I understand that the provision is meant only to apply to means, methods and safety of erection. Unfortunately, that's not what the first sentence of the Section 1.8.2 actually says. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here. But our lawyer friends just love to argue semantics, so we should say what we really mean instead of leaving it up to the court's interpretation.
I believe the intent of the provision is something like:
The Structural Engineer of Record shall be responsible for the adequacy of the structural design as shown in the contract documents, which depict the structure in completed form. The Structural Engineer of Record shall not be reponsible for the means, methods, ...
This is a bit more wordy, but I think it is more accurate than the shorter version that is included in the Code. You lose some of the meaning by trying to be concise in this instance. For my projects, I don't simply delete the provision, but revise it so it won't come back to bite me.
>>> Charlie Carter <carter(--nospam--at)aiscmail.com> 02/24/01 09:23AM >>>
That's an interesting take on the totally benevolent intent of Code Section
1.8.2. I'll put your comments in front of the Code Committee. Personally, I
think they'll be shocked that you delete the very protection they intended
for you as the EOR. Especially since the provision is under a section that
is limited to the scope of it's title: means, methods and safety of
Again, thanks for the feedback. Keep it coming.
From: Jason Emoto [mailto:jemoto(--nospam--at)reidmidd.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 11:07 AM
Subject: AISC Code of Standard Practice 2000
Some more feedback on new publications...
Section 1.8.2 of the 2000 AISC Code of Standard Practice states that "The
Structural Engineer of Record shall be responsible for the structural
adequacy of the structure in the completed project".
While I understand that the intent of this statement is to differentiate the
responsibilities of the erector in building the project from the EOR in
designing the structure, it is poorly worded and creates unacceptable
liability exposure for the EOR. Many factors that affect the structural
adequacy of the completed project are beyond the engineer's control. These
factors include material properties, construction quality, inspection and
testing, and field changes to the design.
The EOR cannot accept responsibility for all aspects of the structural
adequacy of the completed structure, only the design as shown in the
contract documents. Although most EORs will delete this clause in the
contract documents and include appropriate CYA statements, I am surprised
that the structural engineers (and their insurance companies) on the
committee let this one slip by.
<<< Charlie Carter <carter(--nospam--at)aiscmail.com> 2/24 6:33a >>>
Thanks for the feedback. It helps.