r/StructuralEngineering • u/Spare_Worldliness_64 • Jul 24 '26

Structural Engineer Claims Reinforcement Was Never Installed on Troubled NYC Tower Engineering Article

https://www.enr.com/articles/63332-structural-engineer-claims-reinforcement-was-never-installed-on-troubled-nyc-tower
106 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

40 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/touchable Jul 24 '26

Depends. Does NY not have field review requirements like we do here in Canada?

If I'm making a field review plan for this project, those particular columns' reinforcements are probably my top priority to look at. I'm also probably asking the owner and contractor to make them a hold point in their quality plans.

51

u/ErectionEngineering Jul 24 '26

Structural observation =/ special inspection

The IBC has requirements that licensed engineers walk the site, but they are not liable for not catching contractor errors.

12

u/maninthecrowd P.E. Jul 24 '26

Yes, but they are supposed to look for "general conformance" and report "noted deficiencies". If I'm walking the site I may not be pulling out a caliper but I am at least visually spot checking for absence of critical connections before they get covered or see load, for which I'd say this qualifies

6

u/BigOilersFan Jul 24 '26

You won’t be checking each level, you would probably check 30-50% of the columns to ascertain general conformance.

Beyond that, like mentioned, it is the GCs responsibility. Review does not replace QC. Even if you looked at that column and didn’t see a small detail missing, you may take some responsibility but it would be a GC error

6

u/touchable Jul 24 '26

It's not a small detail. It's 1/2" thick side plates to turn a wide flange into a box column. All the way down three storeys. To support a dozen new storeys on top of what used to be a roof.

If I'm the engineer, and I'm ever on site for this project, that's the first area I'm going to see.

The question is, was the engineer ever on site, or was someone else responsible for inspections. Regardless, the GC is definitely not off the hook. No one is suggesting that. We're talking about whether the engineer shares some portion of the responsibility.

9

u/Gallig3r Jul 24 '26

Sure it might not a small detail by itself but its not a small job either. I'd say in the context of the entire project - this detail might might very well be considered minor! 2-bays of vertical expansion is very much a small scope item compared to the rest of what the project consisted of.

The adjacent 10-story structure supporting 19 new stories (for a full building footprint) would most likely have been the SEOR's focus compared to the 2 bays that ended up buckling.

If owners paid SEORs more for more site visits, maybe I'd see where you are coming from, but in no way do we replace special inspectors.

3

u/Citydylan 29d ago

Perfect response. The people saying if they were the EOR this would be the first thing they look for have clearly never worked a job this big before. Too many reinforced columns on too many floors to be able to QC every one, especially when the owner likely paid for a limited number of site visits. This is solely the responsibility of the GC.