You are on page 1of 13

Quality Assurance For Structural

Engineering Firms
Part 2: Quality Assurance Reviews
by
Clifford Schwinger, P.E.
Vice President, The Harman Group

What well be covering

Quality Assurance Programs (Part 1)


Quality Assurance Review procedures,
tips and techniques (Part 2)

The Quality Assurance


Review

Strategies & tactics


QA Reviews

Quality Assurance Reviews

In-house reviews conducted to verify that


design and documentation is in conformance
with procedures, practices and standards
mandated by the QA program.

QA Reviews

QA reviews are best performed by engineers


with eight or more years experience designing
the type of structure being reviewed who have
not been actively involved in the project.

QA Reviews

Primary purposes of the QA review:


Redundancy
Monitor effectiveness of QA program.
QA Reviews

A single QA review at the end of design no


longer works.
Todays fast-track projects require multiple QA
reviews.

QA Reviews

Primary Strategic Goal: Verify that the


structure is properly designed.
Look at:
The big picture (load paths)
Member sizes
Critical connection details

QA Reviews

Secondary Strategic Goal: Verify that the


drawings are complete/coordinated & correct.
Look at the drawings through the eyes of a:
Contractor
Detailer
Inspector
Building official
Engineer performing a peer review or
value engineering review.
Young engineer reviewing shop drawings
Lawyer
QA Reviews

QA review tactics:
Look at the big picture
Verify load paths
Check framing sizes
Look at connection details
Look for mistakes
Look for the subtleties
Look at the drawings through the eyes of the contractor
Review for clarity/consistency
Look for omissions
Look for little little things
Look for big little things
Coordination w/ Architectural and MEP drawings

QA Reviews

Look at the big picture


Engineers immersed in projects can sometimes lose sight of
obvious mistakes.
Load paths
Connections
Inefficient framing
Wrong loads used
Missing loads (snow drift, folding partitions, etc.)
Problems with model
Wrong R factor
Missing or improper expansion joint layout

QA Reviews

Load path issues:

Any unrealistic load paths?


Loads jumping in/out of shear walls / braced frames?
Any unrealistic rigid diaphragms? (Problems with
distribution of lateral loads often occur due to unrealistic
assumptions of infinitely rigid diaphragms.)
QA Reviews

Example: Forces
must resolve at
ends of sloping
columns.

QA Reviews

Example: Unrealistic distribution of lateral


loads between lateral load resisting elements.

QA Reviews

Example: Braced
frame forces not
making sense (due to
rigid diaphragm
assumption in
computer model).
QA Reviews

Example: shortcoming of computer software ignoring


drag strut force.

QA Reviews

Check framing

Typical beam, girder & column to verify model


Major load carrying members
Wind and seismic loads (manual calculations)
Unique framing not in computer model

Show reactions on framing plans. Heres why

QA Reviews

Why show reactions?

Makes QA review easier


Load paths are easier to follow
Mistakes are easier to find (computer mistakes)
Reduces likelihood of mistake slipping though
Forces designers to think about connections
Reduces structure cost because fabricator details connection
for required strength not an arbitrary (usually) overly
conservative strength.
QA Reviews

Review special framing for support of:

Elevators Folding partitions


Escalators Special hang points
Facades Rooftop MEP loads
Davits Heavy hung piping
Stairs Special loads on joists
Monumental stairs Horizontal loads from
Hangers rigging
Theater rigging Catwalks
Expansion joints

QA Reviews

Check connections
Critical connections
Unusual connections
Connections w/ complex geometry
Connections w/ large reactions

QA Reviews

Example: This framing configuration was easy to model in the


computer, but it will be difficult to detail this steeply skewed
connection with such a large reaction.
QA Reviews

Example: Connections can get difficult where high


beams frame to low girders (if beams are too shallow).

QA Reviews

Look for mistakes


Wrong reactions
Members too small
Improper framing configurations
Missing sections and details
Mistakes in sections and details

QA Reviews

Look for mistakes


Must review the drawings not just the
model. The framing plans usually do not
precisely match the analysis model.
QA Reviews

Example: Connection overstress when girder was moved


off column and beam reaction was not revised.

QA Reviews

Look for subtleties


Things that are not apparent at first glance.
Column splices at inappropriate locations
Expansion joints locking up the structure
Floor diaphragms lacking strength and stiffness to
brace columns

QA Reviews

Example: Improperly
detailed expansion
joint locking up at
corner.
QA Reviews

Floor diaphragms need sufficient strength &


stiffness to brace columns.

QA Reviews

Look at drawings through the eyes of others

Is everything shown that will allow contractor to build


structure without having to guess or issue RFIs?
Is every linear foot of building perimeter covered by a
section?
Is everything clearly indicated?
Can the drawings be interpreted by someone whos not
an engineer?

QA Reviews

Review for clarity & consistency


Look for conflicts between framing plans and
sections/details.
Inconsistencies with framing
Group similar beams
Consistency + simplicity = economy
Drafting inconsistencies
QA Reviews

Look for omissions


Missing things often hardest to find
Missing:
Reactions
Section and details
Dimensions and elevations
Sizes
Reinforcing steel

QA Reviews

Look for little little things

Spelling mistakes can be embarrassing,


especially if they are words like momint,
sheer and engeneer!

QA Reviews

Look for BIG little things


Some small drafting errors can cause structural failures.
QA Reviews

Coordination w/ Architectural drawings

Dimensions & slab edges


Facade sections, details and support requirements
Column locations
Slab openings (see next slide)
Headroom clearances
Floor plans (verify design loads)

QA Reviews

Slab opening
cutting off load path
to edge column;
opening not shown
on structural
drawings!

QA Reviews

Coordination with MEP drawings:


Heavy piping & equipment loads
Large ducts (headroom interference with framing)
Beam web penetrations
Ongoing challenges:

Understanding software limitations


Training new engineers
Working in a fast-track environment
Improving communication skills

Summary
QA reviews serve two purposes
Redundancy
Monitor effectiveness of QA program.
Goals of QA review
Verify that the structure was properly designed.
Verify that the drawings are complete, coordinated /
correct

Thank you!

QUESTIONS?

You might also like