Blast EOR?

[JLNJ]

We are the EOR for a building for which blast effects will be a major consideration. While we have a moderate amount of experience in blast design we are hiring a sub-consultant to provide and refine the dynamic analysis. The framing for the entire building (blast effected and non-blast effected) will be shown on one set of drawings. Our office will be producing these drawings yet we are not performing the engineering for blast effects.

Who is in responsible charge and who seals the drawings? It is likely that the blast effects will control over wind and seismic so I have no concerns about the building being very stout and easily meeting the intent of the building code (IBC). It seems to me that often there is shared responsibility on a drawing (for any sizable project, not just one involving blast) yet in the end just one person ends up as the EOR. What have others done in this situation?

 

[ishvaaag]

This is actually a very current question in Spain. Just days ago a mandatory rule has been emitted (on the excuse to foment competence between professionals) ordering that just a seal, that of the main object of the construction, say, architects for a building, be enough for administrative purposes when required. Ghost, if they simply want and truly want competence, remove all these works and warrants and prior classification of contractors, that have the "fantastic" effect of the awards be always to the same, friends of someone.

In all, the spread of the responsabilities over the years has favoured the apparition of, again, ghost, firms that may not be even owned by professionals and then subhire or outsource the required component parts of a project, that was then undersigned by someone that, at least, had the required entitlement and apperared as professional liable or of record for the job. This, for a sizeable project means maybe a dozen of seals, and the ministries, that are not for the finesses of proper design and just distribution of work and liabilities between entitled professionals, have been over the last pair of decades starting the practice of black-boxing contracts where either construction with design, or complex designs plus work and safety at works items are joined in encompassing contracts with the said result of competent professionals be subject to the vagaries of non-entitled people or economic concerns, often resulting truly in actual conflict with public interest, that can't be properly defended as a professional of record when just hired by someone that may not even have the lesser idea of what such a thing is, and how less, the intent of so perform.

In a further torque of the nut, ministries now reduce to manageability their interaction with these molest outsiders, designers, by reducing them nominally to one, and heavens know what kind of legal trickeries will be being now invented (the law appeared in august alevosy) to just partially mend the disaster it means for proper account of liability, professional ensurance payments, just distribution of the same, and have all professionals puzzled, something very much liked by government that likes things like that. All you are illegal, you know.

In my view, and taking the question, each involved party through the contract and document gathering the intent and scope of its involvement must take responsability of what in their own document exposed to be made at the works. This must be acknowledged at what here is called the "Pliego de Condiciones", or clauses and specs to what the construction contract and works must be subject, and it must be cleared from the start by the owner and defining someone coordinating discrepancies if any, to decide when clean to proceed; a task that may be assumed by the main engineer or architect of record, or a project manager of proper license and entitlement able to discern the public interest as must be understood even from the intervening professionals, not just brunt of authority and delivery date.

 

[cvg]

ultimately, the structural engineer designs the building and prepares the plans and specs - with input regarding blast design from the blast design expert. This input should be in the form of a specialized report signed and sealed by the blast design expert. If you feel it will help split the liability, you can have both engineers stamp the drawings and specs. They might be willing, but probably not. I doubt the blast engineer will want to stamp the final structural calculations nor will the structural engineer want to stamp the blast report...

 

[JLNJ]

You are right in that they are not willing to co-seal the drawings. I'm not even sure the code allows it.

On the other hand, the code doesn't really want you sealing work for which you are not an expert, either.

I'm not sure if I think it's an ethical issue or not.