Structural Engineer Case Study

964 Words4 Pages

Case 1 Based on this case, it is related under the Board of Engineer Malaysia (Circular No.3/2005), Guidelines 5.0: A Registered Engineer shall conduct himself honourably, responsibly, ethically and lawfully so as to enhance the honour, reputation and usefulness of the profession. After completion of the building, the owner found that there have been several places with deficiencies in the work of the architect. Due to this issues, the structural engineer did not receive the full payment from the architect and refuse to certify that the structural system has been completed in compliance with the applicable building code and regulations. In this situation, it have shown that the structural engineer lack of communication and responsibilities …show more content…

3/2005), Guideline 5.0: An Engineer shall lead by example to protect image & reputation of engineer and improve the benefit of profession. In order to do that, engineer himself shall implant with responsibility, respectable, virtuous and lawfully. First, structural engineer shall sound out the problem to the Superintended Officer (SO) in order to call upon a meeting with architect and the owner. The purpose of this meeting is to come out with a solution for the problem and all of them must agree with …show more content…

Instate of waiting, the structural engineer can take further action by having a meeting to discuss it with the architect and come out with a solution. Regarding the deficiencies work on architect, architect should base on his/her profession to check on and judge whether there are deficiencies in the work with prove. Moreover, action of hold on to the balance payment is not fair to the structural engineer until the deficiencies in work have been prove. This are because architect cannot agree in the first with the owner that doesn’t owe the profession and conclude that there are deficiencies in work. So, architect shall fight for the right of structural engineer to have those balance payment back. Even though, if really there have deficiencies in work, architect and structural engineer are those who responsible in it even though the action taken by the owner to hold on with the balance payment is wrong. Architect as the client of the structural engineer have to deal with the owner and come with an agreement that balance payment will be clear off with perfection of the deficiencies in work. This are worth for the engineer to follow the Guideline 4.0 for relay their faith and truss on the

More about Structural Engineer Case Study

Open Document