Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error
Demolition - Structural Engineers Reports needed?
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
Admin  
#1 Posted : 11 June 2007 21:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By dave123
Hi there.

This query relates to a construction firm in Ireland who are the appointed Project Supervisor for the Construction Stage (PSCS) for a project.

My question is this:

If a construction firm, acting as PSCS, is engaged in overseeing a demolition job, is it reasonable to have the demolition contractors method statement reviewed by a structural engineer, or to have a structural engineer set down the method of demolition? What if the demolition contractor is deemed "competent" by the PSCS, would it suffice to accept their perceived wisdom on the matter, or would you still get the opinion of an independent party?

Could I ask what the opinions of the group are?

Thanks,

David.
Back to top
Admin  
#2 Posted : 12 June 2007 11:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By JPK
Hi Dave,

Overall responsibility for the construction work lies with the PC, therefore it is very prudent to have all method statements reviewed by a 'competent' person.
If you believe the only person competent to make a decision on this method statement is a structural engineer, then YES use one.

But....

It may be an idea to discuss the method statement and risk assessments for the activity with the demo' contractor first, as in my experience, 'real' demo contractors have a property/site fully surveyed by there own engineers and the CDM Co-Ordinator and/or Princ' Contr' should have vetted the competency of the demo' contractor at Tender stage in providing a quotation. Also check with the designers, as any hazards SHOULD have been reviewed at the design stage.

Hope this helps...

JPK
Back to top
Admin  
#3 Posted : 12 June 2007 13:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Peter MacDonald
Structural engineers are not demolition engineers by default therefore the first question would be is the structural engineer competent to carry out the assessment.

It is up to the demolition contractor to design and execute the method of demolition although typically our MS and RA's are vetted by either the CDM coordinator or an engineer but only for compliance with best practice.

As a rule, we do not employ the services of a structural engineer to provide any input into the methodology of demolition unless we cannot establish the actual construction of the the structure due to a lack of drawings(particularly in regard to pre/post-stressed concrete members) or if the structure will require a degree of pre-weakening prior to machine demolition, such as hot cutting sit/chair/rest cuts or blowing bolts. Other instances may be the development of a mode of collapse or predicted debris pile.

No harm in a MS being reviewed by a Structural engineer but only if competent. And be wary of the difference between a "reviewed" method an "approved" method as responsibility in the eyes of the law can change depending on any third party input.

Hope that helps

Peter
Back to top
Admin  
#4 Posted : 12 June 2007 13:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Lee Mac
Hi Dave,

I was in the same situation last Christmas, but as one of the previous posters mentioned a StrucEng is not a DemEng.

The way we proceeded was a meeting of the minds- the PC (including Project Managers, H&S Project Manager(me) & QS), PS(now CDM-C), StructEng & Demolition Sub-contractor all met up and did a walkaround and discussed everything from the way it stood, the way we were hoping to begin demolition and how and where.

To be honest Dave, it did take a good bit of input from all parties before we reached an agreement to devise a SSOW.

Job is now well and truly complete and was done in a safe manner and to be honest the StructEng's input was beneficial.

So my advise would get everyone together and see how you fair out- it may suprise you.


Lee
Back to top
Admin  
#5 Posted : 12 June 2007 20:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By dave123
Many thanks to all who replied. I am convinced now of the need to have a 3rd party review the MS, particularly given the technical nature and high risk involved in demolition.

Regards,

Dave.
Back to top
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET