It doesn't matter if the geotech was right or wrong....there appears to be a significant indication of settlement, so the geotech is in a defensive position, right or wrong....must prove his point. That's expensive.
If I were the attorney for the Geotech and structural, I would file an injunction to prevent the demolition....once it's done, there's no going back and part of the evidence is gone.
Well, if the deviated from the Geotechnical Report, then the Geotechnical Engineer is not going to be as responsible. But when the lawyers are involved, you might have to defend why you didn't do anything to enforce your report.
Lesson: Always, always either execute your design exactly as the Geotechnical Report says or get a written exception from him/her when you don't. I'm a big believer in literally cutting and pasting the Geotechnical Report requirements (with changes like "should" to "shall")into our Earthwork Specification. That way there's no chance of a dispute. Why pay those guys if you're not going to listen to them?
The reports seem to indicate that they left the Design/Builder (Zachary GC) off the hook but is blaming the geotech and structural engineer. This makes no sense if the D/B controls the full pot of money and hires the geotech and SE as subs.
The D/B sometimes uses the control as a club to reduce the amount of inspection that is recommended. I wonder if the geotech had fulltime inspection of foundation installation!
Why would they let the contractor off the hook so early....do they have substantial evidence that it was clearly a geotechnical and/or structural issue?
Although I agree that the building should remain until the trial is over, the trial could last a very long time. They will need to make sure the building is not or won't become unstable and possibly collapse in the interim.
One has to know the relationship between the Owner, the Developer (if different), the Design/Builder (if different, the Structural Consultant, the Architect, and the Geotekkie to see who did what to who...
The structure should remain in place until it is agreed upon by all parties that it is no longer needed for info. There is a cost to this, but it's all part of the claim. There could/should be long term monitoring of the current problem and the cause of any differential movement determined. It could be from factors unrelated to the original construction.
I often include any/all geotech reports as part of the bid documents and do *not* selectively publish parts or recommendations. On one of my latest projects, there are about a dozen geotech reports for the site going back 3 decades... the bid documents note that these are all available for review by the bidders.
It is curious that Dik quotes a particular identified interest in the getechnical parties not make recommendations (or so I interpret); maybe for some having been found irresponsibly assertive or restrictive? Normally, less informed structural designers on ground matters would prefer the contrary (because as above quoted complying and making to comply with the recommendations would -it is expected- clarify the responsability of whom...
yet ... shouldn't a good structural designer overcome and fight any bad recommendation by any party trying influence him/her out of required safety? I find no indemnity on this ... not even from the code itself, let me say. So I am of the opinion on that if it is me with my knowledge, firm and warrant who is to guarantee adequacy to use, safety included, codes should allow me perform to my wish.
But more modestly returning to the matter of no recommendations, someone in the spanish legislation must have identified the risk of always following the recommendations of the geotechs for the foundations for it states that recommendations will be included in the geotechnical report IF the structural designer so demands. And note, will ever remain recommendations (as worrying as they can be when not respected and in problems), so no indemnity can be expected from recommendations when one has personal professional liabilities overcoming any recommendation given.
To clear up any confusion... I use geotech reports for most projects and use the information contained in them. If I have an issue, then I will discuss this with the geotekkie... and any variation is in writing. I often forward a copy of the final drawings to the geotekkie (to help share the guilt <G>).
It is not often that I use design values other than recommended; I'm happy to hang my hat on his expertise. If I feel his values for bearing are too high then I will use lower values that I am comfortable with. My standard notes make reference to the Geotechnical report as well as a recommendation that the Contractor seek additional information. I also usually include it as information with the bid documents.
It does open a bit of a can of worms if the contractor does a load takedown and determines that the foundations are oversized by the recommended bearing (if my design was lower), but in 40 years I've never had it happen.
Well, so I had misinterpreted your statement. We most than anything if something have found to disconform with geotech firms just in cases where they predict overconservative settlement, mainly; have found them amenable to the fact in such cases, and have most times managed to get it in print. It is standard practice here to include the geotechnical report as part of the overall project. And I use to ask recommendations and if not found illogical follow them. Yet in any case some parts of my arguments stand, particularly the fact that those legislating here have not seen very good the structural designers overly relying in some geotechnicar reports giving straight indication on structural types, something on which we have been (and continue being) explicitly named be responsible for in all modern legislation since Comte in the very early 1800's (I think to remember) was called to Spain to devise a Civil Code: the foundations of the buildings have been the realm of the structural designers, and even now, and in spite of the mandatory contribution of geotechnical reports, has not been seen good to relieve us of such burden. I myself prefer so, specially in those cases where I see exorbitant recommendations.
