What is your firm's policy for checking structural engineering calculations? 3

[bolt45]

Does your firm have a standard policy for checking structural engineering calculations?

Does everything have to be checked by somebody? Or do only certain things get checked? Does nothing get checked? I'm just curious what the norm is in the industry for quality assurance of design calculations.

 

[rowingengineer]

ahhhhh to be so young again and worry about such things......

http://www.nceng.com.au/

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

 

[dhengr]

Bolt45:
Well..., you darn well better be right (correct). You and your company, and your clients can’t afford for you to be wrong, if you want to stay out of trouble. You better come up with a self checking system even if your office has a formal checking system. You can’t afford to be wrong too many times in your boss’ eye, and your office can’t be wrong as the plans go out for construction. Most insurers these days demand/insist on some sort of a QA program in a consulting office they are insuring. You would probably be surprised how much checking is going on when you are young or a new member in a firm. As you gain experience in their ways and methods and they gain trust in your work, you are expected to be self checking, pretty much. That anyone would check all of your calcs. is pretty impractical, time and productivity wise. But, if everything, calcs., details and engineering decisions you make turns up lemons you can be sure they will be checking your work, or finding someplace else for you to do your work.

It’s important to develop a mentor relationship with the people who check your work, so you can learn from them. No good boss should object to intelligent questions, and they should certainly be willing to explain, so you do learn. But, don’t expect them to hold your hand like a baby sitter, they are expecting you to become an equal. And, they do expect you to do some of this study and learning on your own. The same should hold true for the people who’s work you are checking at some point.

Hacksaw:
I think it is admirable that you had the gumption to do some of this extra work on your own time to improve yourself and your understanding of your profession. I think young people need much more of that attitude today. Unlike many of the questions here, where the answers would show up in the first few paragraphs of their text books on that subject, it is nice to see someone who doesn’t expect to be spoon fed. The older fellows here certainly did the same self study thing..., thinking I should have known that, after being called on something, or being amazed at my boss’ ability to see a problem area on the plans, a beam size error or poor connection detail. And, despite the lack of software 30, 40, 50 year ago the pace in the consulting office was no less hectic, we learned in doing as you suggested, and we were more intimately connected to the beam or column we were designing, vs. you guys and your software spitting out dozens of beams at a pop, none of which you’ve even calced. the moment on. But, we were expected to be productive right out of the chute, and to a good extent did our extra learning on our own time. I never read and underlined a new code for the first time, in the office. That took a few weeks of evenings at home, although that in itself has become a full time job these days.

What I think I’m seeing these days is that two thirds of the questions are about some dumb assed, over complicated, factor in a code equation, which nobody can explain; or some complexity in modeling in a program which has been elaborated to the point that it should do everything but blow your nose for you. And, no one understands what they are actually designing because they are so wrapped up in bldg. code and the program’s complexities. I don’t even know that we are turning out more work today. Certainly no better. We are certainly turning out more complex work, dealing with much more complex codes, which are supposed to substitute for engineering judgment and experience, save material, be a safer, more exact designs. And, we are doing this in a crazy hurried way which has bean counters saying we gotta get this building up and occupied so we can start make money off of it. Mill order the steel so we can get going, never mind you don’t have it designed yet, pour the foundations tomorrow, but don’t pour em bigger just cause you don’t know the loads yet, we’re trying to save money here. Oh... we’ll tell you in a few months what the bldg. is going to be used for as soon as we line up a buyer. And, we’ll take care of the rest in RFI’s. If this isn’t the tail wagging the dog, I don’t know what is.

 

[vthomidis]

...and one week later bean counters will say : "..oh! we are now out of the market , because you've been wasting time !"

 

[shobroco]

Dhengr: Amen.

Bolt45 & Hacksaw: Be careful where you poke that sharp stick, you might get a reaction.

 

[graybeach]

I find the lack of checking very scary. Many a poor quality sealed design package has crossed my desk, and I have taken to explicitely requiring in RFPs that all calculations be prepared and checked by two different people and that the signed calculations be submitted. Then, during proposal evaluations, I always ask the proposers if they have included checking in their cost proposal. Still I get a lot of grousing about this.

The level of review I do on the submitted calculations varies. Sometimes I just verify that they have been checked. Other times I check every line, like when the calculations conclude that a piece of equipment needs to be downrated, or when lateral loads are involved. It is amazing how often I find major mistakes even in checked calculations, especially with the load path for laterally loads.

In bridge engineering, calculations are always checked. At least they were where ever I worked. I guess it's different with buildings. Yikes!

 

[fancypants]

Continuing this conversation, as some have intimated (including myself), this seems to be a architectural/engineering phenomena. Previous work of mine includes a lot of heavy lift and industrial. In those areas everything was checked by someone else with the ability and understanding of the job. I notice a lot of comments about "feel" certainly one get a feel for many designs after doing the job many times. However, the seat-of-the-pants type of work will not stand up in the court house. I can only imagine what the plaintiff's attorney would do to someone on the stand that said, "I designed it by feel".

So the question is, how do we fix this as a group and is it even possible at this point? Or do we just keep letting things go on as it is okay? In my opinion, this cheap charley, lowest bidder mentality has hurt the profession.

 

[bookowski]

The problem with designing by "feel" is that it's based on repetition and past experience which does not necessarily mean that it's correct. If I do something wrong once and it 'works', as in there are no catastrophes, then I'm likely to do it again. Over time this becomes my level of comfort and idea of a reasonable solution, even though it could be completely wrong. I've encountered this lots of times with the argument often reducing to 'I've done it this way for years'. Since most buildings never see design loads it is easy for this to go on without any consequence.

I'm not completely discounting feel, most of my work now is drawn first and checked second, but I think there's an argument to be made against simply dismissing bolt45's concerns by telling him that his bosses have a feel for what is correct.

 

[pittguy12]

Hacksaw...your comments to my post were right on and my particular situation has forced me to study a lot on my own outside of work to learn this thing. I also found that time spent studying for the PE and the SE exams also was invaluable to this same concept.

It's still frustrating to go to my boss with a question (usually, like it was mentioned based on one of those obscure factors or contradictory statements in a code) and have unable to help work through the answer as it should be. He usually pulls out a code from 20 years ago, when it was written more simply, and gives me that answer!

This is mostly where my frustration comes from. I know that the latest edition of codes need followed, no matter how long or ridiculous they have gotten. Yet, when the person who is supposed to be checking my calculations/design simply blows off anything that's too complex to understand...it's quite frustrating.

Anyway, good discussion and lots of good points all around.

 

[abusementpark]

This is something that sticks somewhere in my throat. Where I work there are no policies and pretty much nothing gets checked. This is not by design but by the nature of how business is conducted. Everything seems to be hurry up, hurry up. Deadlines are much too soon and the cart is ahead of the horse. No geotech report, no problem, let us just guess on the permit set and fix it later etc... etc.... Now my mood is deteriorating LOL.

I wish things were checked and double checked. I know for a fact that errors are happening and I am just waiting for the one OH MY error to happen.

Pretty much sums it up.

 

[abusementpark]

ahhhhh to be so young again and worry about such things......

Are you implying that worrying about design errors due to poor QA/QC policies is a naive concern?

Well..., you darn well better be right (correct). You and your company, and your clients can’t afford for you to be wrong, if you want to stay out of trouble. You better come up with a self checking system even if your office has a formal checking system. You can’t afford to be wrong too many times in your boss’ eye, and your office can’t be wrong as the plans go out for construction.

You're assuming that you are given proper time for self-checking. Like fancypants said, often times you are struggling just to find time to get the calculations done the first time to meet an unrealistic deadline.

You would probably be surprised how much checking is going on when you are young or a new member in a firm. As you gain experience in their ways and methods and they gain trust in your work, you are expected to be self checking, pretty much.

I understand that people will be checking over your work when you are green, even if that doesn't mean they ask you to submit your calculations. But even as you become a seasoned engineer, humans still make human errors despite experience.

That anyone would check all of your calcs. is pretty impractical, time and productivity wise.

Are you saying there are no successful engineering firm that employ this type of practice? I worked at one where everything was supposed to be checked.

It’s important to develop a mentor relationship with the people who check your work, so you can learn from them. No good boss should object to intelligent questions, and they should certainly be willing to explain, so you do learn. But, don’t expect them to hold your hand like a baby sitter, they are expecting you to become an equal. And, they do expect you to do some of this study and learning on your own. The same should hold true for the people who’s work you are checking at some point.

Hacksaw:
I think it is admirable that you had the gumption to do some of this extra work on your own time to improve yourself and your understanding of your profession. I think young people need much more of that attitude today. Unlike many of the questions here, where the answers would show up in the first few paragraphs of their text books on that subject, it is nice to see someone who doesn’t expect to be spoon fed. The older fellows here certainly did the same self study thing..., thinking I should have known that, after being called on something, or being amazed at my boss’ ability to see a problem area on the plans, a beam size error or poor connection detail. And, despite the lack of software 30, 40, 50 year ago the pace in the consulting office was no less hectic, we learned in doing as you suggested, and we were more intimately connected to the beam or column we were designing, vs. you guys and your software spitting out dozens of beams at a pop, none of which you’ve even calced. the moment on. But, we were expected to be productive right out of the chute, and to a good extent did our extra learning on our own time. I never read and underlined a new code for the first time, in the office. That took a few weeks of evenings at home, although that in itself has become a full time job these days.

What I think I’m seeing these days is that two thirds of the questions are about some dumb assed, over complicated, factor in a code equation, which nobody can explain; or some complexity in modeling in a program which has been elaborated to the point that it should do everything but blow your nose for you. And, no one understands what they are actually designing because they are so wrapped up in bldg. code and the program’s complexities. I don’t even know that we are turning out more work today. Certainly no better. We are certainly turning out more complex work, dealing with much more complex codes, which are supposed to substitute for engineering judgment and experience, save material, be a safer, more exact designs. And, we are doing this in a crazy hurried way which has bean counters saying we gotta get this building up and occupied so we can start make money off of it. Mill order the steel so we can get going, never mind you don’t have it designed yet, pour the foundations tomorrow, but don’t pour em bigger just cause you don’t know the loads yet, we’re trying to save money here. Oh... we’ll tell you in a few months what the bldg. is going to be used for as soon as we line up a buyer. And, we’ll take care of the rest in RFI’s. If this isn’t the tail wagging the dog, I don’t know what is.

I agree with all this, especially the part about young engineers needing to assume more responsibility for their own development. Employer's should make the effort to meet them halfway with professional development opportunities, though. Nowadays, the many webinars offered are pretty cheap and efficient of ways filling in the gaps.

 

[rowingengineer]

abusementpark,
"Are you implying that worrying about design errors due to poor QA/QC policies is a naive concern?"

Yes, worrying about this is a waste of time and energy. Rather than worry, start checking, start the ball rolling. however do I believe checking is an important part of the design chain? Yes it is the most important part.

however my response was directed at this line

"There is no way for me to learn to get to this level of 'feel' without first knowing that my long hand or computer analysis calculations are accurate"

This is a young's man view, someone else must give him a hand up for him to start performing.

http://www.nceng.com.au/

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

 

[bridgebuster]

"In bridge engineering, calculations are always checked. At least they were where ever I worked. "

It used to be true. Now, there's no budget for detailed checking and people don't seem to want to check numbers. They just want to "review" calculations. As long as the QA form is filled out.

 

[slickdeals]

I have said this before and will say it again.........Structural engineering is an art, which can only be learned over time. Unfortunately for everyone, plugging and chugging numbers is what it has come down to. I had the privilege of working under a very senior engineer and got to learn the old school way of doing things. Although I am no longer with that firm, I really miss the ol' guy.

I think the responsibility of constantly asking questions, being curious and trying to understand the fundamentals behind a problem lies with the YOUNG ENGINEER. You should never be afraid to ask too many question, no matter how stupid they are.

I am still learning the ropes and rely on senior engineers, experienced hands wherever I find them........either in person or via these forums.

It’s no trick to get the answers when you have all the data. The trick is to get the answers when you only have half the data and half that is wrong and you don’t know which half - LORD KELVIN

 

[ash060]

The problem with the young engineer asking the senior engineer questions, is how are they supposed to know they got the right answer.

I have had a senior engineer tell me that there was no such thing as at-rest earth presure, I am happy in that instance that I questioned his expertise.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

In my small firm of 5 people (2 seniors, me, a new guy, and a extremely experienced drafter) things are checked on a need to check basis. What I mean by that is if I don't feel comfortable with my design, I have it checked with one of the senior designers. If they don't feel comfortable with their design then they will actually come to me for a 2nd opinion. And, of course, if the senior designer wants to check my work then he often does (because it's difficult/complex, critical, or because he has to understand it to continue the design).

In the 4.5 years I've been working here I've only once came back after one of my designs has been submitted and found a major error (thankfully in the conservative direction) and only once has anyone found one of our companies' designs to have a major error (which worked out fine in the end, make sure when you specify a cap channel that the drafter actually puts it on the drawings).

I think that there's nothing wrong with only self-checking your work or just making sure that it passes the "engineering judgement" test. However, if I worked for a firm and couldn't ask someone for a double check (wither it was required by the firm or not) and was told that we didn't have time for it I would get very nervous about the management of that firm.

Finally, in the end it's the PE's call wither he or she wants to check a design. If they feel comfortable with it and you feel comfortable with it then no further checks are required if you ask me.

Maine EIT, Civil/Structural. Going to take the 1st part of the 16-hour SE test in October, wish me luck!

 

[fancypants]

More food for thought in the form of a question. Why do every calculation pad and every drawing title block have a "Checked by" spot to fill out? This may not be true across the board however, it is true for all that I have ever seen.

 

[abusementpark]

abusementpark,
"Are you implying that worrying about design errors due to poor QA/QC policies is a naive concern?"

Yes, worrying about this is a waste of time and energy. Rather than worry, start checking, start the ball rolling. however do I believe checking is an important part of the design chain? Yes it is the most important part.

It is not always easy for a young engineer to fit time in for checking, especially when there are likely several other projects vying for your attention. When your boss tells you it is going to be struggle to meet the deadline at the end of the week, he is going to want to see you working on that job when he comes in your office, not checking the previous job that was hastily completed.

I have said this before and will say it again.........Structural engineering is an art, which can only be learned over time. Unfortunately for everyone, plugging and chugging numbers is what it has come down to. I had the privilege of working under a very senior engineer and got to learn the old school way of doing things. Although I am no longer with that firm, I really miss the ol' guy.

While there are plenty gray areas requiring the use of creative judgement, I still think the large majority of the profession involves crunching of numbers. A simple gravity column is either adequately sized or it isn't. Same thing with a simple beam. There is no "art". What exactly is it that you are bemoaning about plugging and chugging?

And what is "the old school way of doing things"?

More food for thought in the form of a question. Why do every calculation pad and every drawing title block have a "Checked by" spot to fill out? This may not be true across the board however, it is true for all that I have ever seen.

I usually fill out those "checked by" blanks with either "LOL" or "HAH".

 

[rowingengineer]

"It is not always easy for a young engineer to fit time in for checking, especially when there are likely several other projects vying for your attention."

This is only true if you believe a junior engineer should work a 45 hr week.

If you are bit more realistic and expect them to work 40hrs a week and study at least an extra 10 hrs on their own time, they should be able to fit in the checking.

http://www.nceng.com.au/

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

 

[HuckleberryFinn]

A star to Rowingengineer for acknowledging that junior engineers get to have a life too!