The Structural Engineer > Archive > Volume 63 (1985) > Issues > Issue 2 > Correspondence on Viewpoint on Statutory Control of Construction by Stefan Tietz
Name of File 4772-63-02.pdf cached at 14/12/2017 04:29:25 - with 2 pages. pdfPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\73\7358afd7-8f77-472f-ad9c-0d04ecfadb65.pdf. thumbPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\7358afd7-8f77-472f-ad9c-0d04ecfadb65_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: 7358afd7-8f77-472f-ad9c-0d04ecfadb65_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

Correspondence on Viewpoint on Statutory Control of Construction by Stefan Tietz

Mr Robert Siggs (M): I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Tietz’s statement ‘good building is achieved when good design is well executed’, but let us examine this statement in greater detail. Good structural design is, hopefully, achieved by every member of our institution but, in practice, how good are we? Some of us make arithmetical errors, some of us omit details on drawings, and (dare I say) some of us make errors of judgment. Remember that very small box in the corner of our calculation sheets and drawings marked ‘checked by’? How often is it signed? Not often. Our good design is, hopefully, well executed on site by builders but, in practice, how good are they? Damp-proof courses are omitted, brickwork is not properly bonded, and reinforcement is misplaced. Who discovers these shortcomings, structural engineers, other professionals perhaps? I shall return to who later.