May 12 2010 14:39 MAY-1e-2B1e 14:31 From:656 S21 521 Page: 4-21 Deputy Agency Clerk Brandon Nichols 4/2/2010 STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS - FILED FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL Management Corporation ENGINEERS, Petitioner, v. FEMC Case No. 2009020921 DANIEL JOHNS, P-E., Respondent, AD TIVE 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 DANIEL JOHNS, P.E., heréinafter referred to as “Respondent”. This Administrative Complaint is issued pursuant to Sections 120.60 and 471.038, Florida Statutes. Any proceeding conceming this complaint shall be conducted pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. In support of this complaint, Petitioner alleges the following: lL. Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutcs. 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). May 12 2010 14:39 MAY-1e-2B1e 14:31 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: S721 2. Respondent is, and has been al all times material hereto, a licensed professional engineer in the State of Flonda, having been issued hcense number PE 54037, Respondent's last known address is ]223 Thomasina Dr., Port Orange, FL, 32129-4061. 3. On April 7, 2009, Lawrence Bennett, P. E. (Bennett), created and disseminated a document entitled “Aluminum Structures Design Manual (Manual), 4 Commencing on July 1, 2007, Section 489.113(9)(b)2, Florida Statutes, provides that Professional Engineers may produce “master design manuals” for the design of certain structures subject to certain requirements. The “manuals” are defined as“... restrictive design manualfs] intended to be used to design, permit, and construct...” the specified structures. Specifically, (he manuals may be used by contractors to oblain building permits for these structures so long as the manuals are “...prepared by a licensed engincer ... and specifically detai] the limits of [their] usc, including, but not limited to, the structure type, size, materials, loading conditions, time limits, applicable codes, and associated criteria. The manual[s] 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 engineer or architect having no financial inlerest in the development of the manual or the construction of structures pursuant to the manual. The engineer or architect conducting the peer review must be identified in the manual[s].”” (Emphasis Supplied) 5, The Manual is a “master design manual” that is intended to be used and is being used in Florida for the purposes described in Section 489.113(9)(b)2, Florida Statutes. Such a “master design manual” is intended to provide desiyns and related specifications from which contractors and other users may construct the structures contained in the “master design manual.” As such, all information contained in the “master design manual” must be accurate and meet PBPE v. Daniel Johns, PE. Case No 2009020921 May 12 2010 14:39 MAY-1e-2B1e 14:31 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: 6/21 applicable building code requirements insofar as the users of the “master design manual” are entitled to rely on the designs and related specifications certified by the Professional Engineer in the “master design manual” to offer acceptable design solutions for the intended structures. 6. Respondent performed the “peer revicw” for the Manual that was mandated by Section 489.113(9)(b), Florida Statutes. To reflect this “peer review,” Respondent signed and sealed a letter on March 24, 2009 which stated in material part that: “...[Respondent has] performed a peer review of the [Manual] by Lawrence E, Bennett, P. E., and it complies with the 2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 Amendments.” The March 24, 2009 “peer review” letter and Respondent’s opinion is typically provided to Manual users and building permit officials to indicalé compliance with the “peer review” requirements of Section 489.113(9)(b), Florida Statutes. 7. Respondent’s 2009 “peer review” letter giving Respondent's opinion as to the quality of the Manual is an engineering document and, as such, is subjcct to all Statules and Rules governing the practice of engineering by Professional Engineers including the provisions of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rules 61G15-19.001(4), and 61G15-19,001(6)(a), Florida Administrative Code. 8. A tevicw of the Manual reveals material deficicncics in hypothetical (randomly selected) aluminum screen enclosure frame elements that were selected from the design tables presented in the Manual. Each of the hypothetical designs contained hercin are designs that teasunably could have been chosen by the users of the Manual in accordance with (he Manual’s intended use as a “master design manual.” The hypothetical designs arc sct out as follows (the Manual is in drawing format and the references are to the drawings): FBPE y Danicl Johns, PK, Case No 20090209 | MAY-1e-e81e 14:32 May 12 2010 14:39 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: Tel Hypothetical Design 1: A 2x10 Self Mating Beam (SMB) roof beam spanning 31’- 9” spaced at 9°- 0” on center selected from #he span table 1.1-130 on drawing 16A-130; A 2x8 SMB wall post 12’- 0” in height spaced at 9’- 0” on center selected from the span table 1.3-130 on drawing 16A-130 but limited by the 16’- 0” overall height restriction set forth in note 2 below table 1.1-130; The sloped sections of the mansard roof beam rise 4’- 0” in 6’- 4.2” of run.; The shoulder connection (column to beam) is assumed ‘pinned’ (does not transmit moment) which is consistent with the “Sloping Beam To Upright Connection Detail (Partial Lap)’ detail on drawing 3 and the data provided in tables 1.1-130 and 1.3-130 on drawing 16A-130 and table 1.6 on drawing 16B. Loading was based on 130 mph wind loading in Exposure Category B. Hypothetical Design 2; A 2x9 SMB roof beam spanning 32’- 7” spaced at 9’- O"on center selected from the span table 1.1A-130 on drawing 178-130; A 2x7 SMB wall post 10°- 10° in height spaced at 9°- 0” on center selected from the span table 1.3A-130 on drawing 17B-130; The sloped sections of the mansard roof beam rise 4’- 0” in 6’- 6.2”; The shoulder connection (column to beam) is assumed ‘fixed’ (transmits moment) which is consistent with the “Bcam To Post Moment Connection Detail” details on drawing 17A and data provided in tables 1.1A-130, 1.3A-130 and table 1.6A on drawing 17B-130.; Loading was based on 130 mph wind loading in Exposure Category B. Hypothetical Design 3: A 2x9 SMB roof beam spanning 25’- 8” spaced at 9°- 0” on center selected from span table 1.1-140 on drawing 16A-140 (this is the heavier 2x9 SMB section); A 2x8 SMB wall post 12’- 0” in height spaced at 9°- FBPE y. Danicl Johns, P.E., Case No. 2009020971 MAY-1e-e81e 14:32 D, K. May 12 2010 14:40 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: 8/21 0” on center selected from span table 1.3-140 on drawing 16A-140 but limited by the 16°- 0” overall height restriction sct forthin note 2 below table 1.1-140, The roof has a gable configuration with a 4’- 0” rise at mid span; The shoulder connection (column to beam) is assumed ‘pinned’ (does not transmit moment) which is consistent with the “Sloping Beam To Upright Connection Detail (Partial Lap)” detail on drawing 3 and data provided in tables 1.1-140 and 1.3-140 on drawing 16A-140 and table 1.6 on drawing 16B. Loading was based on 140 mph wind loading in Exposure Category B. Hypothetical Design 4: A 2x7 SMB roof beam spanning 20°-4°~ spaced at 7’-0" on center sclected from span table 1.1-130 on drawing 16A-130; A 2x5 SMB wall post 9°- 1” in height spaced at 7°- 0” on center selected from the span table 1.3-130 on drawing 16A-130; The sloped sections of the mansard roof beam rise 4’- 0” in 5°- 1°; The shoulder connection (column to beam) is assumed ‘pinned’ (does not transmit moment) which is consistent with the “Sloping Beam To Upright Connection Detail (Partial Lap)” detail on drawing 3 and data provided in tables 1.1-130 and 1.3-130 on drawing 16A-130 and table 1.6 on drawing 16B.; Loading was based on 130 mph wind loading in Exposure Category B. Hypothetical Design 3; A 2x8 SMB roof beam spanning 34’-10"” spaced at 8’- 0” on center selected from span table 1.1A-120 on drawing 17B-120; A 2x6 SMB wall post 11°- 8” in height spaced at 8’- 0” on center selected from span table 1.3A-120 on drawing 17B-120; The sloped sections of the mansard roof beam rise 4’- 0” in 6’- 11.6.” The shoulder connection (column to FBPE v. Daniel Johns, P.E., Case No. 2009020921 MAY-1e-e81e 14:32 May 12 2010 14:40 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: 9721 beam) is assumed ‘fixed’ (transmits moment) which is consistent with the “Beam To Post Moment Connection Detail” details on drawing 17A and data provided in tables 1.1A-120, 1.3A-120 and table 1.6A on drawing 17B-120. Loading was based on 120 mph — wind loading in Exposure Category B. Hypothetical Design 6: A 2x5 SMB roof beam spanning 187-5" spaced at 67-0" on center selected from span table 1.1A-140 on drawing 17B-140; A 2x4 SMB wall post 8’- 3” in height spaced at 6°- 0” on center selected from the span table 1.3A-140 on drawing 17B-140; 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 “Beam To Post Moment Connection Detail” detail on drawing 17A and data provided in tables 1.1A- 140, 1,3A-140 and table 1.6A on drawing 17B-140. Loading was based on 140 mph wind loading in Exposure Category B. Hypothetical Design 1 is materially deficient as follows: Design stresses in the 2x10 8MB muansard rool beam element exceed the appropriate allowable stresses for the material of construction at code prescribed loading. The stress interaction ratio calculated in accordance with 2005 Aluminum Design Manual (ADM) cquation 44-2 = 1.47. The maximum calculated value allowed for equation 4.4-2 is 1.0. Respondent has therefore failed to design these structural elements in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2007 Flonda Building Code with 2009 supplements. Conservatively assuming that 1/8 of the uplift reaction on the post element is FBPE v, Daniel Johns, P.C., Case No. 2009020921 May 12 2010 14:40 MAY-1e-281e 14:33 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: 18-21 resisted by each “primary” anchorage angle as detailed on page 1- 64, the desipn stresses in the 2x2x2x.063 angle elements exceed the appropriate allowable stresses for the material of construction at code prescribed loading. The stress interaction ratio calculated in accordance with 2005 ADM equation 4.4-2 = 5.3. The maximum calculated valuc allowed for cquation 4.4-2 is 1.0. Tt is noted that according 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 each ‘primary’ anchorage angle (already substantially overstressed) would then increase by a factor of 4. Respondent has failed to design these struciural elements in avcordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 supplements. 10. Hypothetical Design 2 is materially deficient as follows: A. Design stresses in the 2x9 SMB mansard roof beam element exceed the appropriate allowable stresses for the material of construction at code prescribed loading. The stress interaction ratio calculated in accordance with 2005 ADM equation 4.4-2 = 1.74. The maximum calculated value allowed for equation 4.4-2 is 1.0. Respondent has failed to design these structural clements in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 supplements. B. Design siresses in the 2x7 SMB wall post element exceed the apprupriale allowable stresses for the material of construction at code prescribed loading. The stress intcraction ratio calculated in accordance with 2005 ADM equation 4.4-2 — 13.15. The maximum calculated value allowed for equation 4.4-2 is 1.0. POPE v. Daniel Joins, PE. Case No 20920921 MAY-1e-281e 14:33 11. May 12 2010 14:41 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Pase:li-e2i Respondent has failed to design these structural elements in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 supplements. Conservatively assuming that 1/6 of the uplift reaction on the post element is Tesisted by cach “primary” anchorage angle as detailed on page 1- 64, the design stresses in the 2x2x2x.063 angle elements exceed the appropriate allowable stresses for 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 calculated value allowed for 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 2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 supplements. An analysis was made of the shoulder (beam to column) connection assuming that the ‘Moment Connection Detail’ configuration provided on page 1-107 was used. Analysis indicated that the .125” thick splice plates will be substantially overstressed al design loading. The 14 - #12 fastener group selected as set forth on pages 1-107 & 1-116 is substantially under capacity for shear. The allowable shear loading on a fastener is execeded by over 200%. Respondent has failed to design these structural elements in accordance with the strength requirements of Seclion 1604.2 of the 2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 supplements. Hypothetical Design 3 is materially deficient as follows: Design stresses in the 2x9 SMB roof beam clement exceed substantially the appropriate allowable stress for the material of construction at code prescribed FBPE v. Daniel Johns, PE, Case No. 2009020921 MAY-1e-281e 14:33 12. May 12 2010 14:41 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: level loading. Respondent has failed to design this structural element in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 supplements, Design stresses in the splice plates and the fasteners for the ridge splice connection of the 2x9 gable roof beam exceed 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 2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 supplements. Hypothetical Design 4 is materially deficient as follows: Design stresses in the 2x7 SMB roof beam clement cxceed 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 2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 supplements. Mesign 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 2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 supplements. Design stresses in the splice plates and the fasteners for the mansard knee splice commection of the 2x7 mansard roof beam exceed substantially the appropriate allowable stresscs for the materials of construction at code prescribed loading. FBPE v. Damel Jol. PE. Case No 2009020921 MAY-1e-281e 14:33 May 12 2010 14:41 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: la-e2l Respondent has failed to design these structural elements in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604,2 of the 2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 supplements. Hypothetical Design 5 is materially deficient as follows: Design stresses in the 2x8 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 in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2007 Flonda Building Code with 2009 supplements. Design stresses in the 2x6 SMB column element exceed substantially the appropriate allowable stress for the material of construction at code preseribed loading, Respondent has failed to design this structural element in accordance with ihe strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 supplements. Design stresses in the splice plates and the fasteners for the eve splice connection of the 2x7 roof beam to the 2x6 SMB column exceed substantially the appropriate allowable stresses for the materials of construction at code prescnbed loading. Respondent has failed to design these structural clements in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 supplements. Hypothetical Design 6 is matcrially deficient as follows: Design stresses in the 2x5 SMB roof beam clement cxeecd substantially the appropriate allowable stress for the matcrial of construction at code prescribed FBPE v. Daniel Johns, PE, Gase No. 2009020921 May 12 2010 14:41 MAY-1e-eB1e 14:34 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: l4-21 loading. Respondent has failed to design this structural clement in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 supplements. B. Design stresses in the 2x4 SMB column element exceed substantially the appropriate allowable stress for the material of construction at code prescribed loading. Respondent has failed to design this structural clement in accordance with the strength requirements of Section 1604.2 of the 2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 supplements. 15. — Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides thai an engineer is subject to discipline for engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. Rule 6171 5-19.001(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides that negligence constitutes “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 enginecring principles.” 16. Section 471.033(1)\(g), Flonda Statutes, provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for engaging in misconduct in the practice of engineering. Rule 61g15-19.001(6) (a), Florida Administrative Code, defines “misconduct” in the practice of engineering to include “Te]xpressing an opinion publicly on an engineering subject without being informed as to the facts relating thereto and being competent to form a sound opinion thercupon.” 17. Based upon the facts sct forth above in Paragraphs Eight (8) through Fourteen (14), the Manual does not meet acceptable engineering standards and does not comply with the 2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 supplements. By sealing and signing the March 24, 2009 letter and stating therein thal the Manual complied with the 2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 supplements when the Manual, when used as intended, contains multiple matcrial FBPE v. Daniel Johns, PE, Case No 2009020921 May 12 2010 14:42 MAY-1e-eB1e 14:34 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: i521 deficiencies, including but not limited to those listed in Paragraphs Eight (8) through Fourteen (14), Respondent has been negligent in the practice of engineering. 18. In addition, Respondent’s March 24, 2009 “peer revicw” opinion was not premised upon an adcquate review of the Manual. Respondent performed no calculations upon which Respondent could justify the March 24, 2009 conclusion as to the quality of the engineering in the Manual. Respondent kept no notes or analysis against which his opinion could be checked for its scope, completeness or accuracy. In short, Respondent did not perform any meaningful analysis of the Manual and, as such, his opinion was rendered “...without being informed as to the facts relating thereto and [without] being competent to form a sound opinion thereupon.” 19, Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1) (2), Florida Statutes, and Rules 61G15-19.001(4) and Rule 61215-19.001(6) (a), by engaging in negligence and in misconduct in the practice of engineenng. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Professional Engineers to enter an order imposing one or more of the following penaltics: permancnt 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 relaled 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 appropniate. FBPE v Daniel Johns, P.E., Case No. 2009020921 May 12 2010 14:42 MAY-1e-eB1e 14:34 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: 16-21 anh Zi { SIGNED this 2 day of OC I 2010. Carmie Flynn Execs Director a ae at pit Rimes, IIT Prose¢uting Attorney COUNSEL FOR FEMC: John J. Rimes, I Prosecuting Attomey Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Florida Bar No. 212008 JR/sm PCP DATE: March 16, 2010 PCP Members: Rebane & Charland CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was furnished to Danigl Johns; 1223 Thomasina Drive, Port Orange, FL 32129-4061 by certified mail, on the. , 2010. PBPL vy. Damel Johas, PLE, Case No 2009020921

Docket for Case No: 10-002555PL