QA on site.

[JFCPEng]

Hong Kong rail, Korean supermarket, Taiwan, Turkey, Greece, earthquakes and failures! Where are the quality assurance experts on concrete construction? I've spent many years on construction, and still the Architect, the builder, the workers cannot consistently reproduce high quality easily or with 99.999% confidence! It seems a pity to build every structure on concrete footings with poor QA during construction. How much does a petrochem pipe rack settle before the free spanning pipe is "stressed"? I'm studying "failures", or FMEA out of interest. Retempered concrete, stale concrete, incorrect delivery, poor placement methodology, inexperience, poor sampling, poor curing, excessive water, corrosion, alterred rebar placement, poor detailing or scheduling, green loading, incompatable tolerancing, etc.

 

[bb29510]

You ask a question, I think you ask a question that has too many variable. From the cement supplier to concrete batcher to the finishers. Remember if everybody does their job correct dot the I and cross the T. the project is still in the hands of a grade school dropout, the concrete finisher.. A person who works for money, does not sign any reports and has no care about the finishes product. " Give me my money I'm out of here" But, if everybody did their job right it would put me out of business. ( the indepent testing lab) thank god for safety factor.

 

[caps]

Quality is only as good as the specifications and enforcement of such.

 

[GThomas1]

I agree that there is a serious problem in the construction industry as it pertains to QA. Most General Contractors who have testing/inspecting on their budgets use those funds as a cushion, rather than adequately ensuring that materials are fully tested and inspected according to accepted industry standards. Most jobs don't hire testing agencies. Of those that do, most cause conflict of interests because they usually demand that the General Contractor oversee the testing agency (time on site, what, when and where to test, etc.), rather than the testing agency working directly for the owner and designers. I have worked with precious few contractors that take QA seriously (e.g., "it's concrete, it'll get hard" is a saying I've heard much too often). And I can't count how many times I've been told "we've decided not to place that grout until Friday" but when I return I find that the grout cells were already placed and the CMU proceeding at an accelerated pace. Problem with that type of situation is that since you report to and through the General Contractor, who knows darned well what he's done, he'll simply toss your report into file thirteen. If you make a stink about it, he'll simply hire another testing facility; so the owner and designer are none the wiser. So in my 22 years experience, I've become convinced that a testing agency is only effective when they work for the owner and designer directly. The testing industry is just as much at fault, however. They are not organized in any fashion whatsoever. So, they have no minimum trade standards, certification requirements, or union representation. (My company does require training and certification of all technicians; but believe me, we are the exception and not the rule). No testing technicians qualify for Prevailing Wage, while the simplest or least experienced laborer on the site does and usually at nearly twice the wage of the tester! This means that there are some very unprofessional testers out there who just don't know the standards or when and how they apply. Case in point, I found a tester on the site who never looked at the foundation plan, reinforcement details, or soils report; but was there to do a footer inspection. I'm afraid that until contractors, testing agencies, and designers all get a standardized practice for uniform QA implementation that we are doomed to a never ending cycle of structural failures.

 

[Rjeffery]

GThomas1 is correct. Except that QA and QC are confused. QA (Quality Assurance) asks the question, 'are the standards being followed?' QC (Quality Control) asks the question 'Do the materials or are the procedures being used, meet the plans and specifications?' On any major project both QA and QC 'inspectors' should (read MUST) be employed. The problem is that when building faster and cheaper, the first thing that can reduce the Cost of Construction is testing and inspection.

Another point that was raised was the wages and level of knowledge of the QC inspectors in the field. Remember they are the eyes, ears and hands of the Engineer. If they do not know what to look at or for, if they are just there to 'slump, dump and skoot...' then that is all that you are going to get. Cheap ain't inexpensive!

As for Certification and Qualification,

http://www.ACI-int.org,

http://www.CRSI.org,

http://www.NICET.org

and

http://www.WACEL.org

offer certifications and even sometimes classes, but if the municipalities don't require certifications (Washington DC does NOT!!!) then anyone can be hired to fill the role of a QC inspector.

The owner should always provide QA even if the Contractor is assigned the responsability of providing the QC.