Editorial: Non-Digital Communications

Edition, has numerous areas that differ slightly from the IBC and must also be considered. As a structural engineer these are particularly important issues to me. In addition to the codes, a missing link in the design and construction of facilities has been connected with the publication of ASCE 37-02, "Design Loads on Structures During Construction - Standard". The ASCE 7 Standard has long been relied upon and referenced for design loads applied to the finish structure, but without consideration for the construction period. The use of ASCE 37 as an extension of ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures, is meant to enhance the ability to evaluate structural issues which occur during the construction phase. We would anticipate that this new Standard will be incorporated in Building Codes, just as ASCE-7 has. Although this new publication fills a gap, it raises some interesting problems as well.

For the most part, current design codes and standards are silent on the subject of construction loads and provide innocuous statements like "Proper provision shall be made for stresses...during erection", and "Adequate temporary bracing shall be required to resist wind loading..." The big question is what are "proper provisions" and what is "adequate bracing"? How is this determined? Who makes this decision? It is an accident waiting to happen.

First, what is this Standard? This standard addresses partially completed structures and temporary structures used during construction. It provides minimum design load requirements during construction for buildings and other structures. These design loads provide a level of safety for the design of these structures that is then comparable to the level of safety designed into the completed structure. Logically there should be compatibility between the level of safety during construction, and the level of safety after completion. The Standard does not specify who will be responsible for completing the design calculations that are required as well as enforcement. The analysis cannot reasonably be made in advance of bidding, since the requirements will depend on the Contractor's chosen "means and methods"and employed construction systems.

If we would reference this document in the Project Manual, or it becomes a Code requirement, it raises a major question. Who is to perform the analysis and the enforcement of the designs? Professionals have long devised language that protects them from legal action for any on-site construction problems created by the contractor's "means and methods". Citing this Standard in the Project Manual, or by reference in Codes can create some pause in this arrangement, yet it provides much needed control over construction methods. It is unlikely that the Engineer of Record (EOR) (if contracted to enforce ASCE 37-02) incurs any more liability if he is simply adhering to and enforcing the new Standard requirements that he now incurs by looking away when safety issues are observed. How often have you visited a jobsite and gasped at a five tier scaffold with tons of concrete block and masons on top, yet you could not enforce change?

This Standard, if referenced will need to be explicitly addressed in the bid documents. Is the Contractor to engage an independent engineer to provide the calculations required to conform? Is the Owner going to do so? Will the Owner plan to engage the Engineer of Record on the Project to provide the analysis and enforcement? Who will be responsible to review the calculations? It has normally been customary to require a Specialty Engineer to prepare shoring and re-shoring plans. Can this be just an expansion of this policy? How will this Standard be invoked if in a Design/Build project?

These questions all need to be addressed, discussed with the Owner and Building Official and resolved in order to invoke the Standard. The Standard will go a long way toward ensuring construction safety, but only when all aspects and responsibilities are clearly defined in the Project Manual. Until they are addressed, and liability issues are addressed, this very fine document may not find much acceptance, or conversely will initiate a new set of problems. If referenced in Codes it will become mandatory CSRF will continue to monitor the progress and ensure that resulting issues are shared with our subscribers.

About the Author: Arthur J. Miller, PE, FFES, FCSI, is President of CSRF and can be reached at amiller28@bellsouth.net

The CSRF newsletter is published for SPECTEXT® subscribers and others involved in design and construction. To obtain your copy of Creating a Common Language®, please contact the CSRF Support Center by telephone at 1-877- SPECTXT or 410-838-7561 or you may e-mail us at supportcenter@csrf.org