Engineering incompetence exposed

Earlier in this issue, concerns about engineers’ entitlement to the highest Design licences under the Licensed Building Practitioners scheme are highlighted. Following on from this, Under Construction explores instances of engineers being reprimanded for shoddy work

Within the past six months, Engineering New Zealand has disciplined two engineers for flawed buildings and inadequate designs. 

Christchurch engineer de-registered

An ‘incompetent’ engineer has been struck off the register after his design was found to be non-compliant with the Building Code.

Joo Cho, of Seismotech Consulting Ltd, was struck from the register of chartered professional engineers and banned from reapplying for registration for two years, after 10 structural aspects of the 230 High Street building he designed in Christchurch were found to be not in compliance with the Building Code.

Cho was also ordered to pay approximately $12,500 (plus GST) towards costs incurred by the investigation.

The eight-story steel framed building at 230 High Street was designed in 2015 and engineers from a different firm informed Cho of their concerns after a graduate spotted issues with the building while it was under construction. When Cho dismissed those concerns, they approached Christchurch City Council and Engineering New Zealand.

“This sparked Christchurch City Council to review the structure in 2018. That review found the structure did not appear to comply with the Building Code,” said a statement on the Engineering New Zealand website.

“Mr Cho disagreed with the findings and the Council sought a determination from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). The determination, released in December 2019, found the building did not comply with the Building Code on 10 of 13 points of concern raised by the complainant.”

The investigation discovered peer reviewers raised concerns with Cho during the design phase, which he dismissed, including about the modified lateral bracing. The design was also modified during construction.

MBIE also determined that the following were not in accordance with B1/VM1:

• Column splice capacity.
• Modified brace (ground level, Grid 6).
• Calculation of seismic loads, torsional stability.
• EBF column hold down bolts.
• Column on Grid 5-H.
• Pile capacity.
• Raft foundation (punching shear).
• Precast stairs at landing.
• EBF active link connections to minor axis of column.
• EBF links against the stairwell.

The Disciplinary Committee “reprimanded Cho in the strongest terms possible,” and “expressed deep concerns” about his behaviour. Additionally, it found that he breached his obligations under the Code of Ethical Conduct by dismissing  the peer reviewers’ concerns.

The building owners are now taking legal action against Cho, the Council and those behind the building’s design and construction.

Censured and fined for negligence

Another engineer, Kevin O’Connor, was censured and fined for negligence relating to his involvement in signing PS1 producer statements. PS1 statements indicate that design work complies with Building Code and other standards.

Engineering New Zealand’s Disciplinary Committee stated: “We are concerned that there is a pattern of behaviour over a sustained period of time where Mr O’Connor has signed off, and taken responsibility for, a building design by signing a PS1 with limited information to justify the sign off – generally his own cursory review of the design and reliance on the checking engineer’s word that checks had been undertaken.”

Five Masterton buildings were found to be inadequate, while another engineer was fined for his involvement in signing off a sixth inadequate design.

Concerns were first raised in 2015, after which Engineering New Zealand brought MBIE on board as the regulatory authority. A subsequent review found structural deficiencies in the six buildings.

Engineering New Zealand Chief Executive Richard Templer said: “This inquiry was involved and complex, requiring six Investigating Committee reports, expert advice and two final Disciplinary Committee decisions.”

Upon the conclusion of the review, O’Connor was ordered to pay a fine and costs totalling $38,500 (plus GST).

As a result of the case, Engineering New Zealand said: “Engineering New Zealand is also making changes to its accreditation scheme for Chartered Professional Engineers, including stronger assessment criteria and discipline-specific assessment for high-risk sub-disciplines such as structural engineering.”