How often do your calculations get checked ? 12

[trainguy]

Hi all.

In my 13 years as a structural engineer (8 in buildings & 5 in railcar structures), I can count on one hand the number of times my design calcs. have been checked by a second engineer. I've always worked in small engineering firms that simply didn't have the time or budget for it.

Usually, design drawings have been reviewed for blatant omissions etc, but nothing more.

I'm curious how many of you other engineers out there are in the same boat. Any thoughts?

 

[Ron]

trainguy...I have worked in various size groups. When I was on my own, no one (other than engineers reviewing the work for others) reviewed my calcs. In medium to large firms, I have been involved in situations where ALL calcs and other documents are reviewed. As a mentor/senior level reviewer, I certainly subscribe to this process.

It is a comfort to have another set of eyes on anything.

 

[beaver12]

trainguy.

Just like Ron, I've worked on jobs where my calculations were checked by senior engineers/peers and on other jobs where my calculations and drawings were not checked at all prior to IFC. I too welcome a second set of eyes looking over my design. No one's perfect all the time!

Regards.

 

[trilinga]

I think we are discussing a vital topic.

The value of an unbiased check by a second person is often ignored due to the time and budget constraints. We have a quality system in our company which emphasises the second check. We should realise that in spite of one's experience and knowledge slippages do occur and these checks help to eliminate such errors before the deliverable leaves for the site. It is far better that the errors are identified and rectified inside the design group rather than being pointed out by the customer.

I strongly recommend that in the interest of the project a reasonable provision shall be included in the budget and schedule for this activity.

We try to minimise the time and effort required for this activity by using validated software (either in-house developed or marketed ones)for analysis, design and detailing so that the checking of a less volumenous input ensures the correctness of a larger output.

 

[LPPE]

When I first started in the field my calcs were checked often. Not so much anymore, but with experience yu get a feel if something is amiss.
Also, SERMC puts out a Calculations Checklist which you can run through yourself, which is very helpful in catching errors.
THey have a Drawing Checklist, also.

 

[bridgebuster]

I work for a large company [ENR top 10] and I hate to say that over the past five years not much gets checked in my office despite the management's claim about quality being of the utmost importance. There's usually no budget for it because projects have to support a lot of dead weight.

No one wants to check calculations on their own; so it falls onto the project manager since his/her neck is on the line.


So what we usually end up with is a less than thorough review of plans and a crap shot on the calculations. Some members of management seem to believe it's more important to check drawings than calculations. I've always been under the impression that one needs calculations in order to advance to structural drawings.

Sorry to lament but that's the way it is here.

 

[dozer]

I've experienced the whole gamut. At a large company I was at checking was pretty thorough. I think this is appropriate because as someone said above we're only human. I've also experienced a lot of very cursory or not at all checking. Again, for the same reasons stated above. "Oh we're a small company, we can't afford to check everything." Here's my problem, and I'm pointing the finger at myself as well. We're the engineers, so why are we letting other people decide what's an appropriate level of checking? I'd be interested in people's thoughts on this.

 

[trilinga]

It is paradoxical to feel 'we are small organisation and we can't afford checking time'.There is a wrong thought among people that the time spent on checking is not paying. If one thinks of the rework due to the errors detected later,this additional time and effort are not only unpaid but also bring down the level of confidence of the customer on the design team. It also demoralises the design group to some extent. Considering such an event, I would never mind a little extra time to make my document error free. A systematic checking effort earns you a satisfied customer and the improved morale within the team.

I would definitely vote for a chcking system in any engineering activity. One can think of reducing the checking time by innovative methods without defeating the purpose of the system.

 

[JedClampett]

I've worked in the nuclear power industry where every sheet of calculations were checked. Since then I have worked in a field where calculations were not routinely checked. However, the actual deliverables (drawings and specifications) are always checked. I think it's more important to check what's being built from rather than the calculations. You can catch problems beyond what is shown in the calculations (details, etc.). If necessary, the reviewer can look at the calculations to see what is behind the design.

 

[Ginger]

I work in an office of seven design engineers which comprises 2 Chief Engineers, 2 Senior Engineers, 2 Designers and one Graduate. Weare in he heavy civil's & tunnelling business and dsign both permanent and temporary works schemes. NO CALCS OR DWGS are issued without a signed off check being carried out. The procedure is to get one of the engineers who are not directly involved with your project to carry out the checks. The key is to ensure that the checker is suitably experienced to carry out the check before passing it to him/her. Andy Machon

 

[Ron]

bridgebuster...your comments "hit home". Some time ago I left a large international firm (ENR Top 30) for a smaller, regional firm. At the large firm, the same was happening....lip service to quality. Though there are many fine engineers at that company who will maintain their own personal commitment to quality, the same cannot be said of management's policies that compromise such quality.

At the smaller firm, we are striving to make sure that quality issues are not shorted. As with larger firms, we have procedures in place to require sign-off of all calculations, reports, documents, designs, etc. The difficulty in a smaller firm is the lack of sufficient number of senior level individuals to affect these processes. Often a single senior individual is responsible for the technical review of several different locations, some of which can be hundreds of miles apart. I suppose Fedex loves us!

 

[RST1952]

I have worked for several different divisions of a government engineering agency as a structural engineer for the past 15 years. The design sections of these divisions have ranged from medium to large. I have had cursory checks performed on my calculations less than five times in my career. I had thought that this was primarily a problem within government agencies but from reading these posts it seems to be the standard practice, at least among the small to medium firms. Perhaps the managers who make the decision that calc checking is not cost effective should stamp the plans.

 

[Qshake]

Well, I didn't know whether or not to chime in based on all of the great responses so far but RSTucker's response has prompted me to...

I have worked for many years now at a large company (ENR Top 5) and can say that checking is paramount to what we do be it engineering or detailing. While I'm glad for that I also realize that it is my responsibility to see that things do get checked. And yes we must add this cost/time in our budgets/schedules.

I have also spent some time for smaller companies and have experience a general lack of concern for checking. In those cases I have always developed another method of looking at the results to determine if they are indeed correct. I have always placed a critical eye on the plans as they are the product by which design firms are evaluated by the contractor/manufacturer.

Lastly, I worked a number of years for a state agency doing structural analysis. This is more to the point of what RSTucker note - not only was checking not a problem it was too much of a problem. Believe it or not we did everything twice. A project was given to two engineers and each went on their merry way to design and sat down at the end to compare answers and methods. Wow! talk about overkill. But I can also say that not much went out the door that was in error or couldn't be defended.

 

[trilinga]

Qshake

I appreciate your last statement. That is in fact the ultimate aim. As I have stated in my earlier post, I feel that the damage caused by unchecked, erroneous documents is not just the loss of manhours or money due to the rework. It is also the embarassment to the team and the consequent fall in the morale of its members. In some cases, such errors stay as history and are referred on occasions.Hence, the reviewer shall realise that he is the last check point beyond which the damage can not be prevented.

There is nothing like framing a checking system and religiously following it.

 

[Qshake]

I agree with you 100% Trilinga. It is a difficult thing to overcome - errors. The cost of errors (material and immaterial) far exceed the cost of sticking to a plan as you suggest.

 

[Ginger]

Q Well said !! The point you make about the cost of errors being far less than the additional costs of checking is borne out in the real world time and time again. The increasing number of "Disaster" programmes which appear on our TV screens which list errors in design among the fundamental causes of failure are testament to this. The construction press will also giive plenty of ammunition to support this case.

To further the point that checking is essential, we allow our graduate engineers to carry out mathematical checks of the calculations (to ensure the numbers add up correctly and the decimal points are in the correct place). This has two benefits:

1) The designer is forced to lay out his /her calcs in a logical manner with good references in the margin so that the graduate can follow the calculation.

2) The graduate can learn from the designer how the structure is actually designed in the real world and pick up design tips etc.

The final check for overall stability, robustness and fitness for purpose is carried out by a senior engineer.

Think of checking as graduate training on the cheap!! It's good value for money all round !!! Andy Machon

 

[Randy2002]

I've worked at a large firm, ENR~50? and a small firm now (2 PEs and an EI) both in bridge design. I'm happy to say that we had very strictly applied checking policies at both companies. We often get into healty technical debates as a result, and everyone comes out ahead.

 

[ayfarm]

"Checking" does not necessarily mean going thru the same route of solution, like math, assumptions and the like. Our policy (most risky level, in a 3 level graded risk) is to require a 2nd/3rd engineer QC the finish product by agreeing on the outcome in paper and during construction. Responsibility still lies onto the original designer.

 

[Ginger]

Just to add one more to the pot. If you think that adding in checking to your design costs will price you out of the market, tell your client that the cost of checking will give him added value then, show your client the following quote:-

VALUE...........

It is unwise to pay too much, but it's unwise to pay too little.
When you pay too much you lose a little money; that is all.
When you pay too little you sometimes lose everything; because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing you bought it to do.
The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot.
It can't be done.
If you deal with the lowest bidder, it's well to add something for the risk you run.
And if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.

John Ruskin (1819-1900)

I think this says it all !!!
Andy Machon

 

[Qshake]

Right on the Money, Andy.