<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
	<rss version="2.0">
		<channel>
			<title>Green Building Forum - Engineers and overly safe design</title>
			<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2026 10:40:14 +0100</lastBuildDate>
			<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/</link>
			<description></description>
			<generator>Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3</generator>
			<item>
		<title>Engineers and overly safe design</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14848&amp;Focus=253555#Comment_253555</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14848&amp;Focus=253555#Comment_253555</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:13:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>barney</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[and zero risk to the client by definition ?<br /><br />I've no problem with providing anything the client wants - but generally speaking that optimization process is expensive - and doesn't necessarily realise into a cash saving during construction - and even if it does, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a saving to the client - it may remain in the contractors pocket<br /><br />I've been a consulting engineer (not structural btw) for two decades - in the same way there are engineers and engineers, there are clients and there are clients<br /><br />Someone mentioned the issue of Eurocodes versus "traditional" British Standards for design earlier. Eurocode allows for a significant amount of optimisation (and consequently a lot of design effort) compared to a BS approach - and that costs a lot of money in terms of design time - something a lot of clients don't actually recognise (particularly if they are not usually involved in construction)<br /><br />I'm just trying to provide the counterpoint to Tony's view on this<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Barney]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Engineers and overly safe design</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14848&amp;Focus=253561#Comment_253561</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14848&amp;Focus=253561#Comment_253561</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:59:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>djh</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[<blockquote ><cite >Posted By: nigel</cite>Just provide an optimised and cost effective solution to problem but not necessarily one that provides zero risk to the PI.</blockquote><br />I find it difficult to believe that deliberately providing a solution with a built-in risk of failure would not immediately invalidate the PI and require an extra specific policy to be bought. Especially for domestic architecture, where there's not generally a lot that's new under the sun and there are established solutions for pretty much everything.]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	
		</channel>
	</rss>