|
| |
Causes of Failure: What a Forensic Engineer Looks For (cont'd)
By Joseph S.C. Bonadiman, Ph.D., P.E., CEO and Chairman of Joseph E. Bonadiman & Associates, Inc.
Project Innovations
There are times when designers choose to use new materials, methods, or designs in a project. These first-time projects are usually referred to as “pioneering” and always carry the chance of error, resulting in cost overruns or ending up in court. Innovative designs should be avoided when possible. If utilizing such designs is unavoidable, the project should allow for adequate design and construction fees to insure sufficient personnel and time for project development and completion. An expert must be able to determine whether he or she is encountering any pioneering in a project.
An innovative construction method may have the approval of the International Council of Building Officials (ICBO3 ) and be worthy of use in a given project. The trouble usually arises when the approved innovation is not properly incorporated into the design or is used in a manner that the product developer did not anticipate. An example of an innovation might be the use of a sub-straight (covering material) such as an elastomer membrane, designed for use on a stucco wall with adequate vapor protection, on a masonry wall without vapor protection. This use may result in the material separating from the wall, requiring the removal of the faulty material and the resurfacing of the wall at an additional cost. The forensic engineer, in this case, may need some legal interpretation of any warranty of the material used. He or she may also have to employ material testing to answer questions as to proper installation.
Computer Errors
The use of digital computers has simplified the task of designing and estimating a project, and has made producing documents easier for the design professional. However, problems can occur when computers are used improperly, personnel are improperly trained, or the computer is used to reduce professional input into a design. Computer programs have become so sophisticated that it is possible for nonprofessionals to actually complete professional-looking designs that, in the past, had always been done by professionals. This ability has both merits and drawbacks. The merits would be that lower-salaried workers can produce designs that normally would have been created by more experienced, and therefore, more highly paid employees. However, the downside of this ability can be disastrous. A nonprofessional4 may not understand the full design parameters and how various design elements interact. Nonprofessionals may also lack experience and not have a feel for the proper design. Remember, computers only output an answer based on the input information. Although the computer almost always returns an answer, there is no guarantee that the answer is correct. Only an experienced professional, in a given design field, has the proper training and background to know whether the computer is giving him or her an answer that is within the expected “ball park.” This becomes a check of the accuracy of the calculations. Failures and cost overruns have resulted from inexperienced people delivering “good-looking” drawings and calculations that turn out to be inaccurate.
Lack of Supervision
A design firm can sometimes get sloppy in the production of construction documents. At times this has to do with a lack of proper supervision of sub-professionals'5 (technicians’) performance by professionals. A technician might think that he or she is doing exactly what is necessary for the design, but due to lack of knowledge/experience might be building an error in the design. Without proper professional supervision this design error could end up in the final working drawings and possibly turn into a construction defect in the project. A lack of professional supervision in the engineering and architecture fields is never acceptable. Professionals’ licenses are intended to be a guarantee to clients that they are in responsible charge6 of the design project. The engineer must be intimately aware of the project and stay in control as it develops. In signing the project documents, the engineer acknowledges that he or she is completely responsible for all work done by supervisees. Licensed engineers or architects can never point to one of their employees and say, “It’s his (or her) fault.” If professionals are not willing to closely supervise those working for them, then they should seriously consider moving into a nonprofessional field. By consulting time cards, the depositions of co-workers, and the responsible professional, the expert may find out whether or not proper supervision was given.
Quality Control & Peer Review
Larger design firms should have a quality-control policy that they follow closely. They should also periodically employ peer reviews by outside professionals. Inadequate quality control/peer review in a design firm may point to poor performance in the production of construction documents. While large firms need quality control/peer review because of the complexity of their operations, smaller firms do not require this because the owners of such firms are licensed professionals who directly supervise those working for them. They, in essence, provide their own quality control. Most professional firms have professional liability insurance, sometimes referred to as Errors and Omission (E&O) insurance7. Insurance companies that provide this insurance will examine a firm’s performance and will usually require a good quality control plan and the use of peer-review procedures. Through disclosure, an expert can obtain these records to see if the firm has quality-control procedures in place, and whether any lawsuits have been brought against them.
Lack of Proper Inspection
Checking inspection records on a project that has either failed or had cost overruns will sometimes lead the forensic engineer to an area where improper techniques were used, resulting in a failure or cost overrun.
Projects must be inspected, regardless of their size. The responsible public governing agency will almost always conduct the inspection. However, that agency is almost never responsible for the adequacy of design, inspection, or construction. The design firm will often be required to have its own inspector on projects, especially on significant projects. Both public and private sector inspectors should always keep notes on the inspections and the progress of a given project. These notes can be made available to the forensic engineer for his or her investigation.
Even though the design for a given structure is adequate, and the contractor doing the construction is quite experienced, a lack of good inspection either by the actual designer of the facility, or by his or her inspector, will offer an opportunity for failure. Regardless of how good a set of plans may be, there is always a chance of the contractor misunderstanding them. Without proper inspection, projects by the designer, architect, or engineer, no matter how adequate, may offer opportunities for faulty construction or even a failure at a crucial time during or after construction. Flaws could include anything from improper location of pipes or conduits (that would be costly to correct) to the connection of steel members (that could cause a structural failure). The expert can check inspection records to determine whether they were adequate. If they were not, the expert can determine who was responsible.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
