From: Roger Turk <73527.1356(--nospam--at)compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:20:05 -0500
[Jason] . > 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 agree 100 percent. The fact is that the lawyer will not permit you to
qualify your answer. "Does the AISC 'Code of Standard Practice,' which you
referenced in your specifications say, 'The Structural Engineer of Record
shall be responsible for the structural adequacy of the structure in the
completed project?' " If you try to qualify your answer, the lawyer will
interrupt and say, "The question requires a 'Yes' or 'No' answer!" and he/she
will repeat the question. You have no way of indicating what section it is
in or what limitations you perceive. You can't say "No;" you'ld be lying and
the lawyer would just put the code in front of you and have you read the
sentence, and only the sentence. If you say "Yes," you are admitting to be
responsible for an awful lot.
[Jason] . > 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, ...
Just as I believe that we shouldn't specify division of labor in the
construction of a project, unless we want to take responsibility for the
results, I also believe that some other group, organization, entity, has no
business of specifying what the Structural Engineer is responsible for. The
term, "structural adequacy," is a very broad term and a very dangerous one.
Most of us, I'm sure, design in compliance with various codes, and use our
professional judgement as to how close we design to the minimum requirements
specified in the codes. I would be hesitant to even describe structures that
I have designed as being "structurally adequate" because I don't know what a
person wants it "adequate" for. We design for seismic forces, but is our
structure "structurally adequate" for *any* seismic force? If a building has
to be demolished after a seismic event even though no lives are lost, was the
design, "structurally adequate?"
[Charlie] . > That's an interesting take on the totally benevolent intent
. > of Code Section 1.8.2.
When someone is "totally benevolent" towards me, I start shaking in my boots,
wondering when I'm going to get screwed.
A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)