120.60 and 471.038, Flarida Statutes. Any proceeding concerning this complaint shall be conducted pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. In support of this complaint, Pctitioner alleges the following: 1. Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Enginccrs, is charged with regulating the practice of engineering 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 Engineers pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Statutes (1997). Mar 2 2010 13:58 MAR-G2-2818 14:5@ | From:85@ S21 @521 Pase:5/35 2. Respondent is, and has been ut all mes material hereto, a licensed professional engineer in the State of Tlorida, having heen issued license number PF. 16644. Respondent's last known address is 315 Herbert Street, Port Orange, FL 32129. 3. In August 2007, Respondent created and disseminated a document entitled “2004 Morida Building Code with 2006 Supplements Aluminum Structures Design Manual (Manual).” The title page of the Manual bears a stamped PE scal and is not signed. ‘| he Manual contains the following information and PL’s certification: “Ehercby certify that engineering contained in the following pages has been prepared in compliance with ASCE 7-02, and the writer's interpretation of the 2004 Ilorida Building Code with 2006 Supplements. Chapter 20 Light Metal Alloys, Chapter 23 Wood and Part IA of The Aluminum Association of Washington, D.C Aluminum Design Manual parts [A & IA and AA ASM35.” 4. Subsequent to the publication of the Manual, on Fcbruary 18, 2009, Respondent created a lelter on February 18, 2009, containing his PL’ scal, dated which was sent to “Building Officials and Contractors” and which includes the statement that Respondent was: “ccrtify[ing] that | have reviewed the changes of the 2007 Llorida Building Code and the effect of those changes on my existing 2006 Aluminum Structures Design Manual Master ile System. I could find no changes in the 2007 L'lorida Building Code or ASCL 7-05. that requires any changes to my 2006 Aluminum Structures Design Manual Master bile System. + FOPE v Lawience Bennett, PL. Case No 200K024826 & 2000020K80 Mar 2 2010 13:58 MAR-@e-2018 14:58 From:85@ Sel @Se1 Pase:6735 Until the new edition of the manual can he published and distributed, please continue using the previous cdition which is the “2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 Supplements Aluminum Structures Design Manual” master file system published August 2007.” 5. Commencing on July 1, 2007, Section 489 113(9)(b)2. Florida Statutes, provides that Professional Engincers may producc “master design manuals” for the design of certain structures subject to certain requirements. The “manuals” are defined as “... restrictive design manual[s] intended to be uscd to design, permit. and construct...” the speciticd structures. Spccifically, the manuals may be used by contractors to obtain building permits for these “a structures so long as the manuals are prepared by a licensed enginecr and specifically dctail the limits of [their] use, including, but not limited to, the structure type, size, materials. loading conditions, time limits, applicable codes, and associated criteria The manualfs} must also detail the required training for the contractor, engineer, or architect using the manual[s}. All master design manuals must be peer reviewed by an independent licensed engineet or architect having no financial interest in the development af the manual or the construction of structures pursuant to the manual. lhe engineer or architect conducting the peer revicw must be identified im the manualfs].” 6. The Manual produced by Respondent 1s a “muster design manual” that is intended lo be used and is being used in Florida for the purposes described in Section 489.113(9)(b)2, Flonda Statutes. Such a “smaster design manual” is intended to provide exemplary designs and related specifications from which contractors and other users may construct the structures conlamed in the “master design manual.” As such, all information contained in the “master design manual” must be accurate and mect applicable building code requirements insofar as the users of the “master design manual’ are entitled to rely on (he exenplary designs and related VRPE v. Lawrence Burnett, PE Case No. 200812426 & 2OVHIZVEKO ry Mar 2 2010 13:58 -MAR-Ge-281@ 14:51 From:85@ Sei @5e1 Pave: 7/735 specifications certified by the Professional Lingineer in the ‘master design manual” to ofter acceptable design solutions for the intended structures 7. Section 489.113(9)(b)2, Florida Statutes, places specific statutory obligations upon those Professional Engineers who create master design manuals for usc under the provisions of that Section. As such, the failure of a Professional Engineer, such as Respondent, lo comply with the provisions of Scction 489.113(9)(b)2, Florida Statutes, violates the provisions of Section 455.227(1)(k), Florida Statutes, which subiccts a licenscc to discipline for“... {flailing lo perform any statutory or legal obligation placed upon a licensee...” 8. Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides that an enginccr is subject to discipline for engaging in negligence in the practice of cnginccring. Rule 6111 5-19.001(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides that neghgence constilutes “lailure by a professional engincer to utilize due care m performing in an enginecring capacity or fatling to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles.” 9. Respondent’s Manual is an engineermy document and, as such, is subject to all Statutes and Rules governing the practicc of enginccring by Professional Engineers including the provisions of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19.001(4), Iorida Administrative Code. 10. A review of the Manual reveals material deficiencies in hypothetical (randomly selected) aluminum sercen enclosure frame elements that werc sclectcd from the design tables presented in the Manual. Pach of the hypothetical designs contained herein are designs that reasonably could have hecn chosen by the users of the Manual in accordance with the Manual’s intended usc as a “master design manual.” The hypothetical designs are set out as follows (the page numbers refer to pages in the Manual): FRPP ¥ taweence Genet, PE. Case No 2008024826 & 2009020880 Mar 2 2010 13:59 MAR-@2-2818 14:51 From:85@ S21 @521 Page:8/35 A. Uypothetical Design 1: A 2x10 Self Mating Beam (SMB) roof beam spanning 31-9” spaced at 9’- 0” on center selected from the span table on page 1-75: A 2x8 SMB wall post 12’- 0” in height spaced at 9’- 0” on center selected from the span __ table on page 1-82 but lunited by the 16’- 0” overall height restricuon set for the in the notes on page 1-75; The sloped sections of the mansard roof beam rises 4°- 0” in6’- 4.2” of ruv.;The shoulder connection (column to beam) is assumed ‘pinned’ (docs not transmit moment) which is consistent with the details and data provided on pages 1-9, 1-75 and 1- 94;Loading was based on 130 mph wind loading in Exposure Category B RB. Hypothetical Design 2: A 2x9 SMB roof beam spanning 32°- 7” spaced at 9°-0" on center selected from the span table on page 1- 110; A 2x7 SMB wall post 10°- 10” in height spaced at Y’- 0" on center selected from the span table un page 1- 114; The sloped scclions of the manysard roof beam rise 4°- 0” in 6*- 6.2"; The shoulder connection (column to beam) 1s assumed ‘fixed’ (transmits moment) which 1s consistent with the details and data provided on pages 1-107. 1-108. 1-110, 1-114, and 1-116; Loading was based on 130 mph wind loading in Exposure Category B. Cc. Hypothetical Design 3: A 2x9 SMB roof beam spanning 25°- 8” spaced at 9’- 0” on center sclected from the span table on page 1-76 (This is the heavicr 2x9 SMB section);A 2x8 SMB wall post 12°- 0” in height spaced at 9’- 0” on center selected from the span table on page 1-83 but limited by the 16’- 0” overall height restriction set for the in thc notes on page 1-76; ‘The roof has a gable configuration with a 4°- 0" nse ul mid span; The shoulder connection (column Lo beam) is assumed ‘pinned’ (docs not transmit moment) which is consistent with the details and data provided on pages 1-9, 1-75 and 1- 94; Loading was bascd on 140 mph wind loading in Exposure Category B. FBPE v. Lawrenee Bennet. PEL, Case No 2008024826 & 20N9A2NRKN Mar 2 2010 13:59 . MAR-@2-2818 14:51 From:85@ S21 @521 Page:9/35 D. Hypothetical Desipa 4; A 2x7 SMB roof beam spanning 20°-4°" spaced at 7°-0” on center selected from the span table on page 1-75, A 2x5 SMB wall post 9-1” inheight spaced at 7’- 0” on center selected from the span table on page 1-82; The sloped sections ol the mansard roof beam rise 4°- 0” in 5° 1”; ‘Ihe shoulder connection (column to beam) is assumed ‘pinned’ (does not transmit moment) which is consistent with the details and data provided on pages 1-9, 1-75 and 1-94; Loading was bascd on 130 mph wind loading in Exposure Category B. E. Hypothetical Nesign §: A 2x8 SMB roof beam spanning 34’-10"” spaced at &’- 0” on center sclected from the span table on page 1-109; A 2x6 SMB wall post Il’- &” in height spaced at 8*- 0” on center selected (rom the span table on page 1-113; The — sloped sections of the mansard roof beam rise 4’- 0” in 6’- 11.6". ‘Ihe roof has a gable conliguration with a 4°- 0” rise at mid span; The shoulder connection (column to beam) is assumed ‘fixed’ (transmits moment) which 1s consistent with the details and data. provided on pages 1-107, 1- 109. 1-113 and 1-116; Loading was based on 120 mph wind loading in Exposure Category B. F. Hypothetical Design 6: A 2x5 SMB roof beam spanning 18'-5” spaced at 67-0” on center selected from the span table on page 1-111, A 2x4 SMB wall post 8-31 height spaced at 6’- 0” on center selected from the span table on page 1-115, The roof has a gable configuration with a 4’- 0” rise at mid span; The shoulder connection (column to beam) is assumed‘ fixed’ (transmits moment) which is consistent with the details and data provided on pages 1-107, 1-111, 1-115 and 1-116; Loading was based on 140 mph wind loading in Exposure Category B. I. Hypothetical Design 1 is materially deficicnt as follows: FBPE v Lawrence Bennett, PLE Case No 2008024826 & 2000020820 Mar 2 2010 13:59 . MAR-@2-2818 14:51 — From:85@ S21 Q521 Page: 10/35 A. Design stresscs in the 2x10 SMB mansard roof beam element exceed the appropriate allowable stresses for the material of construction at code prescribed loading. ‘I he Stress mteraction ratio calculated in accordance with 2005 Aliminum Design Manual (ADM) equation 4.4-2 = 1.47. The maximum calculated value allowed for equation 4.4-2 is 1.0. Respondent has Ihercture failed to design these structural elements in accordance with the strength requirements of Scction 1604.2 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 supplements B. Conscrvatively assuming that 1/8 of the uplift reaction on the post element is reststed by cach “primary” anchorage angle as detailed on page |- 64, the design stresses in the 2x2x2x.063 angle clements exceed the uppropriate allowable stresses for the material of constuction at code prescribed Joading. The stress interaction ratio calculated in accordance with 2005 ADM equation 4.4-2 = 5.3. The maximum calculated value allowed for equation 4 4- 2 is 1.0. ILis noted that accordmy to the example calculation provided on page 1-65, only two anchors would be required for this post and therefore no secondary anchorage angle would be required. The load on cach ‘primary’ anchorage angle (already substantially overstressed) would then increase by a factor of 4. Respondent has failed to design these structural clements in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604 2 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 supplements. 12 Tlypothetical Design 2 is matcrially deficient as follows A. Design stresses in the 2x9 SMB mansard roof beam clement exceed the appropriate allowable stresses for the material of construction at code prescribed loading. The Stress interacuion ratio calculated in accordance wilh 2005 ADM equation 4.4-2 = 1.74. The maximum calculated value allowed [ur equation 4.4-2 is 1.0. Respondent has failed tv design FBPE v. Lawicnce Bennett, PE, Cuse No 2608024826 & 2009020R80 Mar 2 2010 13:59 MAR-@2-2818, 14:52 From:85@ S2t @521 Pase:11735 these structural elements in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 supplements B Design stresses in the 2x7 SMB wall post element exceed the appropriate allowable stresses for the material of construction at code prescribed loading. The stress interaction ratio calculated m accordance with 2005 ADM equation 44-2 - 13.15. The maximum calculated value allowed for cquation 4.4-2 1s 1.0. Respondent has tailed to design these structural clements in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 supplements Cc Conscrvatively assummyg thal 1/6 of the uplifl reaction on the post element is resisted by each “primary” anchorage angle as detailed on page 1- 64, the design stresses in the 2x2x2x.063 angle clements exceed the appropriate allowable stresscs [or the material of construction at code prescribed loading The stress interaction ratio calculated in accordance with 2005 ADM equation 4.4-2 = 16.0. The maximum calculaled value allowed lor equation 4.4-2 is 1.0. Respondent has failed to design these structural elements in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 supplements. D. An analysis was madc of the shoulder (beam to column) connection assuming that the ‘Moment Connection Detail’ configuration provided on page 1-107 was uscd. Analysis indicated that the .125” thick splice plates will be substantially overstressed al design loading. The 14 - #12 fastencr group selected as set forth on pages 1-107 & 1-116 is substantially under capacity for shear. ‘I'he allowable shear loading on a fastener is exceeded by over 200%. Respondent has failed lo design these structural elements in accordance with the strength requirements of Scetion 1604.2 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 supplements. TBPE v Lawrence Bennett, PE Casc No 20108024826 & 2009020680 Mar 2 2010 14:00 MAR+@2-2818 14:52 From:85@ Sel @521 Pase: 12735 13. Hypothetical Design 3 is materially deficient as follows: A. Design stresses in the 2x9 SMB roof beam element exceed substantially the appropriate allowable stress for the material of construction at code prescribed loading. Respondent has failed to design this structural element im accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 supplements. B Design stresses in the splice plates and the fastencrs for the ridge splice connection of the 2x9 gable roof beam cxcced substantially the appropriate allowable stresses for the materials of construction at code prescribed loading. Respondent has failed to design these structural elements in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 supplements. 14. Hypothetical Design 4 is maicrially deficient as follows. A. Design stresses in the 2x7 SMB roof bean element exceed substantially the appropriate allowable stress for the material of construcuon at code prescribed loading. Respondent has lailed to design this structural clement in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 supplements. B. Design stresses in the 2x5 SMB column clement cxcecd substantially the appropriate allowable stress for the material of construction at code prescribed loading. Respondent has failed to design this structural element in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604 2 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 supplements. Cc. Design stresses in the splice plates and the fasteners for the mansard knee splice connection of the 2x7 mansard roof beam exceed substantially the appropriate allowable slresses for the materials of construction al code prescribed loading. Respondent has failed to design FOPE v. Lawrence Gennetl PC Case No 20080218 2h & 2009020880 Mar 2 2010 14:00 MAR*@2-2@18 14:52 From:85@ S21 @521 Page:13-35 these structural elements in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 supplements. 15. Hypothetical Design 5 is matcrially deficient as follows: A Design stresses in the 2x8 SMB roof beam element exceed substantially the Appropriate allowable stress for the matcrial of construction at code prescribed loading. Respondent has tailed to design this structural clement in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2004 Flonda Building Code with 2006 supplements. B. Design stresscs in the 2x6 SMB column clement exceed substantially the appropriate allowable stress for the material of construction al code prescribed loading Respondent has failed to design this structural element in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2004 Florida Building Cude with 2006 supplements Cc, Design stresses in the splice plates and the fasteners for the eve splice conncetion of the 2x7 roof beam to the 2x6 SMB column exceed substantially the appropriate allowable stresses for the materials of construction at code prescribed loading Respondent has failed to design thesc structural clements in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 supplements. 16. — Llypothcetical Design 6 is materially deficient as follows: A. Design stresses in the 2x5 SMB roof beam element exceed substantially the appropriate allowable stress for the maternal of construction at code prescribed loading. Respondent has failed to design this structural clement m accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2004 Flonda Building Code with 2006 supplements. B. Design stresses in the 2x4 SMB column element exceed substantially the appropriate allowable stress for the miatcrial of construction at code prescribed loading. FRPF. v. Lawrence Benncit. PF Cause Nu 2008024826 & 2009020880 Mar 2 2010 14:00 MAR-@e-2018 14:53, From:85@ Se1 @521 Page: 14/35 Respondent has failed (© design this structural element in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 supplements. 17, Based upon the reasons sct forth above in Paragraphs ‘Icn (10) through Sixtcen (16), the Manual reflects a failurc on the part of Respondent “...to utilize duc care in performing in an engineering capacity” and reflects a tailire on the part of Respondent “. to have duc regard lor acceptable standards of cngincoring principles...” By sealing and signing the Manual and offering it to the public as a “master design manual” when the Manual when used as intended contains material deficiencies. including but not limited to those listed in Paragraphs Ten (10) through Sixteen (16), Respondent has heen negligent in the practice of engmeering, 18. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1) (g), Florida Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practice of cnginecring WHERLIORL, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Professional Engineers lo enter an order imposing one or more of the fallowing penaltics: 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 assessment of costs rclated to the investigation and prosecution of this casc, other than costs associated with an attorney's time, as provided for in Section 455.227(3), L‘lorida Statutes, and/or any other relief that the Board deems appropriate. FAPE « Lawrence Bennett, Pb. Case No 2008024826 & 200002880 Mar 2 2010 14:01 MAR-@2-e818 14:53 From:85@ Set @521 Pase:15735 tf SIGNED this M, | ST day of » 2010 [) BY: John J. Rimes, HI : ccuting Altomey COUNSEL FOR FEMC: John J. Rimes, il Prosecuting Attorney llorida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassce, Florida 32303 Florida Bar No. 212008 JR/sm PCP DATE: January 12, 2010 PCP Members: Rebane, Charland, Halyard CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was furnished to Lawrence F. Bennett, P.E., Bye c/o Alex lord, Lisq., P.O. Box 48, Deland, I'L 32721-0048, by U.S. mail on the of f FRPE v Lawrence Benen [LE Case No 2008024826 & 2009020880

Docket for Case No: 10-001053PL