Civil engineer contradicts structural engineer

Off Topic: I also hate [Keller]!

Call, as suggested above, and provide the additional information regarding the height.

Best to bring together a structural engineer, a geotechnical expert, and a civil engineer. They should give you a recommendation, then the excavation is done, and in the end the geologist carries out a construction pit approval. Only then is it ensured that he really takes liability for his recommendation. We did it the same way, but in our case, due to the slope, a laboratory stability analysis was also included.

I have. The geologist said it still has to be excavated because there is partly humus-rich soil. However, according to the drilling, this is mainly in the third layer.

I just see that the geologist even sees the partial installation of layer 2. Oh, I hate stuff like this. Why can't people just agree.

... of course the structural engineer says this after the soil survey, because this way he can elegantly shift the liability to the soil surveyor. and the soil surveyor shifts the liability away from himself because he has some phrase in the terms and conditions that somehow pushes the blame onto the contractor. remains the civil engineer, who of course can no longer remember this recommendation when push comes to shove.

You are a real sweetheart – have I told you that before? Neither the geologist nor the structural engineer can shirk responsibility in the worst case. A competent judge will always weigh the expert knowledge of both; along the lines of "You should have known this based on your training/experience..." Both are quickly jointly liable. Also the civil engineer, if he deviates from the recommendation in the geological report, will not really be happy in a later court case. It doesn't help much that he – as you describe it – cannot remember; ultimately, he carried out deviations and thus – in my opinion very much to the pleasure of the geologist and structural engineer – holds the sole losing card. Let’s hope that an experienced expert stops this madness, should it come to that!

conclusion: in the end, you have to decide how much replacement you want

No. The original poster is well advised to listen to the geologist; even if it means that the additional foundation costs turn out to be higher than expected. Renovating a subsided single-family house will be considerably more expensive! Rhine regards

You are a real sweetheart – have I ever told you that?

Neither the geologist nor the structural engineer can shirk responsibility in the worst case. A competent judge will always weigh the professional knowledge of both; like "You should have known due to your training/experience ..." Both are quickly jointly liable.

Also, the civil engineer, if he deviates from the recommendation in the geological report, will not really enjoy a later court hearing. It doesn't help much that – as you describe – he doesn't remember; ultimately he executed differently and thus – in my opinion, to the delight of the geologist and structural engineer – holds the sole losing card. Let's hope an experienced expert will stop this madness if it should happen!

All that first needs to be proven. The civil engineer must first hear from the structural engineer how to dig. Does he get such information? Can you prove that? And the structural engineer shifts responsibility because he adopted the recommendation of the soil expert, who is the "expert" for that. And the soil expert says that the drillings are only spot checks and the actual inspection must happen on site during the digging and that he was not involved in the execution. He only gave a recommendation, etc...

These are fairy tales, that anyone in construction is really held accountable in a nasty way. When has that ever happened where the client even came out break-even?! That has NEVER EVER EVER happened. Simply because the client has to prove everything, pay the experts, etc... In the meantime, the client goes bankrupt because he needs a new place to live but the financing keeps running. And in the end the companies go insolvent or it ends in a settlement. In both cases, the client gets stuck with the costs.
There is a reason why many people are afraid of building. And that is exactly what this is about...

No. The OP is well-advised to listen to the geologist; even if it means that the foundation extra costs are higher than expected. Renovating a sunken single-family house will be significantly more expensive!

Rhenish regards

I advised him nothing different, that the best solution seems to be that of the structural engineer. If something goes wrong, at least you have it in writing. Now it will be expensive for you. Bringing the people together is of little use, because no one wants to take responsibility.

PS: My mother was a judge and had some years in this field herself. Never did one of the clients leave happy.

PPS: Even the legal expenses insurances see it that way. Otherwise they would offer legal protection for clients. Why don't they do that? Because not even they ever see their money back and it becomes really expensive...