УДК 624.19.05

Expert errors in the assessment of damaged buildings

Вергасов Марк Максимович – магистр Московского государственного инженерно-строительного университета (Национальный исследовательский университет)

Abstract: This article discusses the significance of adhering to standards when selecting assessment methods and utilizing standardized methodologies in order to ensure precise and trustworthy assessment outcomes. By following these guidelines, professionals can contribute to well-informed decision-making procedures and the successful rehabilitation of damaged structures. The evaluation of damaged buildings is an essential process that necessitates the expertise and expertise of skilled professionals. Mistakes in assessments may have significant consequences, leading to erroneous decisions and excessive costs. By guaranteeing that experts possess the necessary qualifications, abilities, and adhere to appropriate assessment techniques, the precision and reliability of evaluations can be upheld, ultimately contributing to the security and efficiency of rehabilitation or demolition efforts.

Keywords: structures, damage, assessment, experts, errors, methodology, building.

In today's world, structures are exposed to various factors, including natural disasters, human-made accidents, and even intentional actions, which can cause destruction. It is important to determine the extent of damage and identify the causes of destruction in order to develop effective measures for restoring or demolishing a building.

The process of evaluating damaged buildings is crucial for analyzing the current state of a building and creating recovery plans. Even with high qualifications and experience, experts can make mistakes during the inspection process. These errors can have serious consequences, affecting the objectivity of the results and leading to a misinterpretation of the actual damage to buildings. As part of the inspection of damaged buildings, errors are possible, which can lead to incorrect conclusions and unjustified decisions. Let's take a look at some of the main flaws in the expert assessment of damaged buildings:

1. Lack of necessary experience and knowledge: Specialists who lack practical experience in evaluating damaged buildings may make errors in identifying the causes of damage or assessing the extent of damage. The lack of relevant experience and expertise among experts involved in assessing damaged buildings is a significant problem, leading to significant shortcomings and distortions in the results of the evaluation. The analysis of damaged buildings requires specialized knowledge and experience in construction, engineering, building materials, and relevant regulations and standards. A lack of expertise can lead to an incorrect identification of the reasons for the damage, potentially causing the wrong choice of repair or reconstruction methods.

Experts without adequate experience may also misjudge the extent of damage to a building, leading to inaccurate assessments of its condition. Inaccurate estimates can result in unreliable recommendations for repairs or demolition, which can negatively impact both public safety and financial costs. To minimize the likelihood of errors, it is crucial to contact experienced and qualified professionals in the field of assessing damaged buildings. These experts should have relevant education, extensive practical experience, and a commitment to continuously improving their knowledge and skills. Only these specialists are capable of conducting a high-quality and trustworthy assessment of damaged buildings, which is essential to ensure the safety and efficacy of subsequent restoration or reconstruction efforts.

Given the significance of an accurate assessment, it is imperative to pay special attention to the qualifications and expertise of the experts involved. This ensures that potential errors are avoided and decisions are based on sound evidence.2. Incorrect Assessment Methodology

The use of incorrect assessment methods when examining destroyed buildings can lead to inaccurate results and incorrect conclusions. This is a significant issue that requires careful consideration and a thorough approach when conducting assessments of damaged structures.

Incorrect assessment techniques can result in several problems:

1. Misleading Results: Incorrect methods can produce misleading information about the condition of a building and the causes of its damage, making it difficult to determine appropriate measures for repair or demolition.
2. Inaccurate Conclusions: Erroneous assessment findings can lead to false conclusions regarding the state of a building, potentially causing misguided recommendations and improper resource allocation.3. Loss of Trust: The use of inappropriate techniques can lead to a lack of confidence in the expert's ability, which can seriously damage the entire process of assessing a damaged building and subsequent actions.

To avoid erroneous assessments of damaged buildings, it is crucial to adhere to specialized methods and criteria that comply with technical standards and regulations. Experts must possess in-depth knowledge of the field of construction, engineering, building materials, and technical standards to correctly apply assessment techniques and obtain reliable results.

Therefore, the correct selection of assessment methods in the examination of damaged buildings plays a pivotal role in the analysis process and contributes to the acquisition of accurate information and valid conclusions, which are essential for making informed decisions regarding further actions to restore the building.Subjective biases represent a significant factor that can distort the process of assessing destroyed buildings. The presence of such biases among specialists involved in this type of evaluation is a serious obstacle that can affect the accuracy of results and lead to incorrect conclusions.

Experts, as well as others in society, are subject to various biased opinions, stereotypes, and personal beliefs that influence their objectivity and thoroughness in the assessment.

Examples of subjective biases that can affect the evaluation of destroyed buildings include:

1. **Sympathy for certain building materials or structures**, which can confuse an expert and lead to an incorrect assessment of a building's condition due to a biased approach towards certain materials.
2. Exposure to personal beliefs or stereotypes associated with specific types of buildings, neighborhoods, or customers, which may influence the evaluation process and lead to biased results.
3. Lack of impartiality in decision-making, where experts may favor specific approaches or solutions regardless of the facts available, which can result in erroneous conclusions when assessing damaged structures.

To minimize the impact of subjective biases in the assessment of damaged buildings, it is essential to adhere strictly to professional ethics, regulations, and standards in the field. Experts must demonstrate objectivity, impartiality, and competence in their work, based on solid evidence and professional knowledge. Additionally, a collective discussion of the results and a re-evaluation of the conclusions by various experts can help identify and eliminate possible subjective biases, providing a more accurate and objective assessment of the condition of damaged buildings.

Therefore, it is important to consider all types of expert biases when assessing damaged buildings and take concrete measures to minimize them, ensuring a high-quality and unbiased assessment within this process.

Failure to comply with standards and disregard for standardized methods and criteria when assessing damaged structures constitutes a significant professional misconduct and can lead to inaccurate and flawed conclusions, as well as damage the credibility of the expert. Standardized methods and criteria for assessing damaged buildings are developed to ensure objectivity, precision, and reliability in inspection outcomes. When standards are not followed and standard methods are not used, several negative consequences may arise.

1. **Distorted evaluation conclusions**: Deviation from accepted standards and methods can lead to inaccurate and erroneous information about the condition of the building, the causes of its destruction, and the necessary restoration measures. This can result in distorted evaluation conclusions that do not accurately reflect the reality of the situation.
2. **Reputation failure**: Failure to comply with established standards can damage an expert's reputation and call into question their reliability. This can lead to loss of trust from clients and other parties involved.
3. **Legal consequences**: Violations of standards and errors in evaluation results can lead to legal problems, such as lawsuits, complaints, or dissatisfaction from clients and interested parties. These legal consequences can be costly and time-consuming, putting the expert in a difficult position. In order to prevent any potential negative consequences, it is essential to adhere to established norms and procedures when conducting inspections on damaged buildings. Experts must have a thorough understanding of relevant standards and guidelines, as well as practical experience in working with them.

Special attention should be given to continuously updating knowledge and monitoring changes in assessment methods for damaged buildings. Moreover, specialists should approach standard methods and criteria with caution and professionalism, considering all aspects of a particular situation and seeking to achieve objective and accurate results. Thus, ignoring standards while inspecting destroyed buildings is an unacceptable breach of professional ethics and can lead to significant harm both to the expert and the credibility of their work. Following norms and methods when assessing destroyed buildings is essential for obtaining reliable and accurate results.

Insufficient inspection of the site of destruction during an inspection can have serious consequences, leading to the omission of important details and data needed for a proper assessment. Thoroughly and comprehensively examining the site of the destruction is crucial for identifying the causes of the damage, determining its extent, and devising effective recovery measures.

Potential issues that may arise from an inadequate investigation into a destruction site include:

1. Missed critical details: An insufficient focus on details and incomplete investigation could lead to the omission of crucial facts that are essential for an accurate assessment.
2. Incorrect identification of root causes: Inadequate research might result in a lack of comprehension of the underlying causes of damage, leading to incorrect conclusions and improper restoration measures.
3. Unreliable findings: Incomplete research could yield unreliable test results, causing difficulties in deciding on how to restore a site.

To prevent these issues, experts should consider all possible factors that may influence the condition of a damaged structure and utilize a variety of investigation methods, including visual inspections, technical measurements, laboratory analyses, and other techniques, to ensure an accurate and comprehensive assessment. It is also important to take into account historical data, documentation, and planning for the facility as well as consult with other experts when necessary. By carefully examining the damaged structure, experts can provide a fair and accurate evaluation of its current state and make recommendations for restoration.

In conclusion, the analysis of errors made by experts in assessing damaged buildings shows that attention to details, strict adherence to standards, and deep knowledge of the relevant field are essential for obtaining objective and reliable results. Each identified mistake becomes a valuable lesson for improving professional performance and the quality of inspection of destroyed structures. Avoiding errors in the evaluation of damaged buildings requires not only technical expertise but also attention to detail, critical thinking, and an in-depth understanding of the processes of structural destruction.

It is essential to draw on the experience gained and recommendations offered as a basis for developing more effective assessment methods that can help minimize potential errors and enhance the quality of work done by professionals in the field.

The knowledge and analysis of previous expert mistakes should inspire the development of more accurate and precise verification techniques, ensuring precision and impartiality in the assessment of damaged structures. Through continuous training, enhancement of professional skills, and the acceptance of lessons learned, a solid foundation for a high-quality and reliable examination of construction projects can be established even in challenging circumstances.

Список литературы

1. Симонова Н.Е. Методы оценки и технической экспертизы недвижимости / Н.Е. Симонова, С.Г. Шенна. – М.: ИКЦ "МарТ"; Ростов н/Д: Издательский центр "МарТ", 2006. – 448 с.
2. Росинская Е.Р. Судебная экспертиза в гражданской, арбитражном, административном и уголовном процессе. – М.: Норма, 2006. – 656 с.
3. Судебная экспертиза: типичные ошибки / под ред. Е.Р. Росинской. – М.: Проспект, 2012. – 544 с.
4. Практическое пособие строительного эксперта / под общ. ред. О.С. Вершининой. – М.: Компания Спутник+, 2007. – 835 с.
5. Шмелев Г.Д. Ретроспективное прогнозирование технического состояния строительных конструкций / Г.Д. Шмелев, Н.В. Головина // Жилищное хозяйство и коммунальная инфраструктура. 2017. № 3 (2). С. 93-108.
6. Ишков А.Н. Проблемы ремонта и эксплуатации совмещенных плоских кровель / А.Н. Ишков, Г.Д. Шмелев // Научный журнал. Инженерные системы и сооружения. 2016. № 1 (22). С. 164-169.
7. Шмелев Г.Д. Рецензирование и анализ строительно-технической экспертизы / Г.Д. Шмелев // Жилищно-коммунальное хозяйство и коммунальная инфраструктура. 2017. № 4 (3). C. 9-17.