Notification of engineering site visit 2

[JTPE]

Did I dream that standard specifications had a section describing the proceedure for notifying an engineer for site review. It was something like...

Contractor to provide engineer with 24hr notice prior to proceeding...something...if engineer does not arrive at notified time contractor may proceed.

Any help or better memories would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Lutfi]

Who put such a clause in specifications? It sounds like it would come from contractor as self serving statement.

The idea of notifying the engineer as far in advance as possible is good thing. This allows the engineer to set up his schedule for site visit/observation. However, I am leery of the portion that allows contractor to proceed, especially on critical observations, if the engineer does not show up. There may be many factors that would prevent the engineer from arriving at site.

I think communications are critical between stakeholders. However, the need for engineering inspection/observation should never be swept under the rug just because the engineer did not make it to the site. I would never agree to such term.


Regards,
Lutfi

 

[archeng59]

in our concrete specs, there is a statement about notifying the architect and engineer 24 hours prior to placing concrete. nothing in the statement about what happens if the engineer doesn't show up. perhaps the new CSI spec formats have a statement to that effect.

 

[Ron]

Provisions such as this are often contained in Section 1400 of the specifications, but can appear anywhere. I have also seen them in the Supplementary Conditions to the General Conditions.

Most say 24 hours notice to engineer AND if contractor proceeds without engineer's observation of conditions, he does so at his own risk.

Lack of observation should never be construed as acceptance.

 

[BigH]

Okay - I agree that critical items need to be observed and, in our case, we require 48 hours on "new" items, say the first time for post-tensioning. But, from the contractor's point of view - let's look at the following:
1. Contractor gives 24 hour written notice, say for pouring concrete girder giving time and date for start of pour.
2. Engineer fails to show up to inspect formwork, steel placement and the like. With mobiles these days and with SMS available, no forewarning to contractor is given - he's just very late or forgot or . . .
3A: Contractor pours. He is doing so at own risk according to Engineers.
3B: Contractor does not start pour - he knows that all 'ell will break loose if he does.

In case 3A it seems that the Engineer will likely create some stir since he wasn't there - and this will lead to perhaps endless discussions.

In case 3B: Contractor loses, say, 1 or 2 days because engineer didn't inspect at the fully notified time and it takes this extra time to get the ball rollling again. Is the Contractor due consideration for lost time and costs?; given, of course, that the lack of inspection was not his fault. This is the question at hand. If he doesn't pour, and he falls on his schedule, who is responsible - does he get EOT? Life is a two way street.

 

[henri2]

Big H,

You have raised some very thought provoking scenarios.

For buildings constructed in jurisdictions where either the UBC or IBC governs, many contractors may indeed think that the minimum required notification time is one working day, as is the case for building inspections and special inspections. For this reason, it is prudent that this matter be addressed at a preconstruction meeting.

I too have some questions.

1. What is considered a reasonable lead time for structural observation/engineering site visit requests, one working day, two, three...etc?

2. Using Big H's scenario, let's say you own a small design firm with one PE (i.e. you). Contractor provides you the structural observer with 48 hours lead time notification as stipulated in the job specs. Meanwhile you are out of town and not sure you can make it back in time because flights have been cancelled due to the weather. What should you do, what can the contractor do, and the owner?

 

[Ron]

Big H...yes, you do raise some thought-provoking points; however, the engineer is almost always in an advisory capacity for the construction process, not compulsory. An engineer should not place himself in the line of "holding up" a job as one day of construction delay (depending on the project of course) could be equivalent to 6 months of an engineer's fees. No correlation there at all.

Contractor's do not typically wait on engineering decisions in construction. That's a fact. Unless the contractor/owner/others are willing to pay the engineer for full time dedication to a project, they should have no expectation that the engineer will always be available to their project. After all, most recognize that they are only getting the engineer's services at mutual convenience, not at theirs alone.

Conversely, an engineer should not accept an engagement if he knows that he cannot reasonably commit to such demands...not every time, but most times.

To answer Henri2....a reasonable time is 48 hours. 24 hours is tolerable. If the engineer is a single practitioner, he should make it known that he will need significantly more lead time than a firm with multiple resources to cover a project.

To your second question, the only way to handle something like that is communication....both oral and written. All such requests must be based on a reasonable expectation of compliance. To ask one to suddenly drop another project out of town to rush back to look at a footing excavation is unreasonable and should be communicated as such.

 

[BigH]

Ron - so the engineer doesn't show up, the contractor continues. I understand that the engineer shouldn't "stop the job" unless there is gross disregard for specifications and good practice. I would accept this on small pours (toe drain walls, etc.) but on big ticket items - I would have a hard time - but your comment on communication is so relevant and if more lent more credence to it, life would be much more like Riley than like someone always pulling out their hair! Thanks for the comments.

 

[structural01]

Another questions come to mind...

On many specs, it says "...notify architect/Engineer". Sometimes it mentioned only architect.

I don't think a architect is qualified to do any structural inspection or structural review.

Why do structural engineers allow this?

 

[henri2]

Hi structural01,

In numerous states, state law and building codes permit architects to design certain buildings and allows them to perform structural observation. What can structural engineers do about this? I do not think much if they operate they way they do because architects are very organized and lobby effectively. In fact in the building construction industry, architects are generally looked upon as the prime consultants, the primus inter paris as far as consultants go....been that way for as far back as I can remember....

In reality, what percentages of buildings that require structural design/structural observation are engineered by architects? What percentage of these types of building has an architect as a structural observer?

Permit to play devil's advocate. In the case of complex structural design, most architects will be out of their league but what about structural inspections, please provide reasons why you think an architect with the requisite training and experience will not be equiped to handle it(structural inspections/structural observations)? Would the architect have to be able to make some call out in the field that requires some serious analysis beyond the scope of his training?

 

[wes616]

My wife is an architect. She is also VERY good at the structural aspect (of the not so complex) building contstruction. Recently I have been doing a little work from home (on the side), and she has become very interested in FEA, and how she might use it in her practice. I have given her a primer in it, and we spent a wonderful weekend with a review of structural analysis (be it from an aerospace pov - but if anyone could recomend a FEA for building construction book, I bet she'd read it).

I think that this is great. Absolutely, she would never step over her bounds as an architect and into structural engineering, but I do think it's great that she has in intrest in expanding her abilities as an architect.



Wes C.
------------------------------
There are no engineers in the hottest parts of hell, because the existence of a 'hottest part' implies a temperature difference, and any marginally competent engineer would immediately use this to run a heat engine and make some other part of hell comfortably cool. This is obviously impossible.

 

[archeng59]

the contractor is bound by the contract to perform the work in accordance with the construction documents. the notification is "courtesy" on the part of the contractor to allow an observation to be made by the EOR. if the EOR does not make a site visit, the contractor is still responsible for meeting the requirements of the CD's. on the other hand, if special inspections are required, the contractor must work with the SI to allow the inspections/testing to occur even if the schedule is affected. The special inspector and EOR may not be the same firm.

 

[structural01]

Henri2,

There are many examples where an architect may not be qualified to do structural inspections.

A architect is not qualified to observe installing of piles, pour slab on grade, inspect welds, etc...

I've seen architects doing all these inspections and they've missed all the critical checks.

If architects are allowed to do structural inspection, structural engineers should be allowed to do architectural work.

I am not saying architects are incapable people. But, they should stick to their field of expertise. Structural engineers should not allow them to do structural inspection/work. Phrases such as "...the approval of architect" should be taken out of structural specs and be replaced with "structural engineer".

 

[archeng59]

with the architects that I work with, we leave "architect" in the spec notification verbiage because sometimes they get word about the need for a site visit before we do. If the contractor calls the archtict, the architect calls me. I have a couple of older architects who are savvy enough to do a good job at observing structural components during construction. those guys are few, tho. if they see something odd, they call me.

 

[henri2]

Structural01,

Thanks for your response.

By structural inspections, do you mean structural observations, special inspections, or both? As far as model building codes are concerned, while structural observations and special inspections deal with QA of the structural elements of the building under construction, they are not the same thing.

1. You state “An (sic) architect is not qualified to observe installing of piles, pour slab on grade, inspect welds, etc...”

My response: Basically what you are describing here is what the codes refer to as special inspections. Out here on the west coast, most of the individuals who perform these tasks are not even structural engineers or architects but folks from the construction trades.

Judging qualifications can be subjective which is why many enforcing jurisdictions are now requiring certification in addition to relevant work experience. They recognize that QA/QC for the structural aspect of building construction is not dealt with in any meaningful depth in colleges and universities. For instance a recent graduate of a reputable Masters Degree program in structural steel design might have no problem analyzing an OSMF/OMF with the latest software but will this individual be able to measure the size of a fillet weld or undercut if given the tools and not instructed how they are used?

For special inspections on the west coast, ICC certifications and AWS CWI certification are the ones frequently required, albeit some accept PE or EIT in lieu of ICC or AWS certification. So if an architect passes the certification exams many jurisdictions will consider the architect qualified to perform inspection.

The Florida model is what I suspect you could live with. In FL, special inspections for building more than three stories or 50 ft in height or more than 5,000 sq.ft with an occupant load>500 are performed by PEs or RAs. These are referred to as threshold inspections. The PEs and RAs do not have to take a special inspection exam but just need to prove they have the requisite experience. For more info see section 553.79 item (5) of the FL statute that deals with this

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/in...y_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0553/Sec79.HTM

The approval process to become a threshold inspector is explained in this link

http://www.myflorida.com/dbpr/pro/forms/arch/threshold_bldg_inspectr_cert_application_package.pdf

I suspect the structural engineering and architectural communities got together formed a coalition and lobbied for the statute. The devastating impact of Hurricane Andrew created an environment where this was possible. This sort of partnership creates a win-win situation for both communities.

 

[structural01]

Henri2,

I've seen structural observation and inspection by an architect. Just look at your structural specs and you will see "...the approval of architect/engineer."

If you look at the architectural portion of the spec, do you see "...the approval of structural engineer."?

I am not trying to say that others who are not structural engineer can not do structural observation/inspection. They can do structural observation/inspection as long as they are certified and trained. Who are better trained to do structural observation/inspection than structural engineers?

My point here is if structural engineers want to be recognized for their abilities and achievements, they must take responsibilities for their own work and protect their profession.

 

[henri2]

Hi structural01,

Structural engineers will not be able to exclusively control structural observation/special inspection for buildings constructed under the model codes unless the rules change. And IMHO, the way rules for the game change, is when structural engineering organizations lobby the powers that be. In some case they may have to form alliances with state AIA associations. Some state structural engineering associations are doing just that in areas where the market has not already being cornered as it has in western states. Reminds me of the adage "the early bird catches the worm".

Jim Stefano of CASE for instance, has done a lot to get the structural engineer more involved in QA nationally and in Connecticut in particular he has been successful so far.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/

http://WWWdisplay.cgi?0510470

I have no problem whatsoever with the opinions you expressed. In fact I must confess I admire your passion and tenacity. However, in life, I have learned to avoid gargantuan challenges (too old for that), be practical, focus on what is doable, and recognize that competing interests in society exist. This is why I provided the examples of DiStefano of CASE and threshold inspections in FL to demonstrate what results can be achieved when structural engineering associations lobby and are pragmatic.

I have found the discussion in this thread very educative.

 

[structural01]

Henri2,
I appreciate your comments.

I am not trying to change the world. I just do what makes sense.

All my specs, structural specs, I take out the "...the approval of architect." and replace it with "...approval of structural engineer." As a matter of fact, the architects I do work with, they prefer that I take out the the "...architect approval." in structural specs.

I have worked with clients in the past who only hire architects because they assumed that architects have the ability to design the complete building including structural. Once the architect has the project, they can hire any structural engineer firm they want no matter what the qualification.

I think structural engineers must be pro-active with the building owner. Structural engineers must make their presents known. You have to take credit for your work.

At construction sites, I've never seen sign showing the structural engineering firm involved. It's always the architect and contractor.

 

[wes616]

In California (a state where everone wants CREDIT), I have seen signs w/ the Architect, Structural, Civil, Geotech, Mechanical, Electrical, & Principle contractor

Wes C.
------------------------------
Make a dent in the Universe... do something great...