The long-awaited and highly anticipated official reports of two major structural catastrophes that made international headlines are slated for release this month. They are the final reports of the 2004 roof failure at the De Gaulle International Airport terminal in Paris and the 2007 collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis.

I hope these investigative reports will include not just a recounting of failure causes, but also insightful recommendations for preventing similar tragedies. In any case, structural engineers are well advised to review them in detail, whether or not they design bridges or airports.

The shame of these two deadly events was that both could have been avoided or mitigated. A thorough design peer review and/or an intelligent load test could have prevented the airport incident. A comprehensive maintenance and existing-bridge analysis program would have saved the bridge. Both events show how experienced professional structural engineers need to be in high positions of leadership and authority.

The causes of most structural failures arise from poor management and/or bad judgments made during planning, design, and construction, and from poor maintenance of a structure over its lifetime. During the planning and design stages, a crucial factor to consider is constructability. Can all elements on the drawing board be practically constructed? As an example, consider the collapse of the Hyatt Regency Hotel walkways in the 1980s. A flawed alteration to what was shown on the structural drawings would not have been proposed by the contractor and approved by the engineer-of-record had the rod hangers been depicted more realistically. The deadliest structural disaster of modern times would have been prevented.

Along with careless review of shop drawings—especially when changes to an engineer’s details are made—another problematic practice is ignoring warning signs during construction. These signs might include deflections that exceed design defections, or drastic changes in a contractor’s means and methods.

Another reason for many building troubles is related to design engineers not visiting the job site. Job site visits lead to confirmation that contractors are following the details on engineers’ drawings. The visit is a time to correct any engineering nuances that contractors may have missed. Many times, loads and conditions unanticipated during design are discovered during an engineer’s trek to the field while the structure is being built.

Today, heavy reliance on computer printouts and software programs has replaced the supervision provided by experienced engineers with keen intuition and practical field experience. Just because the computer spits out a result doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the right one and that its details will work. Some items—such as a #14 rebar—look a lot different in construction forms than they do on a computer screen.

What’s more, many of today’s complex structural systems often fail to address redundancy properly. Should an isolated failure occur, how will the structure prevent complete failure or at least delay it until remedied?

Keep in mind that just because a detail is shown on engineering drawings a certain way doesn’t mean it will get built that way. This is especially true for complicated connections and delicate construction sequencing. It’s critical to think through various ways your structure can fail and then come up with redundancy paths that could prevent a deadly collapse.

After the building you designed is completed, address its maintenance, too. Good maintenance protects a structure’s integrity, especially if it has aspects that are complex or vulnerable. Make sure owners instigate a life-long, comprehensive program. They need to be ready to react in a timely way to changing loading conditions and possible deterioration of structural materials and foundation support soils. These can contribute to the eventual collapse of a structure.

Remember, structural engineers are ultimately responsible for their designs. They can delegate items such as detailing of steel connections to others, but they cannot delegate the responsibility for those details to another party. If something goes wrong or fails because of poor detailing, the courts hold design engineers responsible ? whether or not they inspected the work or actually detailed the problem connection.

Consulting engineers, of course, could provide this level of expertise, but their authority has been compromised. In this era of complex structural systems and materials, rapid construction, and design/build delivery procedures, consulting engineers are often removed from the top layers of management. It behooves you as a structural engineer to take great care when executing your contracts. That means always making sure your fees include time for appropriate field visits or inspection services. It means your design schedules are adequate for the proper design for that which you will be held responsible.

When the two reports come out, study their recommendations and glean as much as you can from them to ensure the excellence of your future projects. After all, it benefits each of us individually—and our profession in general—to avoid costly structural failures.