Are “structural surveys” proper engineering?

Citation

Hoxley, M. (2004), "Are “structural surveys” proper engineering?", Structural Survey, Vol. 22 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/ss.2004.11022aaa.001

Are “structural surveys” proper engineering?

Are “structural surveys” proper engineering?

This intriguing question was the title of a paper presented to an evening meeting of the Institution of Structural Engineers on 5 February 2004 by Brian Clancy and Bob Stagg. The central thesis of Clancy and Stagg's (2004) paper is that not only are structural surveys “proper” engineering but that they are “real” engineering in the true sense. In arguing their case the authors make several interesting (and some would say controversial) points. Their main argument is that the essential skills required to survey are those possessed by experienced structural engineers, and are as follows:

• •

  Knowledge of the type of building;

• •

  In depth but also broad understanding of structural theory;

• •

  Ability to recognise what is original and what are extensions and alterations to a building;

• •

  Good knowledge of the behaviour of all major construction materials;

• •

  Knowledge of past as well as present codes of practice and design standards;

• •

  Knowledge of past failures and problems with certain designs and materials;

• •

  The effects of natural forces;

• •

  The limitations of design/building techniques;

• •

  Knowledge of construction and erection techniques;

• •

  Knowledge of local building and ground peculiarities and their structural and geotechnical implications;

• •

  Communication skills are one of the central planks of engineering;

• •

  Specification and costing;

• •

  Project management and certification competence;

• •

  The building services.

Clancy and Stagg both represented IStructE on the CIC working group that recommended a revised nomenclature for building inspections (CIC, 1997). A major part of the working party's recommendations (to which all the construction professions signed up) was that a detailed survey would be known as “building survey” and that the term “structural survey” would be outlawed. However Clancy and Stagg (2004) make the very valid point that the term “structural survey” is still in common use, both in property transactions and every day language. No one could take issue with this assertion and it seems that, as the authors say, the term will not go away because lawyers and the public continue to use it. May be the time has come for us all to acknowledge that “structural survey” is here to stay!

Another of the authors' points is that “Surveying buildings is one of the highest risk activities that building professionals can undertake ... and that it is not well remunerated”. Those surveyors and engineers currently struggling to afford their PII premiums would agree with this assertion. Insurance is seen by many to be the fundamental flaw in the Government's proposals for certification of home inspectors. If the scheme is to be self insuring then many believe that there is a real danger of the fund becoming exhausted if the recent claims' experience of the industry is anything to go by.

Perhaps not surprisingly Clancy and Stagg consider that the best professionals to undertake the survey (provided they extend their experience) are structural engineers. Many chartered surveyors would of course take issue with this view. Provided that any construction professional (irrespective of his or her institutional allegiance) possesses the skills outlined in the bullet points above then they should be capable of carrying out a “structural survey”. Of course it is “horses for courses”. Not many surveyors would attempt a survey of a multi-storey building but many would feel that they possess the skills necessary to undertake a survey of a low-rise, traditionally built, structure.

One thing is certain. If the Government reforms ever see the light of day there is going to be a massive explosion in the workload of those wishing to undertake survey work. As I have said previously in these columns the introduction of the “home condition report” may well spell the end of the more detailed “building survey” or “structural survey”. What will be important for the future of this work is that those undertaking it, do so with the skills outlined in Clancy and Stagg's commendable paper.

Mike Hoxley