FI l ED

Dt!piirtrr.P(lt of IIIA\ne!U an f."rof lll!1j111lntlor,

Dr2puty Agenc Clerk

CL£Rk Evt!lte Law or..-Pmclor

Doto 12/13/2010

File 1J.

STATR OF FLORIDA

FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

FILED

FLOIHDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS,

Flotlda Englll,... Management Corporation

k .1 1

Petitioner,

1. FEMC Case No. 2009000352

   
   

   RONALD PAIR, P.E.,

   
   

   Respondent,

                                                             I

   
   

   ADMINISTRATIVli: COMPLAINT

   
   

   COMES NOW the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC) on behalf of Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner," ,incl files this Administrative Complaint against RONALD FAIR, P.E., hereinafter referred to as "Respondent". Titis Administrative Complaint is issued pUl'suant to Sections 120.60 ,ind 471.038, Florida Statutes. Any proceeding concerning this complaint shall be conducted pursu,int 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 engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. This complaint is filed by the Plorida 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).

      
      

      11·11

      
      

      1. Respondent is, and has been at all times mnterial hereto, a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 50738. Respondent's last known address is1616 Allison Woods Lane, Tampa, Florida 33619.

      2. On February 29, 2008 and Octobe1· 4, 2008 Respondent sealed, signed and dated

         
         

         sets of engineering design documents (Drawings) for canopy structures (Canopy Project) to be utilized by the Chevron Products Company at its Port Everglades Terminal facility. The engineering documents for the Canopy Project included Respondent's structural calculations (Calculations) consisting of 10 Sheets (Sheets 1-10) originally dated January 29, 2008 and revised on September 6, 2008, The Calculations provided the analytical engineering basis underlying the st1'Uctural design assumptions for the Drawings for the Canopy Project.

      3. The Drawings for the Canopy Project were materially deficient in the following

         
         

         aspects;

         
         

         1. Sheet C 04; Detail 2, the rigid frame cnlumn to base plate welding symbols are missing which are critical to the structural integrity of the column base plate assembly;

         2. Sheet C-04; Dela.ii 2, the rigid frame column dimension at the base plate conflicts

            
            

            with the member dimension shown on the cross-section in the same detail (Section E-E).

            
            

      4. To meet acceptable engineering standards the Calculations must have met the following requirements:

         1. They must be susceptible to rational analysis in accordance with well-established principles of mechanics and sound engineering practice.

         2. They must be mathematically correct.

            
            

         3. They must clearly state any material assumptions, if those assumptions are not obvious.

            
            

            FBPE vs. Ronald Fair, P.E., Co: No. 2009000352

            
            

            1111

            
            

         4. They must accurately model the actual physical conditions in the area which they profess to address - in this case the Drawings for the Canopy Project.

         5. They must recognize and deal with all critical structural conditions in the area

            
            

            they profess to address-in this case the Drawings for the Canopy Project.

            
            

      5. Respondent's Calculations for the Drawings for the Canopy Project are materially deficient and fail to meet acceptable standards of engineering principles as follows:

         1. The structure was not analyzed as a flexible or dynamically sensitive structure as

            
            

            defined in ASCE7 but was assumed to be a rigid structure. This assumption led to Re 'J)Ondcnt' s understating the Gust fiffect Factor in the design pressure calculations by a ratio of G = 0.85

            (assumed to be rigid), to, Gf 1.3 (calculated as flexible), or 0.6S. Using G = 0.85 resulted in an

            incorrect roof uplift pressure of p = 14.7 psf. Using Gr of 1.3 yields a correct roof uplift pressure

            of p, = 22.4 pst

         2. A cotrcct analysis of the canopies' primary rigid frame shows that the actual applied bending moment for these frames was greater than that shown by Respondent's calculations by a factor of 422/389 = 1.08.

         3. The dimensions and properties for the rigid frame section shown by Respondent's

            
            

            calculations (Sheets 3 thru 8, inclusive) are inconsistent with the section specified on the Drawings. The analysis in Respondent's calculations is for a :tltape diftering from that specified on the Drawings.

         4. ASCE7-02 - Analytical Procedure was used for the wind pressure calculations since the Design Criteria includes the value qz - 38.2 psfand also references Section 6.5.13 for Open Buildings and Other Structures, a sub-section of the Analytical Procedure. However, Respondent mistakenly includes an "Adjustment factor" in the Design Criteria (Sheet I of I0).

            
            

            FBPf. vi. Rtitudd Fnir, P.F.., Ca11e No. 2009000352

            
            

            This factor appears to be taken from ASCE7-02 Method I - Simplified Procedure, however, ASCE?-02 Method 1 - Simplified Procedure cannot be used for this structure.

         5. Likewise, Respondent includes this "Adjustment Factor" into his "Wind Uplift per footing" equation on Sheet 9 (of 10) after having previously established a "Deck Uplift Load" (in his Design Criteria) of 14.7 psf. No notes are provided to establish the relevance of the "Adjustment Factor".

            F, When calculating the footing sizes, Respondent assumed that all wind uplifl forces at each of the columns are equal (by averaging the force on the entire roof surface) and neglect d to consider the respective contributing areas associated with the variable column spaclng shown on the framing and foundation plans. The averaging of these uplift forces resulted

            in substantial differences with those values considering appropriately assigned tributary areas.

            
            

            1. The footing calculations and derivation of values utilized on Sheet 9 arc unclear;

               
               

            2. The footing size (8 ft X 8 ft) used in Respondent's calculations was taken from Respondent's Drawings for the Canopy Project February 29, 2008 and not the 6 ft by 12 ft rigid frame footings shown on the Drawings for the Canopy Project dated October 4, 2008;

            3. No calculations were shown for the wind force on the perimeter fascia cladding or framing;

            4. Although reference is made to the "Visual Analysis" PEA program m the

               
               

               calculations, no reports or results from this analysis are fouod in the Calculations;

               
               

            5. There are no computations in the Calculations for the lateral stability of the structure with the wind parallel to the building ridge, Computations that should h11ve been prepared but which are lacking include:

               
               

               fBPE ,s Rnri.,ld Fair, P.E., Co<o No, 200900035?

               4

               
               

               
               

               TIii

               
               

               1. Lateral wind forces imparted to the entire structure;

            
            

   2. the bending of the frames in the weak axis direction;

iii, the fpresumably welded] connection of the rigid frames at their base plates;

1. bending of the base plates;

   
   

2. the anchor bolt tension stress for the applied bending moment at the column base;

3. the potential concrete rupture due to uplift at the anchor bolts;

   
   

4. the one and two-way shear for the footings.

1. Section 471.033(l)(g), Florido. Statutes, provides that a Professional Engineer is subject to discipline for engaging in negligeoce in the practice of engineering. Rule 61G15- 19.001(4) provides that negligeoce constitutes "failure by a professional engineer to utilize due care in performing in an engineering capacity or failing to hav1> due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles."

2. Respondent's Drawings and Calculations for the Canopy Project contain material deficiencies including; but not limited to those set forth in Paragraphs Four (4) througb Six (6) and, as such, are inadequate, do not comply with accepted engineering principles and show that

Respondent did not exercise due care when he sealed, signed and dated the Drawings and Calculations for the Canopy Project.

9_ Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(l)(g), Florida S1atutes, and Rule 610l 5-19.001(4) by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering.

s

FBPE vs. Ronald Foir, P.E., Cose No. io09001)352

,!I·11

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Professional Engineers to enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: pcnnanent revocation or suspension of the Respondent's license, restriction of the Respondent's practice, imposition ofan administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of the Respondent on probation, the assessment of costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, other than costs associated with an attorney's time, as provided for in Section 455.227(3), f'lorida Statutes, and/or

any other relief that the Board deems appropriate.

SIGNED this day of . "''"l)}(',(' r1,.(},;·3 , 2010.

COUNSEL FOR FEMC:

John J. Rimes, Ill Prosecuting Attorney

Florida Engineers Management Corporation

2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200

Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Florida Bar No. 212008 JR/sm

PCP DATE: November 30, 2010

PCP Members: Rebane, Hahn & Burke

ffiPE. vs. :Ronald Fiiir, P.IL Ca:i;ici No. 2009000352

6

ILi\

CERTlFICATE OF SERVICE

J.!lf.:.·..

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was furnished to Ron Fair, is1616 Allison Woods

I

\ / \ /{ /) (1 /s

r

7,

..._J

Lane, Tampa, Florida 33619, by certified mail, on the of ' ( 1'{ 11•0lO't6.

FBPE vs, R.Ot'lflld Fair, P.E., Case No. 2009000352

7

Docket for Case No: 11-001184PL