Discussion: View Thread

A recent set of articles* in the Source got me to thinking - how do we, as design professionals, decide where we draw the line on risk with new/uncommon technology? When there is a failure with known deviations from the plans, do we jump to staying away from specifying that product in the future? 

It seems that when there are failures with a newer or less common product/method, it is easy to suggest avoiding those. But, we don't seem to take that same approach when something common (like reinforced concrete) fails due to plan deviations. At some point in history, reinforced concrete was probably seen as a risky, newfangled material that no one knew how to install as well as the old ways.

How do we find that line between avoiding new products/methods to reduce liability and embracing the developments to improve/expand the possibilities? Are there extra steps to take when specifying new products/methods to mitigate the risks of failure?

*

Part 1 - "Warning: Underground plastic stormwater detention systems"

Part 2 - "Responsibility when specifying engineered products"

Thanks Heidi!

Q. "Are there extra steps to take when specifying new products/methods to mitigate the risks of failure?"

A. Absolutely!

Its been quite awhile since I did "Honest Engineering Work" but I recall some time ago when

manufacture's sales folks were pushing for new water line pipe materials that were lighter to install, and less expensive than traditional pipe materials.

I recall they started their sales campaign by going to municipal clients of engineers, and telling them they had to get their engineers to get with these new materials.

Perhaps another engineer might recall this; may have been the early emergence of asbestos pipe.

Of course, I may be wrong.

Cheers,

Bill

A recent set of articles* in the Source got me to thinking - how do we, as design professionals, decide where we draw the line on risk with new/uncommon technology? When there is a failure with known deviations from the plans, do we jump to staying away from specifying that product in the future? 

It seems that when there are failures with a newer or less common product/method, it is easy to suggest avoiding those. But, we don't seem to take that same approach when something common (like reinforced concrete) fails due to plan deviations. At some point in history, reinforced concrete was probably seen as a risky, newfangled material that no one knew how to install as well as the old ways.

How do we find that line between avoiding new products/methods to reduce liability and embracing the developments to improve/expand the possibilities? Are there extra steps to take when specifying new products/methods to mitigate the risks of failure?

*

Part 1 - "Warning: Underground plastic stormwater detention systems"

Part 2 - "Responsibility when specifying engineered products"

A recent set of articles* in the Source got me to thinking - how do we, as design professionals, decide where we draw the line on risk with new/uncommon technology? When there is a failure with known deviations from the plans, do we jump to staying away from specifying that product in the future? 

It seems that when there are failures with a newer or less common product/method, it is easy to suggest avoiding those. But, we don't seem to take that same approach when something common (like reinforced concrete) fails due to plan deviations. At some point in history, reinforced concrete was probably seen as a risky, newfangled material that no one knew how to install as well as the old ways.

How do we find that line between avoiding new products/methods to reduce liability and embracing the developments to improve/expand the possibilities? Are there extra steps to take when specifying new products/methods to mitigate the risks of failure?

*

Part 1 - "Warning: Underground plastic stormwater detention systems"

Part 2 - "Responsibility when specifying engineered products"

A recent set of articles* in the Source got me to thinking - how do we, as design professionals, decide where we draw the line on risk with new/uncommon technology? When there is a failure with known deviations from the plans, do we jump to staying away from specifying that product in the future? 

It seems that when there are failures with a newer or less common product/method, it is easy to suggest avoiding those. But, we don't seem to take that same approach when something common (like reinforced concrete) fails due to plan deviations. At some point in history, reinforced concrete was probably seen as a risky, newfangled material that no one knew how to install as well as the old ways.

How do we find that line between avoiding new products/methods to reduce liability and embracing the developments to improve/expand the possibilities? Are there extra steps to take when specifying new products/methods to mitigate the risks of failure?

*

Part 1 - "Warning: Underground plastic stormwater detention systems"

Part 2 - "Responsibility when specifying engineered products"

A recent set of articles* in the Source got me to thinking - how do we, as design professionals, decide where we draw the line on risk with new/uncommon technology? When there is a failure with known deviations from the plans, do we jump to staying away from specifying that product in the future? 

It seems that when there are failures with a newer or less common product/method, it is easy to suggest avoiding those. But, we don't seem to take that same approach when something common (like reinforced concrete) fails due to plan deviations. At some point in history, reinforced concrete was probably seen as a risky, newfangled material that no one knew how to install as well as the old ways.

How do we find that line between avoiding new products/methods to reduce liability and embracing the developments to improve/expand the possibilities? Are there extra steps to take when specifying new products/methods to mitigate the risks of failure?

*

Part 1 - "Warning: Underground plastic stormwater detention systems"

Part 2 - "Responsibility when specifying engineered products"