Some Interesting Articles

Some interesting articles I will comment further on when I get time:

1) Confessions of a Young Professional, Engineers Australia  Volume 85 No. 4, April 2013
2) The 30 year Failure Cycle, The Structural Engineer, Volume 91, Issue 5, May 2013 (IStructE)
3) How can Structural Engineers Contribute towards disaster mitigation, The Structural Engineer, Volume 91, Issue 6, June 2013 (IStructE)

Proposal For National Structural Code

Past experience and recent projects have now convinced me that we need a national structural code and/or a national technology code. A structural code could be the starting point with a technology code coming later. The technology code would capture all technology, everything artificial, everything done in and to the natural environment. But for now just consider the structural code.

The Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) would like the Building Code of Australia (BCA) or now National Construction Code (NCC) to be the single point of reference for everything in the built environment. I don't believe this is appropriate. The BCA is fundamentally about habitable buildings, and in the main the performance criteria are for spaces not for the fabric of the building: the BCA has very little about buildings. Which as a point suggests the BCA is equally applicable to an open work space. Anycase, anything which is not a habitable building is classified as a class 10 building. If a building is class 10, then BCA requirements are found in BCA volume 2. Now BCA volume 2 is little more than a prescriptive solution for housing, and contains fewer performance criteria than BCA volume 1 2.

Personally I think BCA volume 2 should be scrapped and class 1 and 10 buildings put back in BCA volume 1. BCA volume 2 should have never been published, its a bad idea. In South Australia we had an SA Housing Code, this was described as a deemed to satisfy solution to the BCA as it was. That approach should have been retained. Whilst builders didn't like the BCA because it was performance based and didn't tell them what to do, they also didn't like that they couldn't try alternative technologies with the prior prescriptive codes.

BCA volume 2, should have been presented as a code compliant design solution, using brick veneer and timber framing. It should have set the bench mark for the presentation and publication of code compliant design solutions. Starting with adequate evidence-of-suitability for the construction methodology: the prescriptive solution in BCA volume 2, is not adequately proven suitable for purpose, and alternative technologies like rammed earth, straw bale, SIP's, plaster wall panels have to be demonstrated far more thoruoghly than the accepted traditional technologies. More importantly alternative technologies have to be demonstrated compliant with all kinds of rubbish the authorities pull out off a hat: I reiterate the BCA contains next to nothing regarding the characteristics of the building fabric. If starting from scratch brick and timber likely considered relatively stupid materials for constructing something as important as a home: bricks soak up water and timber gets eaten by termites: rubbish materials. BCA volume 2 should not have been part of the BCA, it should have been something else.

Now the SA Development Act and Regulations are not concerned with buildings, but concerned with modifications and changes to the use of land. After some exclusions for government authorities and use of crown lands, it starts referring to building works. Such building works need to be assessed against the building rules and the BCA is called up as part of the building rules. The building works contractors act is also concerned with building works. The building works contractors act is primarily concerned with housing. The industry concerned in all cases is the building and construction industry. Whilst may refer to the building of a bridge, a bridge is not considered a building, and is part of the construction sector not the building sector of the industry. How the design and construction of bridges is controlled I don't know, and the areas of jurisdiction start to blur depending on where a bridge is located or on what is considered to be a bridge. For example when is a foot bridge an industrial walkway? Does the footbridge have to be outside or does it refer to public space inside a large shopping centre? Small bridges and culverts on private property, what governs these? Sure we have a national bridge code, but it primarily relates to highways and railways? I doubt the code includes swinging canals.

So have two major codes for the built environment, the BCA and the bridge code. For the most part however building works are captured by the Development Act and go into the local city/district council for development approval. This therefore means initial review is against the Building Rules and that basically means the BCA, and if the building works do not relate to a habitable building then it means BCA volume 2 the presciptive solution for housing. A bridge is not a habitable building, it is therefore a class 10 building and governed by BCA volume 2, a prescriptive solution for housing. Common sense may prevail, however the law is not about common sense, it is about what is written and what is intended. For highway and railway bridges its obvious that the bridge code should control. Further more unlikely to be placed into council for development approval as design most likely placed out to tender by the approving authority in the first instance.

But bridges are not the only structure which are not habitable buildings. So if the BCA is the single point of entry for the built environment then the following are class 10 buildings governed by a prescriptive solution for housing:

1) Dam
2) Tall radio mast
3) Water tank
4) Silo's, Bins and Bunkers
5) Fixed Gantry Cranes
6) Industrial Chimneys
7) Oil refinery
8) Power Station
9) Large scale solar array
10) Wind turbine
11) Earth Retaining Structures and Coastal defence structures
12) Advertising Signs
13) Sports Safety nets
14) Agricultural Buildings/Shelters
15) Radar Dish
16) Large Scale Optical Telescope
17) Large open air machine and electrical systems

The above are all well beyond the scope of the BCA, and absolutely beyond the scope of BCA volume 2. Such are also way beyond the capabilities of building surveyors. Yet all likely to fall within the scope of the Development Act and require assessment against the building rules by building surveyors.

From a structural viewpoint the BCA is an expensive pile of scrap paper. The ABCB deliberately removed the annual probability of exceedance from AS1170 loading code and placed in the BCA, so that structural engineers would have to look at the BCA. But only need the page with the annual probability of exceedance, the rest of the structural provisions is a long list of Australian standards. Builders and plan drafters may never read standards, but engineers and similar use the standards catalogue as a major source of reference. No matter what is being designed, Australian standards are reviewed to find community expectations of standards of performance. The standards catalogue contains far more than the BCA, the BCA is nothing. Sure the BCA contains options for fire rated construction, but such is primarily an architectural design issue, not a structural issue. The architect primarily decides the materials and form of construction when it comes to habitable buildings, not the engineers. If owner and architect choose a particular set of conditions then the BCA may impose concrete construction: but it is within the scope of the architect and owner to change the conditions and avoid the concrete, and do so without the assistance of an engineer. If they insist on a particular path, and oppose the use of concrete then may be able to employ the services of a "fire engineer" and enable alternative materials such as steel cladding on steel framework to be used. But such is generally a BCA alternative solution, and really beyond the scope of the BCA to provide guidance.

The BCA is something of a joke, and extremely dangerous to be called up in legislation and imposed by law. The wording and language in the BCA is wrong. Alternative solutions are near impossible, as the BCA assessment methods basically discard the performance requirements and replace with deemed-to-satisfy provisions. Deemed-to-satisfy provisions can be inadequate and fail to satisfy performance requirements. Things beyond the scope of the BCA are squeezed within its scope by regulating authorities who have less than the necessary competence to perform their assessment role properly across the full range of building works which they may encounter.

As I indicated in earlier post the steel structures code AS4100 does not cover torsion, nor does it cover the design of connections: in particular it does not cover the localised bending and buckling of plates in the vicinity of the connections. This is not entirely a problem because there are industry manuals which cover the deficiencies. The problem is that the BCA is called up by legilsation, and it in turn calls up AS4100: thus AS4100 is considered law and mandatory, whilst the industry manuals are not. More over I have worked on contract as a structural drafter, and the supervising engineers were not aware of the manuals I was using to detail steel work connections. On the otherhand I know next to zip about concrete, then again I do know there are issues regarding detailing steel reinforcement: like got to be able to get concrete around it otherwise its not reinforced concrete its just a steel cage. Once again the engineers don't check these things and are unaware of the available industry manuals. Whilst I may prefer the CSI Steel designers manual, I am otherwise referring to Australian publications like the Steel Designers Handbook by Gorenc and Tinyou. Then again I don't really need the ASI to translate American and Eurocodes into an Australian approach for connection design: not the least of which is the ASI is too slow.

Part of the issue is what to include in the codes. For example AS4100 does not state how to calculate the bending moment in a beam. It has some guidelines for use of linear elastic analysis, use of moment amplification factors, non-linear analysis and plastic design. But the basic purpose of AS4100 is to define the maximum resistance which can be used to compare against the calculated bending moment. By the same token therefore would not expect it to define how to calculate the stresses in the plate elements of a connection. The problem is that it is not always clear cut, the division between applied stress and available resistance. In such situations empirical formula may give plate thickness directly, and there is no way to derive such formula from geometry: just have to go repeat the experiments to validate the formula: and no one working in an office is going to go do that.

Other issues to consider are:

1) Consistency (materials codes are clearly biased by politics and economics of industry sectors)
2) Repetition
3) Completeness

Completeness
The loading code AS1170 series of standards presents an incomplete picture to practising engineers, and is expensive. Compare cost of wind loading code AS1170.2 excluding commentary to the American ASCE7-05 which covers all loading situations and full commentary. It is said that snow loading is little relevance to most Australian engineers, so keeping it separate keeps costs down. No it doesn't, it increases costs, as there are extra covers and other repetitive sheets forming it into a separate yet connected publication. Combining all of AS1170 into a single code would put all loading requirements into the hands of all structural engineers, giving them plenty of opportunity to study and learn the codes before they bump into need to use and have to rush out and get other portion of loading code.

But cannot do this because each portion is managed by a different Australian Standards committee. Which then becomes another issue: the codes are revised at different dates. Thus for example, the earthquake code was slow to be converted to limit state format. And another example is tests carried out to AS1170.2:1989 wind loading code against criteria in the BCA rather than to the current version of AS1170.2:2011.

It is also clear that AS1170.2 is for buildings, everything else is an after thought thrown into the appendices. Yet everyone blindly states, their product no matter what it is has to be designed to comply with AS1170.2 wind loading. Even if dealing with buildings there are large gaps in AS1170.2 tables, so not all buildings are within its scope. Generally however it is considered impractical to carry out wind tunnel tests for small residential structures to fill in the gaps, and a lot of judgement calls are made. But this can lead to inconsistency or a hard time with regulators who are not able to make decisions for themselves.  So something is required to fill in gaps in the loading code, such as at present the lack of information for solar panel installations mounted on roof tops (buildings and canopies).

Consistency
The materials codes do not follow a consistent set of guidelines, so its not so much a question of learning mechanics but learning the style of an industry sector. The steel structures code AS4100 and cold-formed steel structures code AS4600 have different but similar approaches: why? One uses alpha-m , the other uses Cb, why the difference? One (AS4100) uses moment amplification and makes a big thing out of it and causes confusion, the other AS4600 hides it in the clauses for checking member capacity? The aluminium structures code AS1664 uses similar approach for effective section modulus to AS4600, yet it is lost in the midst of the code. The aluminium structures code calculates limiting stresses whilst all other codes calculate resistances, this is stated because mechanical use aswell as structural. This is a poor excuse, as resistances are just as useful to mechanical, and AS4600 calculates limiting stresses but converts into resistances. Mean while the timber structures code AS1720, as another approach to lateral stability again, and whilst it calculates resistances it doesn't differentiate between section capacity and member capacity as the other codes do, the result is that it calculates member capacities, and then in combined action expressions multiplies by factors to basically undo the member capacity calculations and produce section capacities. The equations would be simpler if section capacities were calculated first. Further when timber structures code changed to limit state, it retained the 30% overstress on wind loading, it should have removed this. Such over stress wasn't removed until AS1170.2 was further revised and regional wind speeds were reduced. AS1720 also uses the capacity reduction factor to take another bite off importance factor. It calculates capacities of joints rather than allowing assessment of the individual components of a connection. It presents some concepts which can be misleading and therefore hazardous if applied incorrectly. I really dislike its presentation of double shear, and in general the code seems incomplete and thrown together.

Most of these codes can be replaced by a single code, with different materials properties, instead of being aligned with the traditional practice of a given industry. Further all the codes could then be updated at once. All these committes for different codes is silly. Australia just doesn't have the population to waste on such nonsense. This is reflected in the slow update of some codes, apparently 30 years lapsing for some codes before revised.

Repetition
The significant overlap between all the materials codes is one example of repetition as well as inconsistency. The timber framing code AS1684.1, the metal framing code AS 3623, and NASH specification for steel framed housing are all unnecessary. Basically all these codes present a set of rules for the design of individual structural elements of pinned and braced building structures. Incomplete rules, for there is a lack of information to assess the ceiling diaphragm and/or floor diaphragms on which the structures depend. Once again its industry politics, timber versus steel. Its a waste, especially for designers, who have to go get each of these different codes and waste their time becoming familar with, and making reference to, when could otherwise simply get on with using the loading code.

If design something to timber structures code AS170, then there is need to compare against AS1684 span tables. Then question why are AS1684 members so large, or why so small, why don't my calculations come out the same. The members in AS1684 in some situations are larger because they check serviceability requirements not otherwise mandated, or otherwise use extreme value loads for a range of suitable situations: there is some conservatism in there to allow for the breadth of use of the span tables. Other situations using AS1720 get larger members because AS1684 has thrown in fudge factors to share and distrubute loads, they have declared superior testing of timber taking place and material strengths are higher than in AS1720, over stress permitted not otherwise considered, and axial forces fundamental to the function of the structural forms in AS1684 are ignored. So members selected from AS1684 span tables not fully compliant with AS1720. But the approach taken by AS1684 is an acceptable one, and if acceptable for timber then why not other materials. The inefficient answer to that is to write similar codes for other materials hence AS3623, and its replacement NASH specification for steel framing for housing. All lacking a bigger picture.


STRUCTURAL CODE
At its simplest a structural code would merely take the BCA structural provisions, and then have the BCA refer to the structural code. However the structural code is for all structures not just habitable buildings. So the national structural code (NSC) would have to also reference:

1) BCA
2) The bridge code
3) Crane Code
4) Industry guides for Bins and Silos
5) Standards for light poles
6) Standards for lattice towers
7) Other Australian Standards and or industry manuals.

Where Australian standards not available, then reference would be to ISO, Euro, British, American codes with order of preference given and where possible the actual codes called up. The code would also identify shortfalls and the need for further research, this can be given in an informative appendix.

Most importantly the code would capture all structural forms and give basic guidelines and simplifications permitted for various categories of structures, and make explicit common practices such as allowing 10% overstress.

The code would also identify accepted reference manual, and classic texts and papers which form the basis of structural mechanics and structural design. For example designing a water storage tank using finite element method (FEM) may be considerd unacceptable if there is industry manual on storage tank design. It seems to be an increasingly common practice to simply accept FEM as giving the right answer. When I was studying FEM was considered to be far from the right answer, having an error of 20% or more, and only to be used as a design guide, with it being absolutely necessary to build and test prototypes to validate and calibrate the FEM model. But FEM is being used for massive one-off structures on assumption of model being valid: bad practice.

Engineering takes place at the frontiers of science and technology. Civil, structural and mechanical disciplines are not operating at the frontiers, the technologies they deal with are parametric variations of well established technologies. Placing something inferior into the built environment is not acceptable. Somebody somewhere has typically worked it all out before.

Tall industrial chimney stacks getting over stressed due to wind excitation not acceptable, but do we have any guidelines available? Sure I have some historical documentation from the UK, but does Australia have any current documentation? If cannot find an Australian standard is there some obscure industry association? There is no point some specialist coming out off the woodwork after a chimney collapses and makes national and international news.

We need one point of reference for structural design. Want to design a sail shade, then these are the reference papers which should be used. Designing as a cable-net and tension membrane too complex, then this is the simplified approach permitted if sail shade lies with in a given set of constraints.

The requirements for becoming a competent structural designer all outlined in the structural code, these are the topics, the papers and reference manuals should be familiar with. And it doesn't involve getting a master of business administration (MBA) and becoming a chartered executive engineer: it requires competence in structures not accounting.

It is a code because it is to be sustained and maintained on a regular basis, it is to be kept upto date, by guardians of the knowledge. The code can also list in appendices, acceptable software, such software does not have to be used, but such software is used as a point of reference. Criteria for testing and approving software can be given. Also of extreme importance is identifying national experts in various areas of practice and with respect to various structural forms. These national experts need connecting to a long chain of future successors. Who replaces Trahair for hotrolled steel, Hancock for cold-formed steel and Holmes for wind loading?

We primarily have regulations because someone figured there was a shortfall, not because that somebody knew the answer. Good regulations capture everything and have generic rules which lead to specifics. Poor codes have specifics, impose themselves on everything and pose a greater hazard than having no code at all.

The Building Code of Australia (BCA) makes a poor National Structural Code. The BCA should reference an all encompassing structural code. And both of these should be referenced by an even more all encompassing technology code: fusiion, genetics, nanomachines, space exploration. What are the constraints on research and testing? For these technologies even the testing of prototypes poses a hazard to the greater community.

It seems that there are many so called engineers who don't understand the fundamentals of their role, and they are simply code pushers, and have no grasp of the concept of design. Large numbers of so called civil engineers especially, are capable of little more than pushing numbers through codes of practice and saying yes complies? If not in the code they don't check it, or even think about it.

A comprehensive structural code will highlight that their continuing professional development (CPD) has been rubbish, that they don't know very much and not operating at the level of engineer, and barely operating at the level of engineering associate. The code will define a basic methodolgy to the approach of design and evaluation of design proposals.

It should also be noted that the existing regulations generate far too much scrap paper. So guidelines are also required for the presentation of calculations, suitability of certificates, and methods for providing rapid and efficient assessments and approvals of common structural forms. We should not be hampered by the past tradition of working calculations out with pencil and paper automatically producing documentation. People seem to go out of their way to find mathematical type set like packages to achieve such presentations and largely there is little value, and all they do is produce more scrap paper. Calculations are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. So whilst a calculation needs doing it doesn't necessarily need presenting some where.

Also those checking calculations are not performing their proper role, their task is independent assessment of the proposal. The proposal is shown on drawings not calculations: and independent means with out influence and guidance of the design calculations. So the approving authority doesn't need any calculations, and assessment is faster and easier than finding a design-solution. Assessing existing construction however takes longer and is more complex than design: this is because most illegal construction also deviates from the validated mathematical models, and testing cannot be carried out. Basically assessing stuff people have built without approval is frustrating. That aside, if have a design proposal which has been designed, not just dumped on paper, then assessing compliance with a code should be relatively easy if have the appropriate tools. The problem as indicated in previous blogs, is people putting effort into developing tools appropriate to their job. The lack of appropriate tools results in inconsistencies between similar projects and unnecessary amounts of time expended on the project.

So I see what I can do about setting up a Blog to start an open source structural code.

Technical Lawyers: Not Engineers

Those persons with 4 year B.Eng qualifications seem to spend a lot of time complaining about train drivers, plumbers and a variety of other occupational groups or businesses calling themselves engineers. My argument is that these people with the B.Eng are themselves not engineers, and making reference to some qualifying prefix such as graduate, professional or registered is irrelevant.

I reiterate my previous stance: engineers operate at the frontiers of science and technology. I therefore consider it disrespectful  and insulting to my cultural heritage to refer to anyone operating within a regulatory system as an engineer.

Apparently at the end of last year South Australia had an open consultation about the registration of Structural Engineers with respect to the Development Act & Regulations. It wasn't very open, nor very public, and very few people were aware of such: some of the submitted comments criticised this aspect of the proposal. I became aware via eNews, an email newsletter published by Engineers Australia, after commentary had closed. They (IEAust, via the mechanical branch for some reason) had apparently contributed to commentary on the proposal, but were disappointed that it didn't extend to all engineering disciplines.

This is where I have issue. It is not about engineering, and no engineering is involved. Language has not kept pace with developments. Building Surveyors, either working for city council or as private certifiers are always telling people to go get engineers report, get engineers calculations, or certificate of an independent technical expert. That "independence" is one of the major criticisms of the proposal. If I understood the commentary (I haven't found the actual proposal yet), it seems reference to independent technical expert will be removed from the Act/Regulations and self-certification by registered engineers will be permitted. Now that I oppose: both Queensland with its RPEQ's and Victoria with its RBP(engineer) seem to have a proliferation of consultants charging extortionate fees for filling in silly forms and rubber stamping, and self-certification seems out off control. I am aware of this because agents for manufactured structural products hit obstacles in South Australia, when the self-certified products are rejected due to lack of independence, then when independently reviewed the products are found less than compliant with the national codes. If have access to the original calculations these are found wanting and deficient.

One of the main arguments put forward for registration of professional engineers is the asymmetry of knowledge between the supplier and the buyer. However I am beginning to think this is a nonsense argument. In fact after the past 12 months I am gaining considerable dislike for regulations and regulators. From the start of my career I have always found the regulations to be deficient and inadequate and blind compliance to pose a serious hazardous. However I mostly encounter people who have scant regard for regulations and do what they want. These people have either built something without development approval, or have submitted a proposal for development approval without proper design. Consequently they are only seeking engineering services because the city council has told them to get engineering calculations.

I also have been informed by some council building surveyors that often they ask for engineering, as it is often the best chance they have of getting some decent drawings. It doesn't always work though, and the engineers just do the numbers, providing the Calc's-for-Council (CfC) that have been requested. The city/district councils are part of the problem here. It is difficult for engineers to get their client to go and get some decent architectural drawings, when they insist that the scribble they have produced is good enough for council and council just wants some calculations. That also poses a hindrance towards the engineers producing drawings and getting paid for. So documentation for development approval is relatively dismal, even though there are some specific schedules for drawings in the SA Development Regulations. I contend that none of this constitutes engineering.

Engineering for the most part is concerned with controlling inputs so as to have a high level of confidence about the expected output.

Therefore for the building surveyor, to declare remove the illegal construction or submit a Development Application, with an engineers report, is nonsense. If the structure is built already then there can be no engineering, as already failed to control the inputs, and therefore have no certainty about the existing construction. Persons with engineering qualifications can go to site, kick dirt, kick walls with calibrated steel cap boots, and may be use ESP, but fundamentally what they see is irrelevant. Engineering as it as become is not about properties that can be seen: it is about physical properties which have to be measured under controlled conditions and systems installed following controlled processes, and then operated in controlled manner. The building industry may be regulated, but it certainly is not controlled  It is not engineers who are required to improve administration and implementation of regulations.

There was an article a few years back published in Engineering World, a publication of Engineers Australia, the article was a reprint of an article from an American Journal. The article was about the American licensing system for engineers. This system apparently has an industry exemption clause, and due to the BP oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, there have been calls to remove the industry exemption. What was interesting is that those opposed to removing the exemption were in the aerospace industry. Now the aerospace industry I would place as operating close to the frontiers of science and technology. Those working in such industry more likely to get double degrees in science and engineering, pursue masters and doctorates rather than get a P.E license. But even with the industry exemption, many did pursue P.E licenses, as a matter of personal development and as a benefit to career progression. But once again I contend that these people with the P.E license are not carrying out engineering. The FE/PE examinations are not about engineering, they are about the established science and application to established technologies. This established body of knowledge is more along the lines of technical law, than science, and the practitioners are more technical lawyers than engineers.

If the design and construction of bridges and buildings, cars and locomotives, aircraft and ships were at the frontiers of technology, then the community wouldn't have any issues or problems. Operating at the frontiers of science and technology I would have expectations that a bridge or building would collapse, because have no means of predicting the performance of such structure before construction. But bridges and buildings are not at the frontiers of science and technology, and neither are deep sea oil rigs. Consequently when bridges and buildings collapse unexpectedly there is a public out cry of something gone wrong: the established science and technology have not been properly applied. The peoples law has been breached, the technical law has not been applied.

Then again when buildings collapse during hurricanes and earthquakes, there is another issue at play: and that is the public having reasonable expectations of performance. Buildings cannot be made flood proof, hurricane proof, nor earthquake proof. So called engineers running around using fear to get the community to restrict practice of engineering to a limited few, whilst declaring they can provide resistant buildings, is not acceptable behaviour and is irresponsible. It is false, they cannot provide earthquake resistant buildings, it is neither practical, economical or possible. The magnitude of the forces that will be experienced are uncertain, and therefore the adopted design forces always have the probability of being exceeded. If it was possible to predict the absolute maximum force exerted by hurricanes, flood waters and hurricanes posed on this planet, it would just be uneconomical and impractical to resist the forces, and doing so would typically deny many from access to buildings and other amenities in the first place.

Whilst the Insurance council of Australia would prefer buildings to be stronger and less prone to failure: doing so would increase initial cost of buildings and so deny many people from having a building in the first place. More than anything however the issue is one of design philosophy.

Current structural design thinking is too simplistic: make the resistance of the structure greater than the forces exerted. Whilst calculating these forces and resistances may be complex, it doesn't require much thought, and today a brain dead unimaginative block of silicon can do the calculations (eg. a computer). Good design requires imagination, and qualitative appreciation of science, not just ability with arithmetic, which has really been the traditional basis of selecting engineers.

In the past engineering calculations required people who understood the mathematical expressions and could substitute numbers into them. Crunching the numbers however, and substituting one mathematical expression into another does not however constitute an understanding of the science and the real world phenomena embodied in and modelled by the mathematical expressions. To put it simply many of the so called engineers of the past were little more than human calculators or human computers: they were not designers, they did not have ingenuity, they did not have vision, and they were not leaders.

Clearly therefore with the introduction of electronic calculators, followed by the personal computer, many of these human calculators will find themselves displaced from employment: for they have little to contribute to their employing organisations, and little to contribute to industry and society in general. Their real trade was never engineering but human calculator: biological number cruncher. They were and are one of many cogs required to get the number crunching job done in reasonable time frame.

Now time frames and effort seem to be something both the public and building surveyors fail to understand. The engineering effort for a given structural form is the same irrespective of the size. A small garden shed requires as much engineering effort as a large industrial shed if they both have the same structural form. The cost of the engineering effort for a small structure (eg. garden shed) is likely to exceed the cost of the building, as a consequence it is important that such structures are designed and documented once and then built many times.

Owners and builders often draw up small structures and dump into council for development, expecting quick approval because many such similar structures already in the built environment. They are told to go get engineering. This is nonsense, and otherwise an irritation to the people concerned who don't see why they need to pay for engineering. To a certain extent they are right. There is no engineering involved: their is no frontier of science and technology to push forward. There is no scientific or technological hurdle to jump, just a regulatory obstruction.

The obstruction does not impose a need for engineering, it imposes a requirement for evidence-of-suitability. As far as the development Act/regulations are concerned suitability is defined solely in terms of compliance with the Building Rules, and the Building Rules are defined to be the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

Now something which is 100% compliant with the BCA, and which has only been assessed against the BCA criteria can be extremely defective and unsuitable for purpose: but the regulations and regulators do not care about that. The regulators consider themselves in the clear from responsibility for failures, if they enforce compliance with irrelevant and inadequate regulations. These regulators need a wake up call. When there is a failure, compliance with regulations may be looked at first: but then the regulations are brought into question and so are individuals. If the science of the day clearly shows that a regulation is inadequate, and that any person trained in such science should reasonably be expected to be aware of such inadequacy, then that individual may still be held accountable for the failure.

For example AS4100 steel structures code does not give consideration to direct torsional stresses or actions: for that matter it only gives token consideration to direct shear and that's a more fundamental issue than torsion. As a consequence of such deficiency in the code, a steel structure may well be 100% compliant with AS4100 but defective and unsuitable for purpose because it is over stressed in Torsion. This is especially a danger with modern 3D structural analysis software which code checks to AS4100, and otherwise ignores the torsion in the members: the torsion resulting because of the default fully rigid connections between all members. Similarly the ASI connection manuals are not called up by AS4100 nor by the BCA. Consequently a steel structure may be defective due to inadequate assessment of the connections, resulting in localised deformation of the connected members.

Now some people, engineers included have the view if something was important then it would be in the code, if not in the code then not important, then can be ignored. This can result in conflict between designer, client and regulator. Often owners, especially pushy developers, take drawings to the council and ask what is required to get approval. Strictly under the independence requirements of the development act/regulations the council should keep its mouth shut: but often they give design advice. However the developer and the council are not fully informed individuals with respect to the project: their views are therefore often flawed. The developer returns to the engineer, and says I only need to do this to get approval, your design is over conservative. The engineers response often being: if you prefer the councils design, then go get the council to design it and take full responsibility for it. Whilst I'm designing it and taking responsibility, this is what it shall be. Regulations do not equate to quality design, nor design suitable for purpose.

At best regulations only cover the most critical 20% of the critical characteristics or features which need to be considered to achieve a quality design. Ignoring the remaining 80% can still result in a defective design. Also as a legal imposition the regulations are poorly worded and poorly structured, and place people at risk.

That AS4100 is inadequate would not be a major issue if the Development Act/Regulations via the BCA did not give it legal standing. The problem is that the BCA calls AS4100 up as a deemed-to-satisfy provision. Still not a major problem, something which complies with a deemed-to-satisfy provision may still be considered defective because it fails to meet the BCA performance criteria. The problem arises however because the BCA states that if meet the deemed-to-satisfy provisions, then the design is deemed to satisfy the BCA performance requirements, and therefore is BCA compliant. The problem is that a structure merely compliant with AS4100 does not necessarily meet the BCA performance criteria, and may be otherwise be defective.

If the BCA was worded differently then a steel structure can be rejected for failing to meet the BCA performance requirements whilst it otherwise meets AS4100. The designer can then be required to follow various industry manuals, and the basic technical science (engineering science if you like, I prefer you didn't). Unfortunately its not appropriately.

At one point the ABCB was lauding the BCA as one of the few performance based codes in the world, and world leader. The BCA is not performance based. The BCA is very close to being a heap of irrelevant rubbish. For a building code the BCA has very little content to do with buildings  The ABCB would like the BCA, or the now national construction code (NCC) to be the single point of reference for the built environment. Such would be extremely hazardous. The BCA is only concerned with habitable buildings, anything not considered habitable is a class 10 building. If a building is class 10, then reference is made to BCA volume 2, this volume is little more than a prescriptive design-solution for houses, and typically has fewer generic performance criteria than BCA volume 1.

Clearly BCA volume 2 is inadequate for the design of highway and railway bridges, as it is equally inadequate for the design of sports safety nets, solar panels,, wind turbines, power stations, oil refineries, tall radio antenna, radar dishes, large scale optical telescopes, water tanks and tall water cooling towers, industrial chimney's and a multitude of other small to very large structures to be found in the built environment.

The federal government is pushing solar energy, there is a national standard for solar panel installations, which as far as I can tell largely covers the efficiency of the installation and safety of the electrical systems. There is a blind statement by the Clean Energy Council, that a solar panel installation shall comply with AS1170.2 This is not possible, as AS1170.2 does not contain adequate information to derive a pressure coefficient for the solar panels. On SEAint listserver I may have suggested that failing access to other information about flat plates then the pressure coefficients for mono-slope canopies are the nearest data available. However, if check the tables in AS1170.2, will find these tables are only valid for a h/d ratio less than or equal to one: that is a system which spans further than its height. An individual panel mounted so that people have access under so that can maintain with out shutting system down, will have a h/d ratio greater than 1: it is higher than it spans. The tables in AS1170.2 are not adequate, and therefore it is unknown whether the use of the table will provide a conservative estimate of pressure on the roof structure or unconservative estimate.

Now none of this would really matter, but some tin pot dictator figured their concepts of suitability of purpose should be written into law. For the most part suitability is dictated by insurance companies, who are unwillingly to pay out for replacement. So if a structure does not comply with the BCA, then chances are the insurance companies will not pay out for insurance if failure occurs. But here's the problem. The BCA is not adequate to determine the suitability of solar panel installation: not panels in isolation, not panels attached to the roof of an enclosed building, and not solar panels attached to a canopy roof such as verandah or carport. The latter in particular are becoming common, because verandahs and other canopies are often larger than the house, or otherwise cast a shadow on the house roof. Gable veradahs in particular form a valley between the verandah and house roof, so the house roof is in shade, with the outer face of the verandah roof facing the sun.

Now Queensland building authority has recognised the limitations of the AS1170.2 and with the James Cook University tropical cyclone research centre, they have conducted testing for solar panels mounted to roofs of enclosed buildings. This research mostly repeats research done elsewhere, though it seems more concerned with the pressure on the building roof than the pressures on the solar panels: so its use for assessing connection of solar panels is questionable. None the less it is a start, however still need research done for solar panels mounted on free roofs or canopies. Now such research should not be done by a single state: it is a national issue: AS1170.2 is national, the BCA is national, and it is the federal government pushing solar panels. More importantly the IEAust is national, it is supposed to be a learned society, so why hasn't the structural college identified the inadequacy of both AS1170.2 and the BCA? What kind of learned society is the IEAust? Recently it has stated that it will re-establish its learned society function, and start publishing technical notes, and its first technical note, now what would be expect that to be? Can't guess. Well its to be on mergers and acquisitions: good physics there. The IEAust is not an institution of engineers, of applied scientists, of technical scientists, its more an institute of managers and accountants.
Even worst last year the manager responsible for chartered status explictly stated we were all mistaken if we thought CP.Eng and NPER were concerned with technical competence: it is not. CP.Eng and NPER are concerned only with professionalism and ethics. Nice considerations may be if operating at the frontiers of science and technology: however it would be even nicer to know they were technically competent before they got there.

The regulators and the community are concerned with technical competence. Like the recent brick wall collapse in Victoria: they are all out looking for a scape goat: who to hold responsible. All parties involved are responsible. And most especially, and currently most vocal building union, which operates offices directly across the road from the accident. Competent trades people do not merely do, they question what they are being requested to do. They didn't merely place a hoarding in front of the wall they attached it to the wall: now what exactly was the point and purpose of that hoarding, and why was it higher than the wall? Relatively simple questions, and part of the answer is to protect the public from construction works. Now what code of practice controls adequacy of structures during construction and/or demolition works? Further more who is in charge and control of such works?

Declaring that a registered or licensed engineer has to be responsible in charge doesn't work. It hasn't worked in the USA, in the past few years there have been several collapses of construction cranes, and tunnel roof collapses. Similarly it hasn't worked in Queensland with bridges collapsing during construction, and now clearly RBP(engineer) not working in Victoria.

The issue is not about a one off assessment for registration or a license, nor is it about some silly continuing professional development (CPD) requirements. The issue concerns specific job functions, and an established body of knowledge required to full fill that job function. That body of knowledge is largely technical science and technical law. With respect to buildings those in the know about the technical law are Building Surveyors. In the past these building surveyors worked for government authorities and either had education in architecture or engineering, and chose to specialise in the regulations, in technical law. Now Building Surveyors have their own qualification framework, and as a consequence they have little experience in design, and not particularly significant knowledge of the science behind the regulations. The building surveyors potentially pose a hazard, and building survey technicians a greater hazard. This is why the regulations make reference to certificates from independent technical experts for certain areas of practice, such as the structure.

Assessment and regulations hinder design rather than promote. For example energy efficiency assessment is carried out by approved software operated by registered people. Only registered people can buy the software and in general there is no design version of the software. These energy efficiency assessors are not architects, nor HVAC engineers, nor are the designers of any description. In the main they are relatively unskilled operators of a black box software package. Such approach of getting drafters to draw up plans and then getting a certificate from an energy efficiency assessor is unproductive and does not result in quality design. No design really takes place.

Back to the asymmetry of knowledge issue. More traditionally, an architect would talk to the client, and talk to the engineer. The architect therefore acted as a go between, for the engineer and client. The architect seeks out what the client wants, and the engineers assist the architect to achieve. If look at ships and other water vessels it is naval architect, which determines the over all design concept and seeks the assistance of engineers to achieve. When it comes to computer software, it is an architect who designs the system and engineers who assist. When it comes to other products, industrial product designers design the over all product and are assisted by engineers. Industrial product designers sprung from the architects of buildings.For other fields the engineer may be the chief designer, but in such situations they are typically designing for themselves or an informed client. I say there is no asymmetry, and no need for licensing. There is always the possibility for some other person to liaise between the uniformed and the highly technical. The license doesn't help at all: doesn't help with doctors and doesn't help with builders.

It ultimately comes back to the individual being competent to handle their own affairs, and take responsibility. Regulations and laws in general are an attempt to remove individual responsibility. People work around regulations. For example there is alternative medicine: is it any less valid than main stream medicine? That is up to the individual to decide. We have a formal education system, we teach the scientific method, it is within everyone's capability to question and seek appropriate answers. They may not be able to carry out experimental research, but they can question that which is carried out. Medical scientists for example and dismally poor scientists and statisticians: one minute something causes cancer the next its good for you. Data has to be interpreted and such interpretation has subjective and political bias. Science is not free from politics: people have research grants and jobs they want to keep. People need to question, not blindly accept.

Laws, and regulations are generally imposed people who wish to exercise power over others. Further more the whilst the police are often referred to as a law enforcement agency, they do no such thing. The police do not enforce the law as such, but rather ensure the imposition of the penalties for breach of the law. Occupational health and safety advocates for example have little interest in solving the technical problems involved, they are simply power brokers who want to make penalties greater, based on stupid notions that doing so will act as a greater deterrent to unsafe practices. Unsafe practices can only stop, if safe practices are available to replace them. Alternatively we can simply shut down agriculture and mining, so as to stop all unsafe practices: somehow I don't believe the population will be happy about a lack of food and lack of electricity. If we are going to regulate, if we are going to resolve problems via the legal system, then the system needs to be well designed. Our existing regulations and codes of practice are poorly designed.

People in general go about doing what ever they want, ultimately they bump into regulations. The regulations are their to impose a minimum standard, not a good standard, not a high standard, but a barely adequate minimum standard. Though in some situations the standards are far too high to be practical in all situations to which they are applied. The point and purpose of moving to performance based codes and limit state design, is so that can design systems to be better suited to their specific purpose. The problem however is a lack of an over riding code of practice. For example the BCA should refer to a single structural code, and that code then refers to the appropriate Australian standards. Better still, would be an over riding technology code for the whole technological environment, which makes reference to the BCA as a subordinate code. Building surveyors know little about technology, and they are responsible for the BCA, to make the BCA the single point of reference for the built environment would be silly.

Business is dumping technology into the environment without proper thought and consideration, without proper research. The building industry since it largely deals with custom one-off constructions is one of the greatest perpetrators of such laxity. The most fundamental law covering such activity is the fair trading laws, requiring goods be fit for purpose. On top of this there may be some environmental laws. But in the main its a free for all.

Registration of structural engineers in South Australia based on CPEng NPER serves no purpose. It merely adds an extra operating cost for practising engineers, and further more CPEng NPER is no indication of competence. So practitioners will have to pay the IEAust fees for CPEng NPER and SA government for local registration. Further the requirement is not to ensure good design, it is to ensure thorough checking against the codes of practice.

Land surveyors measure and describe that which exists. Quantity surveyors monitor and measure quantities used in construction against specifications. Building surveyors check compliance of designs with existing regulations, and check construction for compliance with the approved documents and check variations for compliance with regulations.

Major problems with the building industry are:

1) Lack of control of materials, and systems supplied. (eg. bolts, steel sections, turn buckles which are supplied do not match specifications.)
2) Technically unskilled retailers are becoming suppliers to a technically uniformed industry. (eg. the builder knows no more about the required properties of steel than the retailer selling.)
3) Project Documents are just for the council to look at, so that approval can be granted.
4) Building Surveyors seem more concerned with disabled access ramps, than any other features of a building.
5) The BCA itself has very little about building systems, and the required characteristics of the components. The BCA is primarily about spaces. This makes alternative technologies such as SIP's, mud brick, rammed earth, straw bale, near impossible to get approval for.
6) People rush ahead seeking development approval, before proper design has been carried out, and before the proposal has been proven suitable for purpose or at least demonstrated code compliant. The onus is on the advocate or proponent of a building to submit evidence-of-suitability, it is not for the city council to prove it suitable.
7) People consider the city councils and regulations to be obstructive and hindering. (The real problem is owners, builders and plan drafters don't read the codes of practice)
8) There is a lack of a science and learning culture. If the IEAust acted as a learned society, then would be aware of all the limitations and deficiencies of the codes of practice, and there would be plenty of research to fund, and masters research degrees to pursue. But IEAust members are arrogant, and think the B.Eng contains all they need to know, and that the 4 years compared to everyone else's 3 year bachelor degree makes them superior. That 4th year however is rubbish and not altogether a full year, and often half taken up by industry experience or a major project. Others with 3 year qualifications are already working on real world projects. These so called engineers place themselves on a pedestal they do not deserve and wonder why everyone else keeps knocking the pedestal from under their feet.

I should point out that when I started university, the first year of the B.Eng we were told explicitly:

1) We were highly likely to be the first and only engineer working for our employer.
2) If we wanted real design experience we would have to go over seas.

So for those being hampered by the IEAust getting immigration visas to come to Australia, the local experience you don't have is zero experience. Local Experience equals zero experience. You are over qualified, with in a few years you are likely to be promoted above the person who appointed you. Should also know that the IEAust has been appointed by the government to review applications, but if you already live in Australia, then the IEAust is irrelevant, join it if wish or ignore: its a voluntary organisation, and many think it charges fees for service of little value: and membership certainly has no relevance towards defining competence. I certainly wouldn't place the IEAust in a position of responsibility to assess technical competence: I would consider such appointment negligent.

Forget about engineers and engineering. The building industry does not need registered structural engineers. We have an established body of knowledge, call this body of knowledge technical science. The people who employ this technical science, call them technicians, associate technologists, and technologists. Associate technologists is my proposed new name for engineering associates. I propose this new name because, Engineers Australia since it shut down the institute of engineering associates as largely failed to accredit appropriate study programs, and otherwise corrupted the concept of engineering associates, by renaming them engineering officers, and otherwise equating them to WFEO engineering technicians. In South Australia we had an industrial award for working conditions for technical officers: it distinguished between technicians and engineering associates. The current shortage of engineers has highlighted the importance of engineering associates. Many jobs currently occupied by graduates with a B.Eng were previously occupied by engineering associates, and the people with the jobs are never going to gain the experience to become chartered engineers. But they have the B.Eng so can call themselves engineers, and will not pursue IEAust qualifications, since such are irrelevant to their job.

The problem is that all graduates should be pursuing status as a chartered engineering officer as a first career stepping stone, not pursuing something based on equivalent academic award. So just because I have a B.Tech doesn't make me a technologist. I'm just a graduate with a degree and 16 plus years experience (MIIE, gradTIEAust), I don't see any value expending time upgrading my IEAust membership status. There can be no pride or value in getting the grade. Even MIIE has little value to me, I applied to join and was granted full membership. The Australian institutes and institutions are more like social networking clubs than real learned societies, and they often confuse functions with unions and employer organisations. That in itself is a major problem towards developing a competent work force. Even CPD is a joke, its more concerned with paying fees for certificates than actually learning anything relevant. There is something politically motivated about registration and it is not the welfare of the public.

Both building surveyors and building survey technicians have inadequate knowledge of the technical science behind the codes of practice. For example I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of houses are beyond the scope of the timber framing code, yet they are still approved as compliant. The timber framing code AS1684 is only valid for simple rectangular buildings: buildings with wall plans that step in and out and have roofs with multiple hips, ridges and valleys are beyond the scope of the code. The code cannot adequately access the adequacy of the ceiling diaphragm holding the walls up, nor access the stability of the roof structure. It might be possible to get the size of rafter from the code, but that doesn't mean the structure complies with the code: the assembly can still be inadequate and unsuitable for purpose. Throwing engineers into the mix doesn't improve the situation. Timber framed houses are expected to result in quick approval: if engineer questions compliance they will be considered as inexperienced and to not know what they are doing. Everyone will simply find someone who will grant approval, and accept the risk.

Once again the issue is not that the code is inadequate, the issue is that the code becomes embodied into the peoples law, and severed from the physical laws. Minimum balustrade height for example, is nonsense. There have been various cases where people have been injured and so called experts have declared if the balustrade height complied with the code then persons would not have been injured. In all cases I am aware off, this is total nonsense, and the experts called upon are anything but expert. The appropriate height to ensure that a specific individual will not topple over the balustrade cannot be placed in the code. The code can only contain values which most people are unlikely to topple over, but cannot guarantee a specific individual will not. Even if the top rail was  50 mm lower than specified in the code: then for the individual injured whilst messing around on the stairs and being irresponsible: the height of the rail may just be as needed, in fact making it 200 mm lower than specified in the code may be more suitable. For that matter a lot of humans may fall under the code specified top rail. Code compliance is fine, if the code suits the situation it is applied to. Making the codes law a prosecuting people for non-compliance is ludicrous.

However, whilst South Australia does have a problem of blind application of code requirements, the more immediate issue to resolve is the lack of respect for complying with regulations in the first place.

Now houses are said to be too expensive. Part of the problem is property speculators buying up available land and building houses to rent. Rental properties are also too expensive, because compared to the past where landlords actually owned land and property, modern landlords don't they expect the tenant to pay off the mortgage and provide a profit stream as well. Thus for the tenant rental offers no real benefit over buying a house: if they can get a mortgage. If they cannot get a mortgage chances are they also will experience problems getting rental property: because as I said the owners have a mortgage to pay off and profits to earn and so they want long term residents: and proof they can afford to be so.

So here's the thing. The Building Code of Australia (BCA) is revised each and every year, whilst this is largely clarification of intent, there are some changes to requirements. Therefore a house built last year may not comply with BCA:2013 when it is issued in May. Houses built in the 1970's and earlier certainly have low probability of complying with the BCA.

There is thus benefit in getting an Archicentre consultant (architect) out to do a property inspection. Now this inspection likely only to cover the basic quality of the property. If there are cracks these will be assessed as being structural or aesthetic. If structural then the need for a structural specialist (engineer) will be required. Mostly the assessment will determine the need for work to repair plumbing, electrical systems, and carpentry and brick work, along with garden maintenance and landscaping. An architect can probably also offer advice on renovations, extensions and additions. However such assessment won't entirely cover the issue of BCA compliance.

Existing dwellings do not need to be brought into compliance with current BCA requirements. Whilst it may not be required to bring a building into compliance with the current version of the BCA, it doesn't mean that as a buyer you cannot desire or want a building to be compliant with the current BCA. If you buy a new building it will be required to comply with the current BCA, it will be more energy efficient than older buildings and therefore have lower on going operating costs.

Getting a building surveyor to inspect and assess for compliance with the current codes can therefore be beneficial. Getting a quantity surveyor to cost the required improvements even better. With this information as a potential buyer, you can compare the cost of the property against the cost of making it code compliant. Is it worth while renovating the house to make it code compliant, or will the house need to be bulldozed and replaced because there is too much to do to it? The house can be valued as worthless, with the land only being of value. An informed buyer has a certain amount of control over what they get. Real estate agents are required to check development approvals. If there is illegal construction, development approval is required before the sale can progress. But there is no requirement to compare the house against the current BCA, nor requirement to get an independent inspection carried out. Real estate agents don't just work for sellers they also work for buyers. Showing a house is rubbish hampers a sale and so sales person doesn't get their commission.

Now if we get building surveyors and architects assessing the existing housing stock for the benefit of buyers, and show that permitted resources to be wasted on rubbish houses, and that hammer house prices down, results in demolition and construction of newer more energy efficient, and structurally superior houses. Then we don't need to pressure the government to release or re-zone land for housing, demolishing and renovating existing will energise the building industry and keep it going.

If the new houses are appropriately designed by suitably qualified individuals, then will not need heating or air conditioning, and solar panels likely supply all other energy requirements.

This does not require engineers, it needs better educated building designers, and better educated building surveyors. Once upon a time architects designed and constructed large monumental buildings, and carpenters and masons constructed smaller simpler buildings. There is no need for engineers in building design, the architects should be capable of designing the structure and the electrical and mechanical building services without need of engineers. To invent the concept of architectural engineers for structures, and building engineers for electrical and mechanical services is inefficient. One person should be able to design the whole building, and assess all its systems. If employ an HVAC engineer then end up with mechanical air conditioning system, if architect does their job properly no such mechanical system should be required. If an architect does their job properly then also have no need for building works contractor (BWC) or building works supervisor (BWS). The problem is that the vast majority of architects are no better than plan drafters. The other problem is the regulations which imposes need for BWC and BWS. Problem is many architects just want to be artists not building designers nor building providers (builders). Problem is neither architects nor civil engineers set up construction or building companies, and neither has demonstrated superiority over existing building companies. Problem is the building industry is far too fragmented.

Problem is nobody really pays any attention to the needs and desires of the community, to the wants of the market. They are self centred protecting occupational turf.

As I have said before it is not competition we need to protect it is diversity. Competition does not produce diversity, it does not generate alternatives, it does not provide options, it does not produce efficiency. We have brick veneer houses on timber frame, filled with air conditioning systems, due to a lack of imagination. More building companies does not equal diversity, nor does it equal ingenuity, it just represents many people wanting to get on the same band wagon. It simply provides an option to which supplier is to supply the same old rubbish in the same old way. No variation in product, no variation in the process of producing. A lack of vision, a lack of innovation.

Registration of structural engineers, equals a lack of imagination, and lack of vision. If these dull code crunchers are to be called engineers: then what do we call the people who place human habitat beyond the orbit of Pluto, to step out into deep space, and enable humanity to exist beyond the life of earth?

These needed code crunchers fall into the same category as land surveyors, quantity surveyors and building surveyors. So call them structural surveyors, do not call them engineers. Call them certifier(structural), call them approved person (structural), call them certifying authority (CA: structural). Certifier structural), certifier(HVAC), certifier(Electrical) seems far more suitable for the task at hand. Call them building surveyor (BS:structural), and the current role call that BS:architectural. The issue is that building surveyors are no longer taken from ranks of architects and civil engineers, and consequently their education is not adequate for the task at hand. Further noting that a BS(structural) would only be permitted to certify buildings, whilst a Surveyor(structural) can certify any structure. In neither case however is any of them involved in engineering, they are only concerned with the established body of knowledge which is technical science and technical law: there are no frontiers being pushed forward.

{I got lost somewhere in all that. I'll try and write some shorter more focused articles on the issues raised. I try covering too many issues at once, run off original track and have a hard time getting back.}

Sun 2013-Apr-14  00:26

More on Licensing

Read recently in "The Registered Building Practitioner", volume 1 Number 4 (summer 2012), a publication of the Victorian Building Commission , that there are calls by the Australian Glass and Glazing Association (AGGA) to introduce national licensing for all glazing professionals. This being an opportune time because of moves to introduce a national licensing scheme for builders and other trades.

Whilst I agree there are problems with glazing, especially worthless certificates issued declaring glazing is installed and compliant with AS 1288. The certificates are worthless because AS 1288 is now a materials design code dependent on the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and the loading code AS1170. If the certificate does not identify the BCA classification, the structural importance level, and the AS1170 loading parameters, especially the barrier loading type, then the certificate hasn't stated anything of value. Licensing won't solve this problem. {Not the least of which I believe it is AGGA members issuing the certificates, in the first place, so they need to improve the training they provide.}

Licensing doesn't work for builders, plumbers or electricians. For that matter it also doesn't work for medical doctors, architects or engineers. Where "working" is protecting the community from unscrupulous and incompetent suppliers.

As far as I know when such licensing was introduced, there was not widespread incidence of low quality work being dumped on an unsuspecting population. Neither was the population stupid and in need of protecting by a guardian parent. All licensing schemes hidden behind the scenes are about protection and enlarging of markets by established players.

The established players typically start out supplying low quality rubbish, as they get bigger, they acquire the resources to develop and improve their product. At such point they have a scientific, technological and economic advantage over other players in the market. If they can get standards imposed and legislation passed to create performance criteria that new players cannot possibly meet, then the established players keep their lions share of the market, and prevent new players from entering, because the start up costs are too high. Secondly the smaller players already in the market will in the main be wiped out, allowing the older established players to grab markets back. For the real issue is loss of market share to new entrants to the market. The creation of standards, codes of practice and legislation is an alternative, back door approach to creating a cartel and establishing a monopoly. It is all acceptable because it is presented with an emotional base of protecting the welfare of the community.

Licensing doesn't work, it is a nonsense approach to protecting the welfare of the community. Licensing is a low quality QC (quality control) approach to product quality. QC does not prevent defects, it mostly provides traceability to who produced the defects so that the person can be found and punished. QC in a factory tends to prevent defective goods reaching the public, or at least retrieving the defective goods if the system missed them. For the building industry the public is the first to bump straight into the defective product, whilst construction is taking place.

If someone builds something without a license they will get fined, and possibly required to give assurance they will cease carrying on building works without a license. It doesn't matter whether the work is quality work or not, they are simply punished for not having the license. If a licensed builder produces low quality work, then they could loose their license, and be fined. In the age of the Internet these assurances and losses of license can be tracked at the office of business and consumer affairs website. Which is all very nice, but some poor customer experienced the low quality service. The licensing system didn't work when it was called upon to full fill its function: protect the public.

Register of assurances

License register

Occupational health safety and welfare (OHS&W) is another area where the QC approach is taken and it doesn't work. This time people get injured and reports about the incidents, whether it be caused by defective product or poor work practices is reported on the Internet at SafeWork SA.

Proponents of OHS&W regulation typically argue for higher penalties to provide a greater deterrent against non-compliance. Rather than focus on solving the real problem these people want to set up increasingly adversarial systems. If an employer is paying out ever increasing amounts on fines then they don't have the resources to fix the problem. Further more the regulations don't provide solutions. So an employer has to provide a safe work place but it is not stated exactly how. However since the 1980's responsibility has been split between employee and employer. Prior to that an employer may have been held 100% responsible for an employee not wearing safety glasses. Still earlier still it was just simply the employees problem. With responsibilities split the employee is required to wear the safety glasses, the employer may be required to supply, and the employer is also required to ensure the employee does wear the glasses. It is that latter part that becomes problematic. Personal protective equipment can be a hindrance to performing some tasks, or just plain inappropriate for the task environment. I remember several years back a railway engineer, asking why they needed to impose the wearing of safety helmets (hardhats), stating that sunhats would be more appropriate. Given that in the middle of no where it was highly unlikely anything would fall on anyone's head, construction work it may have been, but different than constructing buildings and bridges. Regulation gone crazy. With an adversarial system punishing for non-compliance, do not want silly impositions.

With such silly requirements imposed by adversarial system, it is not surprising that employers start to fight back. Demonstrating that what the pedantic inflexible officers enforcing the regulations want to impose is generating the hazard, not removing it. Finding the administrators and enforcers of the regulation at fault and guilty of causing accidents, then leads to creating regulations which distance the administrators and enforcers from liability. To do this the regulations become less explicit, more abstract, conceptual and generic. The result is a requirement to demonstrate through rational argument and use of scientific knowledge that a product and process are suitable for purpose and pose little hazard to life and limb.

Thus we have the BCA which is built around the concept of documentary evidence-of-suitability, rather than being built around authoritarian rule. It is governments which impose authoritarian rule by calling the BCA up in legislation, and similarly for the new national model code for OHS {welfare apparently not important nationally}.

As far as I can determine prior to the 1994 Development Act, people could just go to the local city council with a proposal of building works and council would assess and otherwise advise of changes to make before the proposal would be approved. The council is no longer permitted to do that. Both the BCA and the development act and regulations place the onus on the building proponent to demonstrate compliance by presenting adequate documentary evidence-of-suitability. Whilst expert judgement is one acceptable form of evidence, such evidence needs to be such that it can be validated by another such expert. In other words mere opinion is not acceptable it has to be rationalised and defendable judgement. If there was a coronal inquest, and the judgement would likely be tossed out off court, then it is not an acceptable judgement to defend granting approval.

It should also be noted that development approval only has a passing interest in OHS&W and the constructability of the building proposal. The assumption is that the building proponent has already determined that they can build the thing before approval is granted, or will otherwise figure out how to construct if approval can be obtained. Development approval is concerned with whether the building will pose a hazard to the community or to users once it exists in the built environment, it is not concerned with the feasibility of bringing it into existence, nor the safety of such construction process. Development approval may however cover some OHS&W issues if the work task to be carried out in the building space has a direct bearing on the design of the building. For example the design of a hazardous chemical facility requires design of the work space and a building to suit. To administer this process we now have building surveyors registered as private certifiers, but this does not ensure that the certifier has adequate competence to properly and thoroughly assess any building which crosses their desk. A whole team of people are required to get it near right, and most of the people involved have no form of license. though they may have various forms of formal higher education and certification of such.

The building works contractors act and regulations, is also misleading. It licenses building works contractors (BWC) and building works supervisors (BWS). The BWC license is mostly concerned with finances to start and finish a contract, ability to manage financial resources, and the provision of various warranties and insurances. The BWS license is concerned with planning, coordinating and supervising construction activity. A builder does not have to know what a bressemer, lintel, mullion, transom, corbel or dragon beam is. There task is to organise safe and supervise safe construction practices. Licenses however have traditionally been granted to carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers and electricians, and are still so granted. Architects are assumed licensed for purposes of BWS, but otherwise require a BWC license if set up a construction company. Engineers, technologists and engineering associates are not included. It should however be noted that the building contractors act is mostly concerned with residential construction and protecting a public assumed to be uniformed buyers of builders services. In other words wouldn't really be looking for someone with a BWS to supervise construction of a bridge. The problem with construction of a bridge is cannot rely on the civil, structural or construction engineer having adequate competence to carry out the work. Engineers want national licensing and registration to restrict practice.

Once again I say that licensing doesn't work. It is not an adversarial QC system that we need to be putting into place, such are the type of systems we should be aiming to get rid off. We should be aiming for assurance of quality or quality assurance (QA). But unfortunately QC is so ingrained that attempts to implement QA get stuffed up by continuation of QC systems.

The very idea of wanting to get ISO:9000 accreditation means the party has not got QA philosophy or the right attitude to implement QA. One major attitude adjustment for QA is getting rid of the accept or reject mentally, wanting ISO:9000 accreditation means you still have such mentality.

ISO:9000 also fosters confusion about excessive documentation and traceability. Then there are confusions concerning getting rid of inspection.

When the 1994 development act was being brought in, there were pushes to implement QA, part of that led to councils eliminating their inspections of building works. A few years later a minsters report recommended inspecting a minimum of 20% of approvals. More recently the development act and regulations have been amended imposing 60% of approvals.

The simple rule for QA is:

Quality cannot be inspected in, it has to be designed in.

That is both product and process need to designed, and they need to be designed concurrently. That is an entire system has to be designed to supply and produce a quality product. Buildings and building products are not supply by systems which have been intentionally designed to provide quality product. All this custom design nonsense actually produces low quality rubbish and a failure to supply all that are in need. Would there really be problems with health care, water supply, housing and education around the world, if systems were properly designed to supply to the demand? I believe not. We have a problem because modern business is set up to generate monetary profits not supply demand. The assumption is if didn't meet demand wouldn't make profit. But missing the point, the supply is deliberately constrained and priced high, and so falls short of meeting the full demand.

To reduce variation in the production process also need to minimise product variety. Human nature being as it is, most builders simply just push forward on the basis of business as usual without reading the specifications continuously. Thus that small architectural feature, that outcrop in the wall disappears as the builder constructs a straight wall. Such loss of feature is not entirely the builders fault, it is largely the architects fault. If the architect wanted such feature, then they should have made it clearer, and otherwise been on site at appropriate times supervising and ensuring the building is constructed to specification. Unfortunately designers design, and others build. If a designer is on site then chances are they are not fully focused on the job, because their mind is elsewhere dreaming up their next innovation. So it is often necessary that functions of builder and designer be separated. But that then imposes need for coordination and communication, and the larger the team the greater the importance.

On one hand our civilisation is a massive industrial machine, on the other it is a living, growing and evolving organism. The machine is an assembly of cogs and each of these cogs needs maintaining, and replacing if the machine is to continue to function correctly. As a growing organism, the machine has to get larger and support more and more people, it needs more cogs to expand its capabilities. But it needs a nursery, somewhere it can nurture the growth and development of the new cells, which will sustain the growth and evolution of this higher form of life. As an evolving organism, the machine doesn't need all the cogs it needed yesterday, and it needs entirely new kinds of cogs to meet its needs tomorrow.

It is this evolution which makes licensing of engineers for example a dumb idea. Has I have mentioned before, to me engineers operate at the frontiers of science and technology. I am also fairly certain that, is also the stance taken by the IEAust in the past, and also that set down in the WFEO Washington accord. So like it or not, last years engineer is this years technician. Or if we use the WFEO occupational classes, then last years engineer, is this years engineering technologist, and last years engineering technologist is this years technician. The point is this, last year as a society we did not know how to design a reinforced concrete shell as a water tank. This year we do, so whilst last year it was a risky experiment, it is now an established technology, and we do not expect it to perform poorly. So whilst last year we needed someone with a B.Eng to figure out how to design the concrete water tank, this year we want someone with a B.Tech who knows exactly how to design a concrete water tank. Next year we will push it down to an engineering design technician, and the year after that we will just get on with building and installing them.

To create legislation in a society where B.Eng is seen as having prestige, though those with are constantly whining they don't, just causes inefficiencies and places lifes at risk. Lifes are placed at risk because the graduate with the B.Eng straight from school does not have adequate knowledge of the established technology, and it is adopting and adapting the established technologies where the real need exists. It thus becomes an imposition on industry to try and train those with a B.Eng to be competent for an occupation which more rightly belongs to those with a B.Tech or even an Associate Degree or Advanced Diploma. Higher education is good if its the right education at the right time and the right place.

Put simply by pushing the B.Eng we are maintaining the established scientific body of knowledge but industry and society is loosing the established body of knowledge concerning the established technologies it has become dependent upon. Such is not acceptable. The problem arise because the collective behaviour of individuals without coordination does not provide the systems necessary to provide the lifestyles and levels of performance the people have come to expect.

It is potentially the operation of systems which is more important than the behaviour of people. Most laws are created to deliberately constrain human behaviour, which some consider inappropriate. For such behaviour penalties or punishments are imposed. Most such laws are born out off our feudal and tribal pasts, our central government is little more than the remnants of the dominant tribe which wielded the greatest power over the region. So that laws are based mostly on might is right. Can impose any constraint on human behaviour you desire as long has have the might to enforce. As population grows, that might fizzles out.

So drivers licenses for example don't work.The roads are filled with people who exceed the speed limit. Must be community groups at least once a year express the opinion that government just uses speed cameras to generate revenue. With such revenue they buy more cameras, they do not improve the roads. Once again it is QC versus QA approach.

The QC approach is to use the statistics collected by the speed cameras to identify the hot spots, then to increase monitoring of the hotspots. This produces more speeding tickets and the accusations of just using for generating revenue.

The QA approach is to use the statistics to bring the process into control. People exceed the speed limit, fining them doesn't change their behaviour. Therefore calls to make the fines higher and a greater deterrent are just counter productive. People exceed the speed limit because they don't spend all their time watching the speedometer, and they shouldn't they are likely to drive into stobie pole. {Anyone noticed how recently cars have a mind of their own. The news keeps reporting cars left the road, car collided, car drove through house wall. Apparently none of the cars have drivers, it seems the machines are rebelling against their enslavement.}

People exceed the speed limit because the safest line to take is typically to match the speed of surrounding vehicles, assuming they are travelling at correct speed, if you enter the traffic flow without seeing a speed sign. Speedometers on cars are also not precision instruments, so there is variation in the speeds of cars in the traffic stream. Therefore fining people for things not entirely in their control is not acceptable.

So there maybe a particular hotspot. that doesn't mean should go fine everyone on that road. The QA task is determine why people exceed the speed limit and also is the speed limit appropriate. Rather than have the police operate speed cameras so that people can be punished for breach of the law, it would be preferable that the department of transport properly monitor the rubbish they dump in the built environment, and properly fix the defects. For example with the default speed limit being dropped from 60km/h to 50km/h there are now an inadequate number of speed limit signs. If enter road at the right place may see the 60km/h sign, if enter elsewhere may consider the street is 50km/h. Other places there are signs which are just inappropriate, for example 70km/h speed limits on bends, get round the bend and hit traffic jamb at traffic lights. For such location the speed limit should have stayed at 50km/h, and the 70km/h sign placed on the far side of the traffic lights. It is a simple design issue, possibly a faulty installation issue which is costly to put right.

No one should consider our roads are well designed and ever will be perfect, the task however is the journey of monitoring and improving our road designs, and then physically improving the roads. This will not be improved by licensing the civil engineers involved. It can only be improved by improving the systems which provide the roads and traffic control systems. It requires observing, measuring and recording the defects in the system and having other systems in place to take corrective action. An adversarial punitive system hinders getting appropriate information to make corrections and consequently the hazards remain.

Back to the glazing. There is no doubt that inappropriate glazing is being installed, and that some people have been injured as a consequence  There is also no doubt that many existing buildings have inappropriate glazing installed. Buildings which are work spaces, need to comply with the BCA. That statement is ambiguous. The development act requires a building comply with the BCA at the time of approval. If the BCA changes during construction there is seldom the requirement for the building to be upgraded to comply with current code. Nor is there any requirement to upgrade the building at any future date as the BCA is revised. However a work space, is governed by the OHS&W act and regulations, and it requires compliance with the BCA, whilst the building space is used as a work space. That is there is an implication that a work space complies with the BCA current at the time the building space is used for work: that means given the BCA is revised each and every year employers have to keep their buildings compliant. A business potentially could be shutdown because the buildings have become far too removed from compliance with current code. Note however the OHS&W regulations are only concerned with health and safety issues in the BCA, not energy efficiency or green requirements. However if the OHS&W requirements impose an air-conditioned environment and that needs constructing then it needs to comply with current BCA energy efficiency requirements. It just depends on the situation. Everything requires thought and consideration and designing to be fit for purpose: part of the fitness however is imposed by national codes of practice. Fitness for purpose however is primarily a matter of personal opinion, of subjective judgement. When it comes to codes of practice building little empires and the exercise of power through authoritarian rule. As a community we are increasingly prepared to slap such little dictators down.

I find it unacceptable that a judge finds a government department liable, because it should have known its clients would likely get angry, and in such anger smash glazing and injure themselves. The individual is responsible for getting angry and controlling their own behaviour, if they choose to lash out violently and injure themselves that is their own fault: it does not have anything to do with whether the glazing was appropriate or not. Similarly two youths fighting on a stairwell, and falling and one becoming a paraplegic, does not have anything to do with whether the stair balustrade was at a code compliant height or not. Fighting is unacceptable behaviour in a stairwell. The experts involved in such cases seem to have been more authoritarian pedantic idiots blindly imposing code clauses without thought to intent and origin.

A slightly different situation is two youths in stairs arguing and a third person attempts to get pass, is bumped and knocked over the balustrade. Whilst a higher code compliant balustrade would have reduced the likelihood of toppling over the top rail. it doesn't change the fact that the third person took an unnecessary risk, due to likely arrogance and impatience, nor that the youths should not have been arguing in a public place.

A balustrade set at the code compliant height is not safe nor suitable for all humans. Taller than average people will topple over, shorter than average people will fall under. Putting glass balustrades on stairs is inappropriate in my opinion, I would classify as bad design. The architects and glazers would say its code compliant. I don't care, code compliant or not it is bad design to put glass balustrade on a stairway in a public place. Just as it is bad design to the code to have horizontal rails, or any other feature which permits climbing, in a balustrade.

Solid infill panels on balustrades on stairways are poor design because children cannot properly reach and gain benefit from handrails. A lower hand rail would pose a climbing feature. Closely spaced vertical rails however provide an alternative support system, not only for children but also for persons who slip or otherwise loose their footing on the steps. Now I doubt the glazing industry would be in favour of reducing their market by eliminating glass balustrades from stairs. Not the least of which is that architecturally if glass balustrades are eliminated from the stairs, then likely also removed from the landings so as to achieve aesthetic continuity.

The problem with the glazing industry as with most industries, is the guy installing the glass is not independent they have a vested interest in making a sale. The buyer has a vested interest in keeping their immediate costs down. A could be and maybe, about some future accident, doesn't tend to figure heavily in purchasing decisions.

At present building surveyors are more heavily involved in granting approvals for development applications than acting as consultants to building owners and buyers of buildings.

A few years back there was a balcony or more of an external decking collapse. The captain of some school team and the school principal had organised some entertainment and lunch for mothers of students. This event took place at the school captains house rather than the school, the external decking collapsed and people were seriously injured. Now I don't know who has been held liable for such injury, but it should be noted that houses are not designed as places of assembly, whilst schools do have places designed for assembly. The school principal is responsible for the use of the school property in a correct manner and providing a safe working environment for school personnel, students, and visitors  A principal however has a multitude of other issue to worry about other than proper use of the school buildings. Consequently a school principal really should not make decisions about the use of various building spaces with out consultation with a building surveyor. As I noted above a work space has to be compliant with the current version of the BCA, not merely compliant at the point in time approval was granted to go ahead and build.

It would therefore be preferable that all building owners and/or employers have access to building consultants who carry out at least an annual check that no changes have taken place to the use of the space or to the BCA which would make the buildings cease to be compliant.

Take glazing in shopping centres for example. Such glazing is largely installed as a matter of interior fitout, whether development approval is sought or required is not always clear. As to whether the glazing needs to be designed for crowd loading or not is also another matter of opinion. It is a matter that needs to be considered, and then documentary evidence-of-suitability produced to demonstrate the need or lack of need for crowd load design. Is that a job for the glazier licensed or otherwise? I very much doubt it.

The person with the authority is the building surveyor, the person who grants provisional building rules consent, which then leads to the council granting development approval. If the use of a building is not changed then development plan consent is typically not required, but building rules consent may be required for changes to the building.

Change the layout of an office, a factory, a shopping centre, a hospital, a school, or even a house, then there is potential to introduce an hazard which wasn't previously present. So whilst may not require the services of an architect or engineer, it would still be good practice to seek the services of a building surveyor, for they are the people most familiar with the regulations. It should be noted however that building surveyors are not designers, they seldom can find a design solution which meets the end-users needs and complies with the code, their skill is assessing whether a proposal has achieved compliance with the code. So if looking for a solution will typically need the services of an architect, engineer or other designer: certainly not a drafter.

One of the issues which fuelled the growth of ISO:9000 accreditation is that of double inspection. Double inspection is wasteful, it refers to suppliers inspecting and approving their product before release to the customer, and the buyer not trusting the supplier and inspecting and approving before releasing into their production process  May have noticed from the news that all the car industry seems capable of doing is tracing defective goods after release and recalling to fix the problem. The point of QA is not to release defective product in the first, not make make defective product, and not to release a defective design to production. I reiterate quality cannot be inspected in, it has to be designed in. Both product and process have to be designed, entire production and distribution systems need to be designed: not just some widget.

Our primary control systems are built around government regulations and codes of practice, and building surveyors are the primary guardians of compliance for the built environment. However our legal system is built around evidence. No one really cares if the building surveyor, architect or engineer says something is adequate. Adequacy has to be proven. The regulation for the built environment are built around conceptual proof of adequacy before permitting a potential hazard to be placed in the built environment.

The problem with the system is that it can only assess building proposals if a proposal is submitted for approval. Secondly it has been reduced to a paper shuffling exercise, thus no independent checks and balances that the approved designs have been complied with. The certificate of compliance issued by the builder which constructed the building is not independent, not even if it does require signing by the owner/buyer.

People think they can do what ever they want on their own property. In theory they can, on condition that:

1. What they do on their property stays on their property.
2. What they do on their property does not have an impact on neighbouring properties.
3. The property remains their property.

As soon as changes to property involve other people, then it becomes necessary to consider the expectations of the population at large, and these expectations are largely catered for by the codes of practice and regulations.

I don't care if a glazier is licensed or not. What I care about is the quality of the product they supply, and a license does not and cannot ensure such.

Given time I could design a business enterprise which provides construction services which far exceed the capabilities of a licensed builder, the regulatory system would require I appoint a licensed building works supervisor (BWS). Since the regulations do not permit me to lock the BWS in a cupboard and keep them from being a nuisance and messing things up, I would have to design the system to cater for the presence of a useless cog (the BWS). They think they are useful, I think they are a public menace. A carpenter should not be granted a BWC or BWS, a competent and capable carpenter they may be, but that doesn't mean they have the skills to supervise others and coordinate the needs of large building projects. The BWS license is not about competency as a carpenter, bricklayer, concreter or glazier. The BWS is about the competency to plan, design and manage the construction works, and that may require coordinating the work of one or more trades. It certainly involves getting other people to do the work. A brick layer may be able to work on his own, however he seldom makes his own bricks, and consequently he has to plan the works, which may involve the delivery of bricks in appropriate sized batches at suitable times. Depending on the company a brick layer works for they may never have to work such things out because some one else organises all resources for the project. Business systems can determine the efficiency with which a product is supplied and the quality of that product.

The problem with the building industry is far too many sole practitioners, and consequently an unwarranted division of labour, along with poor coordination, and unclear lines of authority and responsibility. I was watching some engineering construction programme the other day, and one of the bosses said there was a problem with their being too many people in charge, should only have two bosses. No! Unity of command should not be violated. If there is an hierarchy then only obey your immediate boss, sure risk getting fired by the bosses superior: but the superior should only act through their appointed officers. So either the appointed officer hands control over to their superior, or the superior removes the appointed officer. The hierarchy is their for a reason. The front line personnel have different information then the staff, and the staff have a bigger picture than the front line.

The building industry lacks clear lines of authority, responsibility and command. Not the least of which is most trades people running around thinking they are not responsible for anything and council responsible for everything. They only seek certificates from engineers, on the assumption they are not responsible and the engineer becomes responsible. Big mistake. All the sales people making use of engineers certificates are taking on role of designer, and are the person responsible in charge of the project.

That shed the sales person sold last week. Well the design was perfectly correct in its own right, but it was totally unsuitable for the customers purposes, and the sales person is responsible for declaring the product was suitable for the customers needs. Ah! But the salesperson will says its not their fault the council approved it. So they did. But the salesperson didn't disclose the real purpose of the building in the development application, though the customer did clearly point out what they wanted the building for. The sales person is acting has designer, lacks suitable qualifications to do so, and doesn't carry professional indemnity insurance, though the employer may carry appropriate insurance to cover  supply of product which proves defective.

Similar situation exists for fabricated nail plated roof trusses, carports and verandah's, stairs, balustrades, retaining walls and a multitude of other building products. Most products however are subject to the requirements of fair trading laws: and not covered by any product specific regulations.

Now retaining walls was another issue raised in the Registered Building Practitioner publication. More important than the retaining wall here is the issue raised: that is certain building works say those below $5000 do not require licenses or builders warranties. Therefore quote the work below $5000 dollars or what ever limit applies, and provide without appropriate warranties.

A similar issue applies to size of building works which require development approval. Some think the constraint applies to each construction contract, rather than the development of the property. So for example, if works less than 10sq.m don't require approval: split the work into smaller portions less than 10 sq.m. Within a few years time have 100 sq.m of development. Such is not the intent of the code, and the 100sq.m of development to the property would be illegal without development approval. To be certain about approval, proposals should be documented, then a building surveyor consulted for guidance as to whether approval is needed.

Now people do these things because development approval is seen as too time consuming and too inflexible, so they build without approval, and it seems even find builders who will build without approvals.

But peoples perception of city councils come from plan drafters, builders and their own encounters with council: basically people who themselves don't know what they are doing. For example builders regularly tell their clients that council always changing the rules. Not true, council rarely changes the rules, even in BCA is revised each year. The builders don't know the rules, the builders know prescriptive building solutions which comply with the rules most of the time, but not all of the time. When they hit the situation of the building solution not complying with the actual rules, the builders think the rules have been changed, and otherwise find themselves unable to find a suitable building solution.

The principal problem lies with the buyers and the suppliers. The buyers don't want to waste time on design, they therefore do not want to waste time with architects, engineers and other design consultants. They also think builders fees are extortionate for little service. Consequently we also have a large DIY owner-builder culture: they can organise supply of trades(subbies) themselves, and check quality of work they are paying for. More importantly however they mostly just want to buy off-the-shelf product which immediately meets their needs. Consequently they either go direct to suppliers which sell complete building products (eg. sheds, carports, verandah's, retaining walls, houses etc...).

What they really need is an independent consultant to look after their needs, however architects, and engineers are clearly not those consultants. The BWS works for the contractor (BWC) or is the BWC, there is thus no independent representation of the owners needs, with council inspections cut back a safeguard for the public was removed.

But there was also a socio-political action in play. Councils were reducing costs, laying people off, cutting back on inspections and not properly replacing the function removed, means the workers displaced, would justify their value and eventual return. And return they have with new regulatory requirement of inspection of works for 60% of approvals. Such return was not necessary, but HIA and MBA didn't focus on QA, and their members wouldn't go with signing off and taking responsibility for their actions. Whilst I oppose the proposal that would have made it mandatory, I don't oppose the principle. Either the BWS or the carpenter should sign off, on the carpentry works. At the very minimum they should be identified, just like movie credits. This should not generate a mass of paper work. One single piece of paper identifying all suppliers to the project, where is the hurdle in that: orders have to be sent to all. Ah! But the tax office has a problem with the building industry: undisclosed income, and questionable expenses. It seems many builders don't want to document anything, they like money under the counter, and documenting stuff could interfere with that. Well for the householder fuelling the cash economy likely to get you low quality rubbish without any warranty.

So don't want to impose a system, but provide a system. Private industry always saying it can do better than government but it seldom ever proves.  We let it take over the hospitals, it stuffed it up. Take over water supply, and the infrastructure not properly maintained: as to who is responsible for maintaining the infrastructure government or private industry, is not overly clear. A good political outcome maybe: confuse the public.

So the public cannot rely on the licensed builder nor a more specifically licensed glazier. Also the public cannot rely on the government, it may have brought council building inspections back, but it can get rid of them again. Further it needs to build staff back up to do the inspections, or it will outsource the work. Out sourcing is probably the most likely option, getting the private certifiers to do inspections.

It should be noted that people oppose increasing council rates and government taxes. Public servants tend to become complacent, arrogant and otherwise see themselves as masters, with expectations of privilege. That is they ultimately reap the rewards of their job position, but fail to do the job properly. They declare they cannot do the job properly because they are over worked and more people are required. Typically not really over worked just appalling poor managers, continuing with inefficient processes.

Independent consultants who lack the job protection of public servants are a better option, they are more likely to think of better ways of doing the job, than repeating same old behaviour. The building inspections of the past by local government inspectors were not good enough, its unlikely the new inspections are going to be good enough.

There are several problems:

1) Failure to document proposals
2) Failure to seek development approval
3) Failure to control quality of materials and components
4) Failure to control quality of work processes

There is no point in an inspector saying you got it wrong, fix it! The builder should get it right in the first place, and the threat of a building inspector visiting isn't going to make them get it right. The threat of an official inspection is really more concerned with the builder who has no intention of getting it right and doesn't care. Most defects however are a consequence of poor design and poor selection of construction processes, and otherwise unavoidable human error.

The first problem to sort out is manufacturers and suppliers having proper technical specifications for there product. For example when my client directs me to an interstate glass supplier, and I request the mechanical and physical properties of their laminated glass, I don't expect to be directed to a consulting engineer in yet another state. When we then change to a local supplier, I don't expect that supplier to then direct me to the exact same consultant in the other state. The manufacturer of the glass should be monitoring and controlling the mechanical and physical properties of its glass product and ensuring it is complying with the specification for that product. It should therefore know the properties of its product, if it doesn't then it should stop supplying to both the public and to trades.

The builder and or glazier has to be able to supply glass to a project which complies to the project specification, some rubbish about it complying with AS1288 is not acceptable. If the glass manufacturers do not have proper technical specifications for their product then the builders cannot demonstrate they have supplied suitable glass to a project.

We already have builders licensing as already indicated it is concerned with supervision of works not the competence in the execution of the works. So whilst carpenters, brick layers may get the licenses, the license is not about their competence as carpenters and brick layers. Also in South Australia most licenses are restricted (RL) and the restrictions concern a system a physical product rather than a trade. For example restrictions to carports and verandahs, to steel sheds, to residential concrete slabs and footings, to retaining walls.

So if glaziers not already operating under a restricted license, then why not? Is it because the works are typically less than $5000 dollars. I doubt that the windows for an entire house are less than $5000 dollars. But then a window is a product, comprising of timber and or aluminium frames plus glass. The glass installed in a factory. Should the factory workers be licensed glaziers? I don't believe so, they should be supervised by persons assuring compliance with a specification. On site the windows are framed, so no working directly with glass, so does general builder or carpenter install the window? What exactly is a glaziers license going to be for? How much conflict and overlap is there going to be with other trades. Windows are a specialist product and do need installing to a specific specification, but what does a glazier know about windows as a complete system. Most window manufacturers declare their window frames are not structural: that is rubbish the frame has to be structural, the window has to support the wind loads and transfer to the main frame of the building. The frames are not however designed to support surrounding structure, such as the roof over.

Licensing starts looking like trade unions creating closed shops across an entire industry, and industry associations and technical societies start looking like trade unions and cartels.

We need to push back from the builders along the industrial food chain to the retailers, the suppliers, the importers and the manufacturers.

Whilst choice magazine does some independent tests on the quality of products in the market place, it does not represent large scale testing and control of product entering the market place.

Its really the big DIY stores, and trade hardware stores that we should focus our attack on defects, and from those stores push back at their wholesalers, and from them to the manufacturers. Supply officers need to be capable of more then simply negotiating prices. The product has to be the right product and in the right condition. Supply officers may get cheaper product, but its seldom the right product.

For example cold-formed steel sheds are typically specified as fabricated from Lysaght C-sections, but builders find cheaper suppliers, apparently they can get for half the price. The problem is that Lysaght and most other Australian suppliers use steel with minimum yield strength of fy=450MPa. The cheaper imported product is either not made to any specification or made to British or American specifications. The British c-sections are typically from steel with fy=280MPa, they may have some high strength versions at fy=390MPa, either way it doesn't match the specification required for the shed. If the imported steel is cheaper, then get the shed designed for the steel used, don't arbitrarily substitute materials or components.

When it comes to windows and glass balustrades the question is whether the glass supplied meets the BCA requirements for the location installed. I content the glazier and sales person is not qualified to make that judgement and neither is the householder or other building owner. The installation maybe small enough and of such a cost it doesn't require development approval or a licensed builder. But that does not mean it does not need to comply with the BCA or any other code of practice.

So I reiterate the building owner needs to employ an independent consultant to advise, inspect and supervise building works, not rely on local government inspections or licensed builders supplying. Builders licensing doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the work, just getting it done. And local government inspectors task is to ensure compliance with code requirements, not check with the owners expectations are met. An independent consultant employed by the owner keeps an eye on things for the owner. With in the current occupational framework the most suitable person for that task would appear to be a building surveyor. Architects and/or engineers may be suitable for such task, however their primary task is design and then supervising implementation of their designs. Most things in the building industry require neither an architect or engineer to design, however design and proper documentary specification is required.

I said quality cannot be inspected in, it has to be designed in. Also that it is not the purpose of QA to eliminate inspection. Rather QA has infinite inspection, or continuous monitoring of process. With QC, inspection is carried out at too late a point in the process. So for example an engineer or representative inspects the footing reo and declares its not correct. The footing contractor then has to fix the defect and the inspector return to check the defect is fixed and other defects haven't been introduced. Proper supervision gets it right in the first place and corrects throughout the process, consequently their is no need for end of process inspection.

Similarly local government building inspectors go out inspect and its already too late: time and materials have already been wasted getting it wrong.

The double inspection situation with suppliers is wasteful, but that doesn't mean the buyer relies on some third party certification and trusts the supplier. It means the buyer has a choice to make or buy, having chosen to buy they have to go check the capability of the supplier to provide product to their specifications or check that the suppliers off-the-shelf product is suitable for their purpose.

For example, back to the glazing, I said the glass manufacturer seems unable to provide a technical specification and that is unacceptable. On the otherhand grout manufacturers have a technical specification, however they will not supply the information I need. This I find acceptable. My client is not using the grout for a purpose the grout manufacturer supports and does not want to be held liable if it fails. Its a minor market with a minor use, why have their product fall in disrepute over such usage, when perfectly fine for the purpose they wish to promote.

It is the responsibility of the end-user to assess the suitability of the product. If the use of the grout for such purpose increases then the grout manufacturer may do their own testing apply suitable conservative design factors and promote further use. The result is that new entrants to the field making use of the grout may not be able to achieve by calculation using the grout manufacturers data, the same results that established players can achieve. They may then want to protest. But end-users like my client have done their own testing for their purposes and the grout manufacturers data does not invalidate my clients designs. The problem is new entrants have to do their own testing and not rely on conservative calculations based on conservative general purpose design data. For example the grout manufacturer may always apply a design factor of 3, such may be excessively over conservative for some applications. Each product designer needs to determine suitable performance criteria for their product and not just blindly comply with national standards and codes of practice which are extremely general in nature. Its necessary to get to the specifics.

So should not rely on suppliers being ISO:9000 accredited, nor rely on suppliers quality systems, nor rely on a bit of paper. The property class 8.8 bolt is fully informed about being compliant or not. The piece of paper saying its compliant may be fraudulent. The actual bolt can be tested, and the microstructure of the steel can be examined to get some idea of its heat treatment history.

A good manufacturer will conduct such testing themselves. So a producer who needs such bolts will either test bolts received or go to the suppliers and ensure the supplier has appropriate facilities to test the bolts they make. If the supplier has appropriate facilities, then the buyer may dismiss with regular inhouse testing of bolts received.

The problem is that there is now a great deal of outsourcing and middle men suppliers between manufacturers and end-users. Those bolts you thought were sourced from a reliable manufacturer get outsourced to an unreliable manufacturer. In the blink of an eye the manufacturer becomes a third party distributor who doesn't make anything.

So first and fore most business to business supply officers and supply and distribution systems need improving to properly control quality materials and components to the building industry.

For example if say an hardware store like Bianco certifies that the bolts it supplies are PC 8.8 then it is accepting responsibility for such assertion, not passing the buck onto its suppliers. Therefore if the bolts turn out not to be PC8.8 it is Bianco that will be targeted and held responsible for supply of defective goods. To make such assertion sensibly then Bianco would require systems in place to ensure that its suppliers do supply proper product. Such however would be an extra cost, and potentially not viable if loosing sales to the large DIY hardware stores which increasingly supply the building trades.

These large retailers and smaller manufacturers are largely capable of supplying at lower price because they don't overly care about the source of supplies and don't control such supplies.

The quality of the timber, steel, concrete, brick, and glass which goes into a building is dependent on characteristics which are not visible. Cannot simply look at a piece of timber and determine its strength. Bad example, actually can, the strength grade F7 etc ... is a visual grading system, its not very consistent though and its slow, hence machine graded pine MGP grades. Still if the timber is painted its difficult to grade it.

Design and engineering is primarily about controlling inputs so that have a high level of confidence about the quality and performance of the outputs.

Licensing of people controls an input, but not an appropriate input.The very process of granting licenses is low quality, based on QC principles. Education takes place and examinations carried out at the end, resources wasted on people not able to pass the exam. The examination candidate themselves just as unaware of their inability to pass the exam as the educators and examiners are.

The problem: the education system doesn't have continuous monitoring and in-process correction. Secondly the license was granted yesterday: it doesn't mean the licensee is competent today or in any way capable of self-determination of the limitations of their own skills and ability to handle the current project placed before them. If they don't try they won't know. But that trying may cause their client a lot of hassle.

Business, industry and society are failing to sustain needed skills and retain established knowledge. That individual over there can handle complex projects, the individual over here cannot. That business over there was able to handle complex projects last week, but this week it cannot. People flow in and out off industries, and neither the businesses or the industries are appropriately designed to retain knowledge and skills. Creating licensing which restricts the supply of skills further is not helpful.

Qualification frameworks are helpful, but its not productive to talk about restrictive licensing for limited skill sets. Educate and train people for certain but never institute a system that thinks there's one and only one way to do something. It is not the performance of the glazing which is an issue its the performance of the building system which is at issue. The balustrade doesn't meet the specification for the appropriate loading. The window is made from the incorrect type of glass for its location. These are design and specification issues and cannot be complied with if no one has done any design and no one has written a specification, and no one has contracted to supply to the specification.

Most contracts are of the form that you get what is supplied. If seek out the lowest possible price then don't be surprised if it is cheap non-compliant rubbish. If someone says they supply to the code then they typically supplying low quality rubbish, and if the code wasn't there it would probably be lower quality still. Really want the supplier who says this is what the code permits, this is what we supply and here is why we don't think the codes good enough to meet your needs. Now just because they believe the code is not good enough doesn't mean the code should be revised and a higher level of performance imposed on everyone. The codes are minimum acceptable standards, not a requirement that cannot be surpassed. The concept that cannot compete if exceed the minimum is also nonsense. Manufacturers have entered markets and wiped them out with products several times more expensive then the existing offering. Quality and performance matter and if real value is there people will pay the higher price.

The problem with the building industry is the quality is not there to be seen and higher prices therefore do not appear justified. The problem is the regulations the licensing. There is an expectation of compliance with the code. But the industry participants promote themselves on the basis of they comply with the code whilst everyone else doesn't. Bad approach. In other words mere compliance is the best you can hope for, chances are however likely to get a dud.

Whilst the building industry is extremely inefficient and low quality, its not totally useless dumping complete rubbish in the built environment. It just needs better process control in place, and local government building inspectors and licensing systems are not proper controls.

So if a building owner get a building surveyor to check out the building before you buy it. If want to modify a building get a building surveyor to check over the proposals. If an employer get a building surveyor to regularly review your building. Do not wait until seek development approval to get a building surveyor, the private certifier has a different function to perform. If refer to the legal system then the private certifier is the building surveyor for the prosecution, declaring the proposal is a hazard, the building surveyor typically missing from the equation is that for the defence demonstrating the proposal is not a hazard. If haven't had a consultant building surveyor review the plans then basically wasting the approval authorities time. Do not do that.

Put simply consulting building surveyors can significantly change the building industry. Most existing buildings do not comply with the current version of the BCA, that provides significant opportunity for improvement of the building. Such improvement has a cost, such cost provides opportunity to knock the sale price of existing housing down. The buildings can become worthless and in need of demolition.

Now those glass doors and the full height window beside. How can we establish they comply with the current BCA? Does the building owner have appropriate documentary evidence, they have a certificate which states complies with AS1288: so the basic answer is no, for such certificate is worthless. Now how do we check the type of glass which has been installed, without reference to paper documents? How do we determine the loading the glass should be specified suitable for? Is it possible to safely test and inspect the glass on site, without destroying and need to replace the glass? If not then see the importance of controlling the inputs, and having reliable trustworthy documentary evidence of such control.

Sun 2013-Jan-27  01:09