STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS. FEMC Case No. 2004052898 “Petitioner,” wd files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Professional Engineers against Al \ M. Carbonell, P.E., hereinafter refered to as “Respondent”. This Administrative Complaint is fssned pursuant to Sections 120.60 and 471.038, Florida Statutes, Any proceeding ‘conceming ahs complaint shall be conducted pursuant to Section 120.57; Florida Stamtes. In _ support of this complaint, Petitioner alleges the following: lL i Petitioner ig charged with providing administrative, investigative, and _. prosecutorial |savices to the Board of Professional Engineers pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Stathes (1997). The Board of Professional Engineers is charged with regulating the practice of exgincering pursuant to Chapter 455, Flosida Statutes. 2. | Respondent is and has been at all time material hereto a licensed professional engineer in be State of Florida, having been issued license number PE.14170, Respondent's last known adduegs is 9295 S:W. 108 Ct, Miami, Florida. 33176. | 1 i i 1 —$ —€ :8d 27:88 26-€T-28 quyod Td Tzsetzsass : fq ues xey es:6 /00¢ ¢T [1c F ie Co 3. he Respondent signed, scaled, and. dated architechwal, structural, clectrica, Plumbing plans for a two-story New Addition at Mr. Mauricio’s Residence : fn Key Biscay, Florida. 4, Peto eles an incrpntes pra ne (1) tough tice (2) aif ly rt Count One. 5. The Respondent's two-story New Addition at Mr. Mauticio's Residence project socal play conan defini, ning byt not linsited to the follosving: © The design calculations and the reinforcing provided ‘assume. the second floor slab is 6? one span slab with spans of 28° and 25’ with fully fixed ends. ‘This is an invalid (>) There ig no structural element at the edge of the slab that can. resist the magnitude of the slab fixed end bending mornent and prevent the edge of the slab from rotating () The. edge beam, wall, and columns were not checked for torsion and bending regu to reso the sab od end condition, It is not possible for these elements as sized and detdled to provide the required resistance. A proper and safe assumption is a pinned tn fe oh ee ek ee et ec However, for t Slab thickness the deflections would be excessive. | @ The mid span bending moment and bottom ‘reinforcing required for a / pinced end lpi three times that for a fixed ead slab The deflection of a pinned end slab is five times thajof «fixed end slab. (¢) The 6” slab is grossly inadequate. () The top of the slab reinforcing is noted to-be 3° long, For the fixed end ; noted to: , condition ofthe design, the top reinforcing would have to be 6” loag to resist the end moments. i 1 iz t t FEMC y, Alfredo MiCarbonel PE, Case 2004052898 2 Ba 20:88 20-€T-28 quyod Td Tzsetzsass : fq ues xey ee:6 400¢ eT [nc @ Bending moments were calculated. assuming a fixed-pined condition with “equal load: on Hoth spans. No. consideration of unbalanced live loadas ‘required by ACT 318 section 8.9.2 wes indicated in the calculations. ‘” An additional top bar is detziled over the.support, The. total length of this bar is only 5*, There are no calculations to determine the require length of this additional top bar. | i No shear calculations are provided. ; There are no calculations for the beam shear.or the variation of shear and moment along the length of the beam to determine where reinforcing is, and is not required. (0 A beam. spanning over one opening at the second floor and framed into: concrete tie colknns was designed as a fixed end beam. The calculations were based entirely on moment coeffigients for. the ideal fixed end condition. with so consideration for increased positive rome due to rotation at the ends. No.calculations were. provided for column moments or beam sticar. | | (1) The design calculations check the footing for only the positive bending moment assuming simple. span condition between: piles. The calculations use a pile spacing of ‘ on i . . 6.8” where the Actual maximum is 10°, ‘The caleulations use unfactored loads and do not include the first floor slab that is supported by the foundation. The design load used in the calculations is less than half the actual load on the continuous footing or grade. beam. The continuous footing is grossly under s i { and under designed. 6. pared on the foregoing, Respondent is charged .with violating Section 471.033(1 Xe); Pig Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practice. of engineering, COUNT TWO 7. Hetitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one-(1). through three (3) as if fully set forth i this Count Two. FEMC v. Alfredo M, Carbonell, P.E., Case # 2004052898 3 t Ss :8a 27:80 28-€T-2a aquyod Td TZSaTzsase : Aq yes xeg Sib 400e ST [nc @ C) Cr 8. ithe Respondemt’s two-story New Addition at Mr. Maixicio’s Residence project mechanical plans contain deficiencies, inchuding, bat aot limited i> the following: , a Nodry vent shown, as requised by FBC-M 504. b. Three exhaust fans are shown, but no directions. are. provided as to how ey tobe fet eri c. No size shown for AHU heat strip,. although the schedule shows 9.8 RLA(run load) amps amps) and 43.8 MCA (Minimums Circuit amps), It is. inappropriate to have minisoum ci sit amps more than 4 4 times the full-load run amps, . a Condensate drain not shown, as required by FBC-M, 307.23, fe. Outside air requirements not shown as being saet, as sequired by FBC-M. 9, (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, 10. Peston realleges and incorpomtics PeeReRENS one (3) Ssongh three (3) as if fully set forth inthis Count Three. I. The Respondent's two-story New Addition at Mr: Mauricio’s Residence project plumbing plang contain deficiencies, including, but not limited to the follow. : Water piping for the plumbing, fixtures is sized inadequately, por FBC- Plumbing, 12. Based on the foregoing, Respondent. is charged. with violating Section 47t 09s Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practive of engineering. | co UR 13, Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one ay through. three (3) as if fully set forth i is this Count Four. i FEMC v. Alftede M. Garton, P-E., Cased 2008052808 4 ‘Ba 81:88 2@-€T-20 quyod Td Tzsetzsass : fq ues xey ee:6 400¢ eT [nc é © the Respondent's two-story New Addition. at Mr. Manricio’s Residence project | electrical plansicontain deficiencies, inchiding, but net limited to the falléw: a No disconnect switch and no panel B circuit shown for AHU. Schedule on Sheet M- “A thows separate circuit required with 43.8 MCA. b. Panel B shows 60 amp., 2 pole breaker: for, A/C Compressor; but the schedule on Shipet M-| shows Minimum Circuit Amps (MCA) of 25.and Run Load Amps (RLA) of 18 amps. Aj60 Amp breaker violates NEC. Article 440, which requires. overcurrent protection to be.125 pereet of RLA. Consequently, the 60 amp breaker is oversized. é Panel B (Spaces 1, 3) show a 60/2 breaker, with #8 witiag, However, the same panel scbpdule sows (under remarks) 3 #10 CU. Either is insifinient NEC Table 310.16 requires 3 46 for a 60 amp.,.2 pole circuit breaker, | 4. Note.10 requires wire in conduit, Panel B identifies wixing to be romex (RMX), which ] inconsistent with the requirement of Note 10, y Riser shows 3.43 THHN in 1” C. Feeding Panel B. NEC requires 1 1/4 * C. for 3 #3. The electrical design violates this section of the code. f Riser. shows no ground. conductor. for Panel B, as required by NEC 250.24(A), & Riser shows main disconnect connected to cold water hose bibb., NEC 250,52(A\(1) mies the connection of the grounding conductor to be within 2° from the point of entrance where the water pipe enters the building. Drawing isnot clear that this is in compliance with the Code. i Riser Diagram shown Main Service and Panel A (200 Amps) being served by 3 42/0 THN in 2” conduit. NEC Table 310.16 requires that, 3/0 conductors are required for 200 Amps. Thejelectrical design violates this section of the code. ; FEMC v alfredo M. Carbonell, PE, Case # 2004052898 5 Ba at:e0|20-€1-20 quyod Td T2ZS8T2ZS5858 : Pe:6 400e ST inc Aq pues xeq C) Smoke detectors in dwelling unit bedrooms are shown to be served from a t i GFCT protected cireuit, NEC 210.12 requires that all. ovtlets (receptacles, lighting fixtures, ceiling fans and smoke detectors) shall be protected by an atc-fault circuit interrupter (AFCT) breaker. | be j. Bathroom receptacles (3) must be on a dedicated circuit, per NEC 210.11(C)G). |Cicuit B11 has loads other than bathroom receptacles. k Lighting fixtures in closets: must be installed. in accordance with NEC 410.8. Dnwate is not clear that this is in compliance with the Code. ‘Spacing of receptactes in the dwelling violates. NEC’ 210.52(A) which requires spacing to not exceed 12 feet between them. 15. Based on. the foregoing, Respoadent is charged . with. violating Section 47 03312), Florida Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Boned of Professional Engineers to enter an okler imposing one or more of the following penalties: permanent revocation or Suspension oie 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 oft 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), Florida Statutes, and/or any other relief that the Board deems appropriate. 1g, ey , 2006. Paul J. Martin Executive Ditector tae Ah hoe Litt h BY: Bruce A, Campbell Bt po 5 : Prosectiting Attorey SATIS =O-7OC'2 FEMC v, Alfredo M: Carbonell, P.E., Case # 2004052898 6 :8d = 6T:88 28-ET-28 quvod Td Tzsatzsase : fq ques xeg Pe:6 400¢ ¢T [nc q ; | V COUNSEL FOR FEMC: May 18,2006 PCP “my Matthews, Burke, Seckinger FEMC v. Alfteda M. Carbonell, P-E., Case # 2004052898 7 6 :4¢ 67:88 26-€T-28 quyod Td Tzsatzsase : fq ques xeq oe:6 8 400¢ ST Inc

Docket for Case No: 07-003170PL