4 ms·
No. The point was that the engineers should have fixed the design, but since the job was already started, it would cost too much to change or delay, so others d
by mtnGoat 5y ago
No. The point was that the engineers should have fixed the design, but since the job was already started, it would cost too much to change or delay, so others decided to keep testing to find a result to Cherry pick.
Also, no, not referring to buildings on normal engineering. I’m talking about buildings built with corners being cut. This was also not in Seattle and wasn’t low lying, was on a hill.
- gmiller123456 5y agoA quote I often hear referred to in inspections: "It's not our job to catch you, it's your job to follow the law". If someone wants to deliberately avoid certain inspections, it's not that hard. But your friend's story doesn't make a lot of sense. The foundation would have been engineered for the soil that was there, not designed, then tested to see if the soil matched. Even cutting corners, it doesn't make sense to do the steps out of order. So I imagine there's more to the story.
- mtnGoat 5y agoLots of things on massive projects don’t make sense. And of course there is more to the story, I was summarizing. Sometimes what is on site is not always what was in the report. And sometimes land nearby becomes unstable and retesting is required. Also codes change on projects that take years. The current data center they are building gets changed to the prints almost daily.