Revision history [back]

There are considerations of to "Duty of Care", and potential liability. As CEng, IntPE, Eur Ing my views may not be shared by humanitarian colleagues expressing that urgency overrides normal technical process. My reply is from some 20+ years in on the ground responses to conflicts and natural disasters in developing countries, initially a seismic structural engineer and years as a DVN, Lloyds, CSWIP certified structural inspector and NDT tester of offshore structures. I have also spent quite a period in Bangladesh and live in Cambodia so am well familiar with the failing of indigenous construction and compliance. Seismic responses are unlike most other responses in the cyclic and progressive nature can create various levels of visible, invisible patent and latent defects. Even experienced engineers can have difficultly identifying some latent damage - a holistic approach is imperative to look for clues, that may lead you to look for other symptoms, and in turn may prompt you to try some simple everyday onsite "testing" in areas that may otherwise seem sound but logic and a holistic approach suggests may be areas for investigation. Even a layman with a checksheet is unlikely to follow such intuitive processes. Much can easily be missed. I refer to Dr Boens guide on retrofitting that makes the first step an analysis of likely failure modes and mechanisms before starting the assessment. It is rare for inexperienced folk to produce usable structural inspection photos (ref points, scales,etc). In offshore structures we used many photographs, but the inspection & photos are by a trained/certified inspector/engineer. As an engineer I trained as an inspector & diver for structural work. I am not sure how many engineers would be comfortable to make a safe decision on photos alone. Accordingly I would try to tap into local expertise eg NSE