Professor Van Den Einde SE 103 Conceptual Structural Design

Fall 2013 November 27, 2013

!"#$ XXX
! ! !
! !
Laboratory #6 MIDTERM PROJECT
WATER TOWER BID PROPOSAL
FINAL REPORT
!'()* +, -+.!*.!/
I. Cover Letter............................................................ 1
II. Project Overview and Objectives .......................... 2
III. Project Organization .............................................. 2
IV. Conceptual Design ................................................ 4
V. SAP Analysis ......................................................... 8
VI. SolidWorks Rendering & Aesthetics..................... 11
VII. Effort Schedule .................................................... 12
VIII. Cost Break-Down ................................................ 12
IX. Design & Construction Schedule.......................... 13
X. Conclusion ........................................................... 14

SE 103 Conceptual Structural Design
Team 7

1
November 27, 2013
Ingenium Engineering Inc.
Team 7 Engineers
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92092
BID PROPOSAL IN FULFILLMENT OF
THE WATER TOWER PROJECT
Project Statement:
This proposal is a summary of the understanding, obligations, and overall estimates acknowledged by
engineers at Ingenium Engineering Inc. in agreement with John Doe from Hilton Hotel.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dear John Doe,
A team of structural engineers at Ingenium Engineering will be assigned to the Water Tower Project in
service to the Hilton Hotel located in San Francisco, California. This team of structural engineers is
highly specialized to design and construct a tower that will fulfill your requirements and needs in a
punctual and professional manner.
Though Ingenium Engineering is a relatively new company, the firm has recently carried out a
successful 1-year large-scale bridge project for the city of San Diego. With this experience, the
company aims to provide excellent service and product for the hotel.
The engineers of this team will utilize their combined knowledge of SAP2000 Analysis, architectural
design, SolidWorks, Statics, and Solid Mechanics to produce a tower that is not only aesthetically
appealing and iconic, but safe for seismic regions such as San Francisco. The team hopes to carry
out this project in the most efficient and cost effective way possible.
The following bid proposal will provide a detailed analysis produced by the structural engineering
team to show the full scale of the project and what it will entail.
The associates at Ingenium Engineering look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
XXX, S.E. Project
Manager Ingenium
Engineering
John Doe
Hilton Hotel
8888 Infinite Drive
San Francisco, CA 94117
SE 103 Conceptual Structural Design
Team 7

2
II. PROJECT OVERVIEW & OBJECTIVES
The project scope encompasses the structural design and fabrication of a water tower that would
stand at the top of the Hilton Hotel located in San Francisco, California. The 26.6 ft (16 in. model) tall
water tower would support an estimated 14,400 lbs (6 lbs model) vertical load from water storage.
Since this area is highly susceptible to seismic loading, the engineers at Ingenium Engineering have
accounted for such lateral forces in the design of the tower. The foundation of the tower would utilize
lateral bracings with cement (in model, HydroStone) to secure the tower during earthquakes.
The objective of this project is to design, analyze, and construct a water tower based on the
requirements and constraints of the client, John Doe.
In order to maximize tower performance (performance index), efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfy the
clients needs, the team focused on creating a strong, lightweight, and cost effective structure that
would not only withstand the lateral (seismic) load, but also possess aesthetic appeal and blend into
the city surroundings as an iconic structure.
III. PROJECT ORGANIZATION
The project organization of the team is summarized in the flow chart below. Though each member
had individual tasks to complete, it was imperative that there was communication among all members
to avoid discrepancies and allow fluidity in the development of the water tower.

PROJECT MANAGER
(XXX)

CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER (XXX)
LEAD
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
(XXX)
CONSTRUCTION
FOREMAN
LEAD DESIGNER
(XXX)
LEAD DRAFTER
(XXX)
CONSTRUCTION
WORKERS
SE 103 Conceptual Structural Design
Team 7

3
A description of the general responsibilities of each member is also provided (reflective of the flow
chart above).
Project Manager: Project managers responsibilities include overseeing every step of the completion
of the project, planning out the duration of each phase, quality control check, defining project
objectives, finalizing the project, and meeting the customers requirements by working closely with the
client.
Construction Manager: Construction managers responsibilities include monitoring the entire
construction team, setting up the method statement, performing project scheduling in order to meet
each milestone, and establishing the project logistics to foresee uncertainty or disruptions during the
construction phase.
Professional Engineer: The professional engineer in charge of the engineering team. The duty of the
engineer includes: determining the labor needed in order to complete the water tower construction
based on the construction managers scheduling and method of accomplishing the tasks; ensuring the
water towers structural integrity based on live and dead load analysis; making optimal material
sections in order to cut project expenses without compromising structural performance; and verifying
the structures alignment with codes and regulations. This engineer also works extensively with the
designer to ensure the practicality and effectiveness of the tower.
Designer: Design the appearance of the water tower in order to make it an iconic structure to the city.
Drafter: Based on the rough drawing by the designer, drafter has to convert them into a
comprehensive drawing by using computer software such as Solidworks, AutoCad, SAP2000,
CivilCad etc.
Construction Foreman: Monitor the working progress of the workers and make sure that the workers
perform different tasks which is set up by the Professional Engineer in the construction site.
Table 1: During small scale testing of the water tower, each member of the team was leading a
certain component in developing the model. This table summarizes the main responsibilities of each
member at small scale. These responsibilities would ultimately determine the final roles each member
was assigned to during actual tower design and construction.
Hours Tasks and Responsibilities
XXX 12 SAP2000 Analysis
Hand Calculations
XXX 12 Aesthetics & Structural Design
SolidWorks Modeling
XXX 12 Tower Construction
Hand Calculations
XXX 12 SolidWorks Modeling
Report Compilation
SE 103 Conceptual Structural Design
Team 7

4
IV. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
In order to develop a reliable structure for the Hilton Hotel, the structural engineering team at
Ingenium Engineering began small-scale analysis on the water tower.
To determine the maximum performance of the actual tower, a performance index (an indicator of
how well the structure would perform in reality) was utilized. The model will contain parameters and
design constraints that allows the team to predict costs and materials in the actual tower.
The primary design constraints during the initial design stage of the model were to meet the design
requirements and increase the performance index without compromising structural strength.
Given the available materials to build the model, the team decided to build the tower entirely out of
sheet metal to maximize the performance index by reducing expenses. Initially, other materials such
as fishing wire were considered as possible options for various bracings in the tower. However, after
deliberation, it was clear that materials other than the necessary bolts and nuts would decrease the
performance index dramatically due to their cost, and thus were not incorporated into the towers
initial design and conceptualization.
In order to create the basic structure, four columns were chosen to form the corners of the tower.
These columns would act as the main supports that transfer the vertical and horizontal loads into the
foundation. Based on prior research on water towers, the team understood that these four columns
would be the minimum components necessary to successfully support the dead load of the water
tank.
To keep these columns standing in place, a combination of diagonal cross bracings and lateral
bracings were added to the design. A total of four diagonals (two at the top and two at the bottom of
each side) were utilized in the initial design as a way to strengthen, stabilize, and support the towers
self-weight and applied dead and lateral loads. Whether or not all diagonals added to the design were
entirely necessary was in question.
As a result, one of the ideas pitched during the initial design phase was to have only one diagonal
member at the bottom of each side of the tower. This design was suggested as a way to reduce the
weight, amount of material used, cost, and make the structure more transparent. Unfortunately, the
team also realized that single diagonal bracing on each side produces an asymmetrical structure. This
asymmetry may generate undesirable moments and torsion that could lead to structural failure as the
tower experiences the applied dead and lateral loads.
After computing a preliminary calculation on the total surface area used thus far in the design, it was
clear that the team had surpassed the limit of 100 in
2
area of the sheet metal. In order stay within the
material constraints, reduce weight, and increase transparency, the team decided to remove all of the
diagonal bracings from bottom half of the structure. However, the top diagonals were not removed, as
they were crucial to resisting the horizontal and vertical forces (applied at the upper part of the tower)
as well as transferring loads to the columns.
To further stabilize the structure, lateral braces were added at the top and middle on each side of the
tower. The team agreed that these braces were necessary to give the tower more rigidity and to
counter and transfer loads to the columns.
SE 103 Conceptual Structural Design
Team 7

5
Lastly, in order to keep the tower from pulling out of the HydroStone during testing, it was necessary
that some form of lateral bracing or footing should be placed at the bottom to function as a foundation.
This foundation is absolutely crucial to secure the tower. Initially, the team considered adding feet at
the bottom of each column. However, after deliberation, the team realized that the feet might not
provide sufficient strength to resist the large moment caused by the lateral load. This design was
nevertheless considered as it provided a way to secure the tower in the HydroStone.
Once the initial design was conceptualized, the team began deliberation on the details (dimensions,
material, and placement) and modifications of the structure before finalizing the tower in SolidWorks.
In the final draft of the tower, the team
analyzed and added details that would form
the finished structure.
As mentioned in the initial design, in order to
reduce the cost and increase performance
index, the team designed the tower using only
the sheet metal provided and purchased the
necessary nuts and bolts for the connections.
Due to the sheet size limitations, continuous
members greater than 10 in. long were not
allowed in the tower design. Thus, in order to
maintain simplicity and comply with the 15.75
in. height of the tower (with the 0.25 in flanges
of the water tank, a total of 16 in. height),
each column comprised of two members that
were 8.00 inches in length and overlapped
0.25 in. (to form connections) at the center of
the tower (Figure 1).
Once bent, each side of the tower would
comprise of 0.5 in. width columns. Since the
columns act as the main support that would
transfer both horizontal and vertical loads to
the foundation, it was crucial that these members have a relatively large width in order to withstand
the applied loads and possible stresses that would induce buckling.
The team considered using two members to form a corner. However after deliberation, it was clear
that if each corner were formed from a single bent piece of aluminum, it would not only simplify the
construction process, but also maintain stability as stress concentrations build up at the corners.
Though it would ultimately increase cost due to the need for bending service, the team judged that
since each corner is formed using a single bend, it would produce fewer imperfections in the structure
than creating each corner out of two members.
As shown in the 2-D schematic of the tower (Figure 1), the diagonal cross bracings on each side
serve as supports to counter the applied dead and lateral loads and transfer them to the columns.
Thus, they were necessary to the structural stability of the tower.
Figure 1 & 2: Side-by-side SolidWorks 2-D drawing of the tower with
dimensions (inches) (left) and 3-D rending in isometric view of the final
tower design with dead load conditions applied (right).
SE 103 Conceptual Structural Design
Team 7

6
However, due to the limited amount of materials and in order to reduce weight, diagonal cross
bracings were restricted to the top half of the tower and made to be only 0.25 in. wide and 8.864 in.
long (8.56 in + 2R = 8.864).
Lateral bracings were then added at the middle and top of each side of the tower. The bracings keep
the columns in place, resist torsion, and give the tower its rigidity. Similar to the diagonal bracings, the
width of these members was 0.25 in. due to the limited supply of material and 4.10 in. in length due to
the dimensional constraint of the ring support and Tupperware.
The footings posed a significant challenge to the team as the structure was finalized. Due to the
susceptibility of a high moment at the base of the structure, there was a need for a strong resistance
in this region. Initially, the team considered using feet at each corner of the tower. However, one of
the members suggested not to use this idea as the feet would act as pivots and ultimately cause
structural overturning. Thus, the team reassessed the options that would maximize resistance to the
large moment. After deliberation, the team agreed on designing lateral braces that would run parallel
to the ground and span from one corner column to the next (Figure 2).
The team knew that this would effectively aid
in resisting the moments pull on the tower,
since these braces are placed out of plane.
Due to the limited supply of sheet metal,
these members were made to be 0.35 in.
wide and 4.68 in. long.
In order to reduce cost and take advantage of
the HydroStone, the team created slits in
order to slide the bracing through the
columns. Once the HydroStone is poured and
cured, these members will be secured in
place and thereby removing the need for nut
and bolt connections to keep the bracing in
place.
The total amount of sheet metal used in this
design was 97.15 in
2
.
The final design shown in Figure 3 and Figure
4 was utilized to construct the actual tower
(rescaling using 1:20 ratio).
With this design, the team focused on
increasing the performance index by finding ways to reduce cost and weight without sacrificing
strength. Based on the reasoning for each component as explained above, the teams structure only
contained members and elements absolutely crucial to resisting the loads. Effectively, due to its
simplicity, the structure is also transparent and would compliment the San Francisco city
surroundings.
Once the tower was constructed and secured to the HydroStone for testing, the team applied the
lateral and dead loads (6 lb water tank) in order to simulate real life forces experienced by the tower.
Figure 3 & 4: Figure 3 (left) is the 3D elevation (front) view of the tower.
Figure 4 (right) is the 3-D isometric view of the tower without any external
loading conditions applied.
SE 103 Conceptual Structural Design
Team 7

7
Based on the design of the tower and hand calculations, the team predicted structural failure at a
maximum load of 49.5 lbs due to the slender diagonal members.
The results from actual testing showed that the structure was able to hold a maximum of 96.7 lbs, a
value that is nearly double the teams predicted load. As shown in Figure 5, the water tower produced
a displacement of approximately 0.87 as a maximum load of 96.7 lbs was reached.
Figure 5: A plot of load vs. displacement.
From testing results, the team was able to observe structural
yielding at 72.5 lbs, and structural failure at 96.7 lbs.
As shown in Figure 6, the model water tower failed at the
diagonal members as predicted. However, what was
unaccounted for in the teams prediction was the transfer of
loads to the middle lateral bracings. As a result, though the
tower did experience discrepancies in strength at 49.5 lbs
(shown in Figure 5), the structure continued to withstand load
once the forces were transferred to the middle lateral bracings.
Based on the data and observations, the team reassessed the
changes that were significant in altering the performance index.
Figure 6: Water tower after testing. As directed
by the arrow, buckling of the lateral bracings
ultimately caused structural failure.
Buckling of the
middle lateral
members caused
a dramatic
decrease in
structural strength
resulting in failure.
SE 103 Conceptual Structural Design
Team 7

8
The team agreed that most important factor was the load prediction. Thus, significant changes were
made not in the design of the structure (the tower performed well above the teams expectations), but
in choice of critical members. Because the failure of the structure was ultimately due to the buckling of
the lateral bracings, it was imperative that these members are identified and reanalyzed as the critical
members of the structure. From the reassessment after testing, the model in Solidworks was not
modified due to the teams satisfaction of the design and performance. All subsequent changes were
ultimately made in the SAP2000 analysis.
V. SAP ANALYSIS
In the original SAP2000 analysis, the engineers assumed structural failure would occur when the
critical members in the tower would begin to buckle out of plane. It was predicted that the slender
diagonal members would buckle as a lateral load of 49.5 lbs was applied. However, based on testing
results of the tower model, the team realized that the tower would continue to support the loads even
after the diagonal members begin to fail due to buckling. This is due to load paths being redirected to
travel through only the middle lateral bracings of the tower instead of through both the diagonal and
lateral members. Once these diagonal bracings began to fail, the amount of load the middle lateral
members had to resist increased dramatically.
Thus, after reassessing the results from the model testing, the team observed that the critical
members were not the diagonal members as assumed. The actual critical members that would result
in structural failure were realized to be the middle lateral members that were responsible for carrying
horizontal loads and acting as the towers structural support. Once these members began to buckle,
the towers capacity to handle lateral loading was reached (there were no other members that carried
the large transverse loads to redirect the load path).
As a result, in order to make more accurate predictions regarding the highest lateral force the tower
could withstand before failure, the team considered the critical buckling load of the middle lateral
members.
Using the critical buckling load equation for the diagonal, the team calculated the critical force that
would induce buckling in one of the middle lateral members in compression:
Where E is Youngs Modulus, I is the moment of inertia, and L
e
is the effective length of the member.
These calculations yielded a theoretical value of roughly 6.947 lbs (critical buckling force experienced
by the lateral member in compression) , revealing a maximum lateral load of approximately 100 lbs in
the SAP2000 analysis.
However, in actual testing, the structure experienced such failure at 96.7 lbs (lateral load), which
shows that the estimations may contain a small degree of error due to the assumption that the tower
was comprised of perfect pin connections.
!
P
cr
=
"
2
EI
L
e
2
=
10,200ksi * I
4.072in
= 6.947lbs
Equation (1)
Equation (2)
!
I =
bh
3
12
=
.025in *.038in
3
12
=1.1432 "10
#6
in
4
SE 103 Conceptual Structural Design
Team 7

9
In actual testing, the tower contained both types of connections (pin-pin and continuous) due to the
way the upper half and lower half was designed. This made hand calculations and the SAP2000
modeling more complicated, and thus, pin-pin connections were assumed in load calculations for the
upper half of the tower.
Other causes of inaccuracies may be due to the way the members were bent, eccentricities, and
asymmetries in the actual design. These factors could cause the actual tower model to withstand less
loading than it would in an ideal model. Reassessing the analysis, results, and predictions after testing
allowed the team to understand the true values and identify the correct critical members. The new
analysis is shown in Figure 7.
Ultimately, testing the model and reanalyzing the structure allowed the team to obtain better estimates
that would provide more accurate predictions on how the real structure would behave.
These results from the model are promising, as not only did the tower model exceed the teams
expectations, with the new analysis, the team was able to gain more accurate predictions and ensure
the safety of the public and integrity of the tower.
Because this project was also a competition, the structural engineers at Ingenium Engineering ranked
9
th
place out of 36 teams with a performance index of 114.96.
While not the highest-ranking team, the engineers at Ingenium acquired a significant amount of
experience from the mistakes in modeling in order to perfect the actual tower. As mentioned above,
after reassessing the results and observations, the team was able to produce more accurate
predictions and gain incite from testing the model.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 7 (a, b, c): Three images generated by the SAP2000 analysis. Figure 7a reveals the forces applied to the structure to simulate real
loading conditions. Figure 7b illustrates the members experiencing tension (blue) and compression (red) as the load is applied to the
structure. Figure 7c shows the structures behavior as loading conditions are applied.
SE 103 Conceptual Structural Design
Team 7

10
For client reference, the performance index was calculated as:
cost = C1 + C2 + C3 = $156.07
= ductility = !
u
/!
y
= 1.777
!
y
= yield displacement = .87 in
!
u
= ultimate displacement = 1.546 in
LF = prediction load factor = 0.7
Max Force = maximum amount of lateral force = 96.72 lbs
Weight = weight in grams = 173.5 g
Stdev = standard deviation = 34.84 lbs
*** C1 = duration to cut out all the elements ($100/hr)
C2 = the amount of abrasive used to cut the metal pieces ($5/lb)
C3 = total material cost (bolts, nuts, & washers)
As mentioned, the calculations for the performance index using the teams values yields: 114.96.
!
P.I. =1000*
4 + 3
MaxForce(lb)
AvgForce(lb) "1Stdev(lb)
#
$
%
&
'
(
Cost +
Weight(grams)
10
* LF
Equation (3)
SE 103 Conceptual Structural Design
Team 7

11
VI. SOLIDWORKS RENDERING & AESTHETICS
Once the design, analysis, and model predictions were finalized, the team began SolidWorks
rendering to observe how the structure would look and fit on top of a hypothetical Hilton Hotel setting.
At Ingenium Engineering, customer satisfaction is one of the top priorities of the design engineers.
In order to make the structure iconic, the team designed a water tank as a turtle and painted the tower
light blue. The design engineer worked to maintain the structures simplicity, as it would make the
tower unique in a bustling city atmosphere.
The vision was to develop an aquatic theme to make the hotel inviting and family friendly. Many
resorts have swimming pools and the tower was designed to be an extension and symbol of the
aquatics and marine animals along the coast California.
Figure 8: SolidWorks rendering placed in hypothetical hotel setting. As shown, the main structure is transparent in design as it blends in with
the blue skies and weather of California. Seemingly, the turtle water tank stands out and is an iconic figure that is unique and recognizable.
SE 103 Conceptual Structural Design
Team 7

12
VII. EFFORT SCHEDULE
Based on the companys previous construction experience, this project is predicted to last for 2
months. Typical business hours begin from 8 am to 5 pm daily for construction, design, fabrication,
etc. Hence, the actual construction duration is expected to last 40 days (360 working hours). The
general quantity of different position and its hourly wages is shown in the table below.
Table 2: Estimated hourly wages of each worker at Ingenium Engineering. Shown is the associated
labor cost for each aspect of the design
Job Title Quantity Hourly Wages Billable Hourly Wages Total Working Hours Total Wages
Project Manager 1 $30/hour $50/hr 250 $12,500
Construction Manager 1 $25/hour $45/hr 120 $5,400
Professional Engineer 1 $45/hour $65/hr 350 $22,750
Junior Engineer 1 $35/hour $55/hr 300 $16,500
Designer 1 $20/hour $40/hr 200 $8,000
Drafter 1 $30/hour $35/hr 120 $4,200
Construction Foreman 1 $25/hour $30/hr 90 $2,700
Workers 5 $15/hour $20/hr 90 $9,000
TOTAL PERSONS 12 TOTAL COST $81,050
VIII. COST BREAKDOWN
Estimated Labor Cost: Based effort schedule in Table 2, total labors are estimated to be $81,050.
Table 3: Estimated water tower expenses based on materials utilized in the small scale testing
Estimated Tower Expenses
Unit Price Net Weight/Duration Total Cost
Aluminum Panel pounds $0.79/lb 2000 lbs $1,580
Bolts piece $10/pc 24 pieces $240
Nuts piece $10/pc 24 pieces $240
Plant Machines rent $2,000/day 7 days $14,000
Crane rent $4,000/day 5 days $20,000
Permit to Work from Govt N/A $3,000 N/A $3,000
TOTAL COST $39,060
Based on the estimated cost for both material and labors from Table 2 and Table 3, the total expense
of the project is estimated to be $120,110.
Concrete footing is not ideal for this project since the weight of the concrete will add a substantial
amount of dead load to the building. As an alternative, steel brackets are pre-casted underneath the
roof slab during the hotel construction phase. These brackets will be used to connect and secure the
tower to the hotel structure.
SE 103 Conceptual Structural Design
Team 7

13
IX. DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
A four-phase breakdown of the design and construction schedule is outlined as the minimum required
time to complete the project. A total duration of approximately 2 months from Phase 1 to Phase 4 is
projected for the water towers completion.
Phase 1 [Estimated Duration: 4 weeks (one month)]
Objective: Design
Site move in and set-up temporary working office
Initial and Final Design of the Tower
SAP2000 Structural Analysis, hand calculations
SolidWorks modeling
Blueprint and construction plan
Approval from Professional Engineer for structure
safety and reliability
Phase 2 [Estimated Duration: 1 week]
Objective: Move-in and Backfill
Site move in and set-up temporary working office
Evacuation for Steel Bracket installation
Backfill the floor
Phase 3 [Estimated Duration: 2 weeks]
Objectives: Tower and Tank Mount Construction
Tower Construction by using carne and plant
machines
Tank Mount would be placed on top of the tower
to provide support for the water tank.
Temporary working platform such as scaffold is
used to provide working space for workers when
working at height.
Phase 4 [Estimated Duration: 1 week]
Objective: Follow up work and Site Clean Up
Reserved for construction delay if necessary
Final Investigation by the Professional Engineer to
ensure the structure is reliable.
Customer performs a site walk to check and comment on the structure.
Any follow up task is performed based on the customers final requirements before handover
Phase 4
Phase 3
Phase 1 & 2
Figure 9: Four-phase schematic of the water towers
construction.
SE 103 Conceptual Structural Design
Team 7

14
X. CONCLUSION
The engineers at Ingenium Engineering have designed, tested, and projected the estimates for the
Water Tower Project.
Based on CAD software such as SolidWorks and analysis software such as SAP2000, the team was
able to render 2D and 3D models of the tower and analyze it under the various loading conditions.
Once designed, a real test model was developed in order to test the teams analysis and validate
loading predictions. From the test results, the team reassessed the assumptions and results in order
to analyze the model more accurately.
As shown from this proposal, the teams meticulous analysis and calculations will ensure a safe and
reliable structure for the hotel.
The design engineer of the project developed a design that was not only family friendly but also iconic
in its unique aquatic symbol (a turtle) and simplicity.
With this design, the engineers at Ingenium Engineering hope to have you as a client for this project.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Work that the project scope does not encompass in this agreement (construction issues, unpredicted
events, alterations to plans, changes in design, request for meetings or site visits) is not included in
the fees listed above. The resolution of these fees will be based on time and material needs. Standard
Terms and Conditions will be applied to the work outlined above.
Ingenium Engineering greatly appreciates customer feedback and regularly assesses client
satisfaction. Should there be any discrepancies or concerns, please let us know and we will work to
the best of our ability to correct the circumstances.
We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
XXX, S.E. Project
Manager Ingenium
Engineering
Please sign below to validate this as a work order agreement. This will authorize work to begin on the
Water Tower Project.
_________________________________________________ _____________________
Signature of Client/Owner Date