engineer vs code 3

It doesn't matter what inspectors think engineers can do. Engineers are required, as part of their licensure, to ensure the public safety and welfare. If an inspector lets an engineer do something stupid, the fault lies with the engineer alone.

Not so sure about that JAE. Let’s say the engineer makes a mistake and the inspector says the mistake is ok even tho it doesn’t pass muster with their own experience. Then use the excuse "it is engineered and certified", thus don't bother to follow it up, then that fool is just as culpable at the engineer.

Mistakes are common (and acceptable by some laws) everyone involved with a project must ensure that anything that is likely to cause problems with public safety and welfare is dealt with appropriately.


ANY FOOL CAN DESIGN A STRUCTURE. IT TAKES AN ENGINEER TO DESIGN A CONNECTION.”

OK. I think that we may be talking about two things here.

A "(Building) Inspector", in my experience, is an employee or outside consultant, not necessarily an engineer, who inspects projects in the field during construction, after they are designed, and after the project is permitted.

A "Plans Examiner" or "Plan Checker" may or may not be an engineer, usually is in large jurisdictions, not necessarily in smaller ones, but should be certified in some way to review the calculations and drawings of the engineer for code compliance, prior to the issuance of any building permit. A plans examiner may also become involved for approval of major design changes during construction, not necessarily RFI's though.

So, that being said, who is making these comments?

From what I have experienced, jurisdictions, as well as engineers, can be held liable for incompetency and have been. Plans checkers are not designers, only code checkers. When they cross that line, which they should not, they are practicing engineering and incur liability, as well as their jurisdiction. As for having knowledge of a design defect, I find it hard to believe that the plans checker, or his jurisdiction, would not be held to some degree of culpability if this fact was made known to a court.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

I don't work in the US so my views are those based on working in Ireland or the UK.


1. The codes are generally seen as being a guide only and this is stated in BS standards. I have spoken to quite a few engineers including a director of Arup and the general feeling was that the code did not replace good engineering judgement. The most important criteria is that the building is safe and can withstand applied loads without collapse or excessive cracking in service.

2. There are many complex structures that fall outside the guidance in the code and in these situations the engineer must use first principle calculations and his judgement.

3. The British codes are written to try and make the probability of a failure to be a 1 in 1,000,000 chance. For this reason they can be conservative.

3. Codes vary from country to country. We worked on projects where German and Dutch precast concrete manufacturers were used and they had a completely different take on how much shear reinforcement should be used in beams and slabs. The German code required much more shear reinforcing. Needless to say buildings are not falling down in Holland.

4. I remember reading that a building control officer told the famous engineer Peter Rice that in Britain he would not have been allowed to build his cable truss supported glass hanging wall at La Villette in Paris as it pushed the envelope too far at that time without enough experience of how well this type of structure would perform. Peter Rice pointed out the facade was constructed and standing up with no problems (it still is 25 years later). Peter Rice then asked the building control guy if gravity changed when you crossed borders between countries.

5. Personally I do not look at the code when I am doing the structural scheme design and rely on rules of thumb and experience. At the detailed design stage I follow the code but I will push the boundaries of the code if I think it makes sense. In my opinion one of the worst labels any engineer can get with clients is a reputation for over-designing structures.

6. From a legal point of view we must perform our duties in a fair and reasonable manner and work must be to a standard that would be considered normal to the practice of consulting engineering. It is not expected that an engineer must perform to the highest standards or practices. There is a big difference between normal standards and highest standards.

7. The code provides a way to demonstrate that normal practice was followed. In this way it is harder for a judge to rule against you. In saying this the judge will be most likely to side with the person who carried out their work in a reasonable manner. Judge's and arbitrators may not know much about Building Codes and an engineer may be judged on the reasoning behind his design and less on whether he followed a code. In may be the case that holding up a code of practice isn't what the judge will be interested in.

8. From what I can see if a building collapses or severely cracks the engineer, architect and builder will all be seen as being guilty to some extent. It is just a matter of how much proportion of blame is given to each company.

This will be one of those long threads with meandering results!

boffintech...you are mostly right; however, as JAE correctly points out, the engineer has the more significant responsibility.

A building code sets minimum design and construction standards. If an engineer wants to deviate from the minimums, he takes on a significant liability. Many times he/she can get the local building official to "approve" a deviation by providing substantiating evidence. Further, there are many issues that are site specific and require specific interpretation of the code for that application...again, the engineer might lead the building official to a favorable interpretation, that might appear to others to "violate" the code.

I have dealt with building departments that had no engineers or architects on staff, yet they "reviewed" and "ruled" on the submittals of both. That substantially defeats the purpose of licensing.

Another point is that the "approval" by a building official means only that you may go forward. In the event of a problem, most times the building official and his department cannot be sued (sovereign government entity). It would likely be necessary to prove gross mismanagement of the department, gross negligence of the individuals, and gross incompetence of the individuals...all difficult standards of proof.

Codes cannot be expected to cover every eventuality in design and construction. Further, they are also not intended to prevent innovation and progressive design or thinking; however, there are specific procedures that must be followed to get these variants accepted and to affect an appropriate liability transfer to the engineer or architect who "certifies" such variations.

I've always gone about the guide line that an engineer can use engineering judgment to some extent if something is not quite covered in the building code.

I have also been told many times that "what the local building inspector wants, the building inspector gets and they are not responsible for their decisions". I have never heard of them being challenged on this for a failure. I have also never heard of a building inspector challenging an engineer... but I have hear of them challenging small contractors (housing contractors) many times.

Ron

I feel that in court a judge would prefer to see an engineer demonstrating good engineering judgement rather than holding up an engineering code of practice as a defence. Following a code does not exonerate an engineer from a legal challenge following some kind of failure of a building. The engineer, architect and contractor are generally all blamed to some extent even if they followed the relevant codes and standards. How the percentage blame is apportioned is what is important.

If there is a fundament flaw in the scheme design, say in how the laterally stablity is provided or how the snow load must be calculated for a unique case then the building design could be incorrect even though the code has been followed. The code cannot identify poor engineering judgement.

Personally I follow the code for standard calculations but I would never place the code above my own engineering judgement.

I think over reliance on codes of practice has resulted in engineers relying on written text too much. Sitting in a corner with a code of practice and a computer does not make a good engineer in my view. I see this as a trap a lot of the younger guys in the office are falling in to.

rowingengineer - perhaps I was a bit too stark in my assertions. My point was that from our perspective of engineers it shouldn't matter what an inspector thinks. We have obligations to safety. That should be our focus.

Inspectors are a jurisdiction's legal attempt to ensure public safety to a degree and provide for someone to "watch over the hen-house". But inspectors aren't the real mechanism for public safety in larger buildings (perhaps they are in residential houses where there are no design professionals). Engineers do and should play that exclusive role.

I have the feeling that several types of "inspector" are causing confusion. boffintech says "in our office" so I assume he means site inspection work. As such, their job is to see that the there is compliance with the plans.

I refer you to the weasel words on page 2 of the AISC Specification (Copyright notice seems to forbid fair use, so no quote):






Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

I view codes as minimum requirements. Engineers can augment minimum requirements.
Such is the case with all the flat roofs that were build to the codes and with the exceptional weather that we recently had caused structural problems. Had engineers decided to increase roof strengths, that would have cost more money and the architectural firms that they work for would have lost the bids. And now taxpayers are going to pay for the repairs.

So- meet or exceed all code requirements using your best engineering judgment?

That's what I've always done, and so far, so good.

Quick and easy example:
Wood design in the US allows toe-nails. I have done enough carpentry and seen enough toe-nails not to trust them for much of anything. I always specify mechanical connectors (cheap and easy anyway). That is my engineering judgment. Engineer B may use toe nails all of the time with no trepidation...

FinnB...perhaps I did not make my intent clear. I agree with you. I was speaking only to deviations from the code for less than the prescriptive standard. I also believe that as engineers, our judgment takes precedence. The only problem with that is when others impose liability onto us for our judgment...and I'm speaking about inordinate liability. I, for one, trust my judgment. I also do not necessarily trust code mandates....I know too well the process of getting codes and standards accepted through various committees. At best, it's a pain in the a$$...at worst, it's a disservice to the public good.

JAE,
I can agree to that.



ANY FOOL CAN DESIGN A STRUCTURE. IT TAKES AN ENGINEER TO DESIGN A CONNECTION.”

Here in jersey, inspectors are now more professional than 15-20 years ago. . . they seem to follow the code rather than their own preference. In one town, the building inspector insisted on 3 1/2" min. concrete slabs in crawl spaces, even though the code does not require any slab and in every other town 2" slab in cr. sp. is accepted practice. His logic. . . the old CABO residential code showed only 3 1/2" min. slabs for basements and since that was his only reference for concrete slab thickness, he would only accept that (the only inspector to do that).

It's not just the building code, it could also be the rehab subcode or barrier free code, some inspectors have their own preferences that are not justified by the code. In a practical way, have found that it is best to accommodate the inspector's 'quirks'. If he will not agree to the code, the only challenge to his judgment is to get a decision from the state. But that takes forever, during which time the job goes on hold. You can win the battle and lose the war.

An old traffic engineer I used to know would talk about different meanings of the word safety:

Normative safety: It meets applicable codes. This says nothing about whether or not the safety performance (risk or history of safety failures) is acceptable.

Substantive safety: The safety performance risk or history of safety failures is acceptably low, regardless of whether or not it meets codes.

From an ethical standpoint, I'd say meeting code is not a sufficient defense for providing an project that is not substantively safe. "It meets code" is not a defense for under-designing a structure.

"...students of traffic are beginning to realize the false economy of mechanically controlled traffic, and hand work by trained officers will again prevail." - Wm. Phelps Eno, ca. 1928