Responsibility
Responsibility
(OP)
Who bears the responsibility if a structure collaspes? Is it the engineer who designed it with no engineering license or is it the engineer who signs the plans?
The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste





RE: Responsibility
RE: Responsibility
The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste
RE: Responsibility
In the States the responsibility is for the engineer who signed and sealed the drawings. He is responsible for any calculation or design work from a non licensed engineer, EIT or similar that makes it into a drawing he or she signs.
That is, of course, if the collapse of the structure is due to a design error. It could also be faulty materials, inadequate construction techniques, abnormal loads, Godzilla attack...
RE: Responsibility
The best advice is not to stuff up in the first place.
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field
RE: Responsibility
In that case, the engineers of record were ultimately responsible not only for the design, but also for the proper construction thereof.
TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Responsibility
Final outcome depends on which lawyer is more convincing.
Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com
RE: Responsibility
You are asking for a black or white answer to a very gray question.
RE: Responsibility
The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste
RE: Responsibility
The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste
RE: Responsibility
Note also the spelling.
TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Responsibility
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
RE: Responsibility
To answer your original question, without the benefit of appropriate background information, the engineer who signed/sealed the design is responsible. It doesn't matter if the design was done by Santa Claus, if the engineer signed and sealed the design...it's his.
As for small firms or large firms, unethical conduct is not exclusive to either. I have experience in both. Ethical conduct is the responsibility of the individual, not the company. If you choose to be controlled in your ethical conduct by corporate constraints, you would likely do so without those constraints. It is not and should not be an excuse, nor should unethical activity be condoned or promoted by any corporation.
RE: Responsibility
Regards,
![[pipe] pipe](https://www.tipmaster.com/images/pipe.gif)
Qshake
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
RE: Responsibility
The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste
RE: Responsibility
On the ignorance side, I see small firms led by engineers who actually have little truly diverse experience, but who have an entreprenurial spirit to run a business. They do so, not knowing the steps necessary to develop a quality approach to engineering.
On the ego side, I see small firms led by controlling individuals who have developed a profit picture that has little room for technical competence and quality, but depends on quantity of work.
There is often overlap between the two themes.
In most small firms that I've seen run by individuals who have left larger companies to do their own thing, there is a tendency to carry a technical quality and competence philosophy with them, just getting away from the corporate "machine".
I left a large corporate structure for exactly the reason you noted...there's only so much you can do without being "run over" by the corporate structure. Most larger engineering firms are now run by accountants, attorneys, and engineers who have abdicated their engineering prowess to become strictly managers of an administrative process. Sad but true. Technical competence in such corporations is treated as a commodity that can be replaced at will. It cannot, but they don't understand the long term effect of their decisions on their company or the engineering profession.
It is absurd to think that one can replace 20 years of relevant engineering experience with one or two newbie engineers or even worse, new graduates. Yet to meet the financial model set forth by the accountants, that's exactly what they will do. I've seen it happen. If the senior technical guys don't "toe the line" to match the administrative rules, they get replaced. The sad part is their technical competence doesn't get replaced, just the live body. Who is left to mentor these younger engineers and maintain the continuity of technical competence and process?
There is no answer. It is a path that has evolved in the engineering profession and we simply seem to have to adapt or go our separate ways.
I'll get off my soapbox now.
RE: Responsibility
Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com
RE: Responsibility
The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste
RE: Responsibility
Checking is a subjective requirement, how much and how little is subjective to the confidence of the signing engineer, involvement in the design evolution and the capabilities of the original engineer. Procedures in their enforcement is also subjective, if you have to tight control on procedures you will often miss a huge problem because the procedure didn't cover that instance, however if the procedures are too lax, little errors will grow into large.
I myself am a small firm man, have worked for 4 different companies in my time. I have only had one unethical event, wasn't the lack of checking or similar, it was a blatant disregard for safety in my opinion. However, I have also been involved with three cases of ethical conduct reviews, and these have been of engineers from three different levels of firms, small, large and government.
In all these instances, unethical behaviour has been allowed to happen due to people unwillingness to stand up.
Next time you see an unethical situation developing, stand-up and be counted. If someone is knowingly developing design well below accepted standards, then take action. I wish I had taken more action when I had the chance, nothing came of the situation but I always wonder what if.
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field
RE: Responsibility
The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste
RE: Responsibility
Calif...the person who signs and seals is always responsible...he can't disclaim that and can't deny it.
It sounds like you're in a firm that will likely get sued at some point for mistakes. It is unfortunate that they don't see the liability of their poor practices. They go along without getting "caught" and assume their practice is adequate. When a failure of some type occurs, and it will at some point, they will have little or nothing to fall back on. I do this every day and I see the result of poor quality practices by engineers, architects, and contractors.
I have no hesitation about providing my opinion of deficient practices. I'm not perfect and perfect practice is not required as a measure of "standard of care". You just have to practice to that equivalent level of competence of other engineers providing similar services in the same locale. That's not that hard, but many engineers fail to do it.
RE: Responsibility
Most errors I find in colleges works are not in the sizing of members but in the process of development. I normally find errors when someone uses an overly difficult process to design something (aka finite element for simple slab) or in the details. The details are normally; insufficient information for the design, incorrect understanding of the loading arrangements, inappropriate application of a code for detailing, failing to understand the overall scope (aka design the slab for the vertical loading but forgetting to design the lateral paths)
Given the position you are painting the responsible party should be the engineer signing off on the drawings and all engineering advice is given under his supervision. Given this I would try to ensure you take all possible paths to ensure you work is reviewed by a second party before providing engineering advice to show you have met all requirements of your local ethic scripture.
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field
RE: Responsibility
I think we were posting at the same time, but you do make a good point, no matter what you do, mistakes will happen.
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field
RE: Responsibility
TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Responsibility
If nothing happens, no one gets caught and world goes on. So if you are agonizing over a hypothetical scenario or just ethical issues by your standards, either find another job or report to whoever you think is appropriate.
Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com
RE: Responsibility
I have seen experienced engineers make fairly big mistakes when in a hurry (a recent one was miscalculating the dead load in a concrete slab analysis!!).
Oh yeah, RE.... EVERYTHING I say is true!!
RE: Responsibility
Can't argue with that, never seen/heard you tell lie before. We are in agreement the biggest mistakes are always made when someone is in a hurry. I like the secondary calcs, because it means you don't get lost in the story of the original cals and miss the minor but large mistakes, not perfect as you say, but nothing is.
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field
RE: Responsibility
The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste
RE: Responsibility
What you describe is precisely why the EOR has the ultimate responsbility under the law. If he fails to review the results, then he fails in his fiduciary duty as a licensed professional engineer, whose responsibility is to the safety of the public. The PE is supposed to have the experience or the expertise to determine whether simulation results are plausible.
TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Responsibility
This applies to any software...whether commercially produced or spreadsheets developed internally.
RE: Responsibility
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field
RE: Responsibility
I've found the opposite, but maybe that's because of the small company I chose to go to work for, and the large company I came from.
Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com
RE: Responsibility
Certainly, large companies have had spectacular ethics failures, e.g., Northrop Grumman's B-52 inertial navigation fiasco, or Boeing's Missile Defense proposal faux pas.
TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Responsibility
I picked up on something that hopefully you can clarify.
In your first post you wrote, "Is it the engineer who designed it with no engineering license or is it the engineer who signs the plans?"
I think with this sentence it can be implied that "the engineer who signs the plans" means this person is a PE.
But your post on 25 Jun 10 at 20:30 states otherwise.
"The person who signs it, is not even an engineer who practices it by career. He just signs off but he does not check it."
Based on this post, I'm assuming that "signs off" means someone is simply signing their name to the drawing as related to some internal approval.
Could you clarify what occurs when he signs off or sings the plans?
This leads to another question. What types of structures are these? From your posts, I'm not envisioning structures such as buildings but possibly smaller industrial structures or specialty manufactured structures.
RE: Responsibility
The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste
RE: Responsibility
BTW, can you please fix your signature line, "resisant" is not a valid word.
TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Responsibility
You stated earlier that you were yelled at for your mistakes and were not a very experienced engineer. These are two reasons to begin seeking employment elsewhere. You won't be able to get to the next level of your career if you stay, but I suspect you already know this.