QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING FIRMS INTRODUCTION The structural engineering profession has undergone dramatic changes

over the past twenty years. With fast-track construction, computerized design, complex building codes and younger engineers taking on more responsibility earlier in their careers, the need for structural engineering firms to have a comprehensive in-house Quality Assurance program has never been greater. Adoption of a comprehensive Quality Assurance program will result in better design, high quality contract documents, fewer RFIs and change orders during construction, a better product for clients and increased profitability for engineering firms.

THE QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM A Quality Assurance program is a defined set of procedures and standards used to facilitate design and to facilitate documentation of that design. Implementation of a QA program results in: Better design Better drawings More efficient design process Fewer mistakes Fewer RFIs and Change Orders Increase client satisfaction Enhanced reputation Increased profit Prior to 1990 the concept of formal QA programs was virtually unheard of within the profession. Quality was assured by relying on the experience, skill, continual oversight and expertise of trained engineers, structural designers and drafters. Structural design was a linear process and contract documents were usually not issued for bid until the design and the drawings were 100% complete. Formal QA programs, where they existed, consisted primarily of a senior engineer being assigned as the go to person for answering technical questions. That engineer would also review the drawings before the project went out for bid providing a second set of eyes on the contract documents in order to catch mistakes. Such a QA program, consisting of a technical guru and a single QA review does not work today. Today a comprehensive QA program requires the following components: Training for young engineers Design standards Drafting and CAD standards Project delivery system Knowledge base Involvement of the QA Manager and QA reviews

Training for Young Engineers Prior to the use of computers, young engineers working in design offices typically spent the first several years of their careers doing repetitive manual calculations. Most new engineers also spent time on the board learning the art of structural drafting under the guidance of experienced engineers and senior drafters. The training of a young engineer was a gradual process. As experience was gained, more responsibility was delegated - reviewing shop drawings, developing

details and eventually coordinating projects with architects and answering questions from contractors. Computers have eliminated most laborious manual calculations and while they have greatly increased productivity, computers have also altered the informal training phase that all new engineers go through. Young engineers today are faced with the challenge of taking on much more responsibility early in their careers. Further challenging a young engineers transition into the profession are complex building codes, the details of which are usually not learned in school and the lack of any knowledge of structural drafting, a skill which is just as valuable today as it was years ago. The ability to convey ones ideas to paper for interpretation by others will always be an essential skill. For moderate to large-sized engineering firms, the solution to this problem is establishment of a formal in-house training program. Training for young engineers should consist of in-house lunchtime training seminars covering the full spectrum structural engineering topics that are pertinent to the type of work performed by the firm. Because the goal of the training program is to pass on the combined knowledge of the senior staff, the list of topics for these seminars is long. Passing knowledge includes not just interpretation of codes, standards and design procedures, but also a discussion of practical applications and lessons learned. A short listing of typical seminars includes: AISC 360-05 IBC 2006 Dead, Live & Snow load Wind loads Wind Tunnel Studies Seismic loads Site Specific Seismic Analysis Load Paths 101 Reviewing shop drawings Connection design Member design Stability Braced frames Braced frames Moment frames Trusses Joists Metal deck Slabs on metal deck Floor and roof diaphragms Window washing davits Elevators and escalators Facade systems Post-installed anchors Expansion joints Slide bearing connections Vibration Coordination issues with MEP Stairs and monumental stairs Structural drafting Framing plans How to draw details Foundation design Concrete design

Concrete mix design Slabs-on-grade Masonry design Wood design How to perform a self-QA review Lessons Learned Communication skills Legal and liability issues These seminars are best conducted once or twice per week. While some topics can be covered in a single session, others, such as structural steel connection design, can take several sessions to fully cover. Seminars focus on actual application of the principles discussed and are interspersed with lessons learned, discussion of common mistakes, examples of manual calculations and tips and techniques for verifying the accuracy of computer analysis and design. Software limitations and assumptions are reviewed with continual emphasis that computers are tools to be properly used by engineers; the creativity and solutions to structural engineering challenges come from the mind and imagination of the engineer, not the computer. Design Standards Design standards are comprised of: Design Guides Formal design procedures Checklists Medium and large-sized engineering firms must have written formal design procedures, standards and methodologies in order to produce consistently high quality design and to minimize the risk of errors due to miscommunication. Office standards must be formally established so that there is no confusion regarding design procedures and methodologies. Is office policy to use ASD design or to use LRFD design? Is the policy to show beam reactions on framing plans or to require that shear connections be designed for a percentage of the member uniform load capacity? Are connections designed by the EOR or is connection design delegated to the steel fabricators engineer? Is there a minimum percentage of code wind load below which the wind tunnel wind pressures will not be used? Serious consequences could result if two engineers are working on a project with one showing service level member reactions on the framing plans and the other showing factored reactions. The purpose of office design standards is to keep everyone on the same page and to provide a roadmap to insure uniformity of design. Design guides are one of the ways that design procedures are set forth. Design guides delineate office policy regarding design procedures and bring together building code and design standards, textbook theory, local construction practices, practical applications and lessons learned. Checklists are useful tools both for engineers new to the profession as well as for experienced engineers trying to remember the hundreds of things that go into design and documentation of a building structure. While major items like reviewing diaphragm strength and stiffness are well ingrained in a seasoned engineers mind, little things like remembering to coordinate locations of fall protection tiebacks on the roof might occasionally slip by but for reminders provided on checklists.

Feasibility and precontract (1) Make sure that you and your client agree the extent and nature of the services to be provided by the consulting engineer, and the basis on which fees will be charged and become payable. (2) Confirm in writing the conditions of your engagement at the earliest opportunity. (3) Make sure that the Conditions of Engagement are sufficiently specific, complete, and relevant to the project. The appropriate ACE and FIDIC model forms are a sound basis for engagements. Amending standard forms should be done only with legal and insurance guidance. (4) Avoid extending, perhaps unwittingly, the degree of your responsibility beyond reasonable skill, care and diligence. Be careful not to claim expertise beyond that of the competent practitioner. ( 5 ) Be careful not to accept contractual responsibility that performance criteria will be met. Be careful not to give, perhaps unwittinglya, ny warranty of fitness for purpose. (6) Do not assume the correctness of somebody elses feasibility study. (7) Whenever possible, avoid disclosing the existence of professional indemnity insurance; be careful not to do so inadvertently, for example by disclosing the amount of the excess or the limit of indemnity. (8) Avoid entering into contractual guarantees such as collateral warranties, duty of care letters, structural guarantee. If apparently unavoidable use the form agreed between ACE and BPF. Take insurance and legal advice immediately, and before committing yourself. (9) Do not enter into a joint venture or consortium without first taking insurance advice. (10) Be careful in giving casual, gratuitous or informal advice: it can involve you in legal liability. (1 1) Be careful to ensure that advice given, designs, plans, etc., are addressed to the client and marked for use only for the purpose intended. (12) Do not agree to be bound by foreign law or by foreign jurisdiction, unless you and your legal and insurance advisors are certain as to the provisions and have confirmed after inquiry that they are acceptable. At the design stage (13) Take full and complete instructions. If necessary be prepared to guide the client as to how to give them. Listen, and record all decisions reached. (14) Where there are choices to be made which might affect the end result, discuss the options with the client and record the decision. Do not assume a decision on his behalf. (15) Confirm in writing the options put before the client and his decisions. (16) Acquaint yourself with the current Codes of Practice, amended up todate. Remember that they can represent am minimum standard and that the client may wish something better. 430 (17) Where there is a choice as to whether to proceed with drawings in anticipation of planning and Building Regulations approvals (thus incurring the expense of drawings but avoiding delay) or awaiting each consent before proceeding with the drawings, let the client make the choice. Confirm the options and the decision in writing. (18) Ensure that all drawings, documents and calculations are subjected

to the appropriate level of check by a suitably qualified person other than the originator. As small mistake repeated throughout a project can lead to a costly claim. (19) Engineers of the post-slide rule generation may put unquestioning faith in calculations made by electronic means, having little conception of the answers to expect before carrying out detailed design; have such calculations and designs reviewed by an experienced senior engineer. (20) Calculation checks are often best performed as a check design against the original design, not as am ere figures check otfh e original calculation by another person. (21) Agree with the client a realistic timetable of or the preparation of drawings and documents, and ensure that the periods for the clients and other approvals are clearly shown on them. (22) Make sure that the Conditions of Engagement permit alteration of the design as the works proceed: a contractors claim for extras is preferable to a disaster. (23) All meetings, however informal, should be minuted in writing and the decisions reached and instructions given should be recorded. (24) The consulting engineer should be prepared, in case of necessity, to go over the head of the team leader to obtain clear instructions from the client (who ultimately pays all the fees). (25) Safely preserve manufacturers literature on which you may have placed reliance as to fitness for purpose of novel or unusual materials. (26) Where part of the works is to be designed by suppliers, contractors or others not under the direct control of the consulting engineer, consider telling the client and, if appropriate, charging a reduced fee on that portion of the job in return for an acknowledgement that the consulting engineer is not responsible for the design of the particular component. (27) Tender documents, contract documents and related correspondence all play a part in creating legal rights and obligations between client and contractor: unless correctly worded, they may not achieve the intended effect, and could even damage a clients common law rights. Recommend, therefore, that, as you are not holding yourself out as an expert in the law, the client should have appropriate documents checked by his lawyers before contracts are signed. (28) Where a tenderer is a subsidiary company, be sure to get a letter of guarantee from the parenthltimate parent. In construction (29) The consulting engineer should discuss with the client the degree and extent of site supervision required for the project, including its probable cost-effectiveness. The engineer should explain that he has the duty to recommend the appointment of site staff, where he considers it at ppropriate, and that the client has a duty not to object to the appointment. (30) The engineer should make clear to the client that his own site visits can do no more than provide a limited check on the contractors work to ensure that the works are generally (but not necessarily in detail) in accordance witht he contract anwd ith good engineering practice. He should point out that even resident site staff cannot check everything. (31) He should then make his formal recommendations to his client. (32) If the client rejects the consulting engineers recommendation as to site supervision, it should be made clear that the client must accept total

responsibility for the consequences of his decision. (33) If supervision ist o be by site visitsa lone, the consulting engineer should put in writing the implicationso f the decision not to appoint site staff and obtain the clients written acknowledgement. The Structural Engineer/Volume 68/No.21/6N ovember 1990 (34) The consulting engineer should define closely the terms of reference of his representativeo r other person to whom authority is delegated. There should be no overlap or gap in the respective duties, or in relation to the duties of the engineer. (35) Over-certification can occur when the power of certification is delegated to junior engineers without adequate supervision. (36) The extent of the consulting engineer's duty in respect of temporary works, if any, should be made clear from the outset and confirmed in writing. (37) Site meetings should be formally convenfeodr a particular time, place and representation. All decisions should be formally minuteadn,d minutes should be circulated to all parties involved. Read with care the minutes taken by any other party and challenge them if need be. (38) All site visits by the consulting engineer and by members of his staff should be recorded in writing in a manner which could later be used as evidence should a court action ensue. A photographic or video record, suitably dated, of the progress of the works is an excellent record. If a claim is intimated If circumstances which could give rise to a claim occur If inquiries are made as to a member's professional indemnity insurance (39) Contact your insurance advisors at once by the fastest means. Supply them with copy letters, notes of telephone calls, s eot cth.,a t a suitable course of action can be decided on and a suitable letter drafted. (40) Do not attempt to give an interim reply, and think hard before finally replying. Objectively record exactly what has happened. (41) Do not admit liability. (42) Do not mention insurance, your insurers or your advisors. (43) Do not give the impression that such inquiries or claims are normal, nor that there is a routine or standard procedure for handling them. Over the 10 years since we first published this guide both the incidence of potential claims reported, and of claims actually paid or expected to be paid, has declined somewhat irne lation to the fee income of consulting engineers. However, if allowance ism ade for the falling value of money, there has actually been an increase in the incidence of both reported and paid claims over 10 years, but with some improvement from a peak in the middle 1980s. Tables 1 to 3 show percentages of potential claims notified during the past 4 years classified byt ype of project, by type of defect, and by cause. These tables record the numbers of potential claims. They are not weighted for the value of the claims involved. Table 1 will reflect the relatively large number of offices, hotels, shops, and blocks of flats constructed as compared with, say, hospitals, and does not address the relative hazard of the different categories of project. Some of the types of project are predominantly civil engineering risks, and the claims taken into account in these tableasr e only incidental structural engineering claims

which have arisen on predominantly civil engineering projects. Taken together, Tables 1 and 2, therefore, merely give a picture of the types of claim that most commonly occur. They say nothing about the different risks presented by different types opfr oject, or different areas within those projects. Table 3 sets out the dominant cause of each potential claim as initially perceived when the consulting engineer first reporteda problem to us. The perception of the real cause of these claims may changdeu ring the course of investigation into whether the claim can be successfully defended. For insurance purposes, it is necessary only to determine what the 'proximate cause' of a loss is and to determine whether the policy caters for, or excludes, that particular category of loss. For risk management purposes, it is necessaryto consider the causes of causes. Wae re, therefore, developing a databank of information on the underlying failures of systems or people, whether those failures be manageorira lt echnical, which we intend to analyse with a view to publication of a breakdown of the underlying reasons behind the dominant causes of claims as categorised in Table 3. We hope that this information will provide a basis against which firms will be able to check their own operating procedures with a view to limiting the chances of the repetition of problems that have given rise to claims in the past. The aim will be to enable the profession as a whole to benefit from the lessons learnt from the misfortunes of the few. In part, we can derive this information from our own files. For settled claims we probably have sufficient data. We probably do not have enough data on potential claims which, for whatever reason, fail to develop, but which could nevertheless yield valuable lessons. We also have problems with potential claims which are still the subject of negotiation in that information given to us as insurance brokers may well also have to be TABLE I - Potential structural claims grouped by type of project Offices, hotels, shops, blocks of flats, etc. Individual domestic dwellings Industrial buildings, factories and warehouses, etc. Public utility buildings Housing estates and associations Bridges Hospitals Energy station Reservoirs, dams, hydroelectric, etc. Roads, motorways, etc., airport runways Marine, docks, harbours, etc. 35 .O Yo 21 .o v0 12.5 '7'0 11.5% 9.5 v0 3 .O Oi'o 2.5 Vo 1.5 Vo 1.5 070 1 .o 070 l .o 070

TABLE 2 - Potential structural claims grouped by type of defect Foundations, underpinning Other structural elements (stairwells, floors, roofs) Steel frame Concrete frame Refurbishment, remedials, and extensions Cladding Architectural Timber frame Drainage, sewerage Temporary works TABLE 3 - Potential structural claims grouped by cause Faults in design concepts and parameters Failure to adequately supervise, etc. Faults in site investigations, layouts Building surveys Delay in submitting drawings, etc. Faults in detailing Omission of, or faults in, calculations and checking own work Overpayment by certificate/certification problems Specification of unsuitable materials Checking the design of others Failure to clarify scope of project to client 33 .O Yo 29.0 Yo 8.5 Yo 7.0 Vo 7.0 '70 6.5 % 4.0 yo 1.5 yo 1.5 Yo 1.5 Vo 37.0 Yo 13.5 Yo 11.5 Vo 10.5 To 6.5 Yo 5.0 Yo 3.0 '70 3.0 yo 2.0 v0 2.0 v0 2.0 v0 disclosed on request to the plaintiff or to his solicitors. I am not, therefore, inviting written comment from consulting engineers on current claims. I hope, nevertheless, that it will be possible to develop in discussion some examples of the underlying 'causes of causes' opfo tential claims and that, without identifying the particular problems, members will be abtole d escribe the problems they have encountered, whether their own or as expert

witnesses, or where they have been brought in to design remedial works, so that we can have as much input as possible into the database we are designing. The Structural Engineer/Volume 68/No.21/6 November 1990 43 1

 Quality will not be indicative of special merit, excellence or high status. It will be
used in its engineering sense in which it conveys the concepts of compliance with a defined requirement of value for money, of fitness for purpose or customer satisfaction. With this definition, a palace or a bicycle shed may be of equal quality if both function as they should and both give their owners an equal feeling of having received their moneys worth (Ashford, 1989). All those planned actions and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a product or service will satisfy requirements for quality (BSI, 1987).

Note: This can be tailored to suit a particular contract. Points illustrated can be used as an aide-memoire by project managers, main contractors and subcontractors. 14.13.1 Preliminaries Access and working area Storage and security for materials Is pre-erection builders work completed? Are safety, health and welfare facilities organised? 324 SITE ENGINEERS MANUAL Is power laid on as required? Have overhead obstructions and electrical and other services been removed or diverted? Has an inspection been carried out of the fabricators facilities? Have any test results been received from the fabricator? 14.13.2 Setting out Are elastic compression calculations available? Is subcontractors method statement available? Are main grid lines established? Has subcontractors setting out been checked and is it being constantly re-checked? Is setting out to the accuracy required by the specification? Are adequate records being maintained to indicate accuracies and variations from specification? Are baseplates accurately aligned and levelled? Are following trades adversely affected by deviated steelwork? 14.13.3 Handling and storage Is storage of delivered components dry, well ventilated and secure? Are components stored in a manner that will not cause long term distortion? 14.13.4 Anchorages and foundation bolts Are foundation bolts accurately positioned with respect to line and level and have they been approved by the designer? If anchorages require to be drilled, are the concrete foundations accurately positioned to receive drill holes? 14.13.5 Erection Are legal Health and Safety requirements in place? Is security adequate? Are there safeguards to ensure that no final bolting or welding takes place until structure is properly aligned and approved by the designer? Do all steel components comply with specification? Is all wind and other bracing correctly positioned?

 Are sag rods properly positioned and correctly tightened? Is grouting-up of stanchion bases proceeding to specification? Has required testing been carried out (e.g. ultrasonic tests on welds)?
14.13.6 Site connections Do bolts comply with specification? Are bolt lengths sufficient to allow a two full thread projection beyond the nut after tightening? Is correct tightening procedure being followed? This is particularly important when HSFG bolts or similar components are being used. Have mating surfaces between components been properly prepared? STRUCTURAL STEELWORK 325 Has paint or other surface treatment been applied as soon as possible after erection? Where support steelwork for vibrating machinery is being erected are correct bolts being used? Has required testing been carried out? Is site welding to specification and are welders suitably qualified? 14.13.7 Protection of steelwork Has surplus lubricant been removed before painting? Is the preparation to specification? Is painting to specification?

Concrete Check steel congestion will allow concrete to fill forms. It is vitally important that the correct concrete cover is available at kickers otherwise there will be insurmountable problems when it comes to progressing the next lift. Always double check the kicker, before, during and after pouring! This is particularly important where features are present. The pre-pour check should pay special attention to the security of cast-in items and that the tie-wire tails do not project into the cover zone. Any loose tying wire to be removed from the rebar. Use a timber of the correct size between the rebar and the formwork to check that there is the correct cover. Change concrete aggregate size if necessary, where steel is congested. Seek approval first. Carry out the checks listed in the Inspection and Test Plan. Check reinforcement is fixed properly around openings. Other trades will loosen/cut ties to insert service pipes on temporary works ties etc. Do a final check on each of the following: Ensure that there is sufficient lap protruding from kickers to tie in with the next lift. Are the number, spacing and diameter of bars correct? Is the cover to bars correct? Are the splice/lap lengths correct? Is the alignment of the bars correct? Are the bars secured adequately with the correct type of tying wire? (Stainless steel wire?) Are the spacers and chairs adequate? Is the reinforcement clean? During concreting, dip through concrete with nail or similar object to ensure cover to the top mat. Ensure there are no localised dips in the hand-finished concrete surface. Check that the kicker does not move during the concrete pour and ensure the correct cover to the rebar in the kicker before, during and after pouring. Remember: All structural concrete must be checked with a cover meter after pouring, so ensure that the rebar is correct prior to pouring. If the rebar is displaced during concreting to afford access, then you must ensure that the rebar is put back to its correct position prior to finishing the concrete pour. Reinforcement Type of steel, its location, cover, diameter and spacing to be in accordance with drawings and specification. Special attention should be given to the support of, and cover to, top reinforcement in a slab or beam. 256 SITE ENGINEERS MANUAL Laps and splices Laps to bars, and splice bars between prefabricated sections to lie in correct position and plane. This can affect space available for passage of concrete and vibrator. Rigidity of reinforcement To be adequate when considering placing and compaction of concrete. In slabs use generous number of rigid chairs or stools, especially in those areas where walkways or barrow runs are planned. Cleanliness No mould oil or paint on bars. No mud or mortar from masonry operations. Cement grout, if clean and difficult to remove may remain. No water in bottom of formwork. All debris, particularly tie clippings to be removed from shutters as they cause rust staining. Column/wall starters Use temporary links or wooden templates on column starters.

Column cranks Cranks in vertical column reinforcement should have some links in their length to maintain cranks in their correct alignment. Surplus bars Wherever possible check on any surplus reinforcement. Concrete dimensions Check overall dimensions, wall and slab thicknesses, and column cross-sections. Props, struts and braces These to be adequate for the size and span of members, and method of placing the concrete. Distortion Correct any displaced bars, distorted cages or formwork. Day-work joints Check that daywork joints are placed in the best position and firmly fixed. Vibrator Ensure vibrator is ready for use and its size suits the spacing of reinforcement.