Have you ever wondered how the dreams of building projects can turn into costly nightmares? Why is engineering study auditing important?

In the world of construction and engineering, proper planning is the cornerstone to ensure the success of any project. But what happens when small errors seep into the heart of engineering designs? The result may be catastrophic! From unexpected financial overruns to structural problems that threaten the safety of the building.

In this article, we will uncover the importance of auditing engineering studies before implementation, and we will review real stories where negligence led to huge losses. We will also provide valuable tips to avoid these mistakes and ensure the success of your project from start to finish, which is the essence of our experience in auditing work.

What is engineering study auditing?

It is a process of thoroughly reviewing engineering studies by an integrated engineering team, including drawings, calculations, details, total cost, engineering specifications, and all contents of the engineering study for any project, with the aim of verifying its accuracy and efficiency. This includes ensuring that the design meets local and international standards, and takes into consideration technical, economic, and environmental aspects.

The success of any project does not depend solely on an attractive design or an innovative idea, or a comprehensive study, but rather largely depends on accurate implementation and ensuring that all aspects of the project are carefully studied. Here lies the importance of engineering study auditing as a basic tool to ensure the success of the project and avoid mistakes that may lead to financial losses or risks to safety.

The accuracy and quality of engineering studies are the two decisive factors between the success or failure of the project. Engineering study auditing before implementation reduces engineering errors, contributes to avoiding increases in construction costs, and ensures the safety and effectiveness of facilities.

The importance of auditing in the success of projects:

1. Avoiding design errors:

The auditing process helps to discover errors or gaps in engineering drawings or calculations before the start of implementation. These errors, if not corrected, may lead to costly changes during the construction stages. This allows for the opportunity to correct them before the start of implementation.

2. Ensuring project quality:

Engineering study auditing helps ensure the quality of the project and its suitability for engineering and design standards. It enhances the confidence of clients and investors in the project, as it guarantees them that the project has been examined and audited by experts.

3. Improving efficiency:

Auditing helps improve project efficiency by reviewing schedules, budgets, and implementation methods, which leads to the completion of the project more effectively.

4. Improving scheduling and final cost:

Through in-depth and accurate auditing of studies, it is possible to identify materials and specifications that achieve a balance between quality and cost. This leads to better budget planning and reducing waste.

Early detection of errors also enables the avoidance of budget overruns in construction that may arise during implementation or after the completion of the project study. Such as errors in calculations or designs, which protects the project from delays or additional costs.

5. Ensuring compliance with standards and approved building codes:

Audit reviews ensure that the design complies with engineering standards and building codes, and local or international regulations that must be adhered to, which reduces the risk of delays or legal and administrative problems.

6. Enhancing project safety and reducing risks:

Small errors in calculations or designs can lead to catastrophic problems. Engineering auditing enhances safety and reduces potential risks that may face the project, especially in sensitive projects or those that involve high risks, such as construction in seismic areas or critical infrastructure projects, or construction in areas prone to disasters.

7. Improving collaboration between parties:

Auditing supports communication between designers, engineers, and contractors, and ensures that everyone works towards a clear and compatible vision.

8. Ensuring structural safety:

Auditing allows for ensuring that the structural design complies with safety standards and engineering code requirements. It helps in detecting structural design errors that may lead to the collapse of the building or reduce its expected life.

9. Avoiding delays in implementation:

Errors in design or studies that may appear during implementation lead to the stoppage of work to make the necessary modifications. Prior auditing reduces the likelihood of these delays and facilitates the implementation of the project according to the specified schedule.

The importance of auditing from the perspective of environmental sustainability:

Incorporating the aspect of sustainability in engineering auditing reveals an additional dimension of concern for the quality of the project. We mention some points about this concept:

o Ensuring that the building design reduces energy consumption (using insulating materials for heat, improving natural ventilation, and optimal orientation of functions).

o Utilizing the data of the different environment to enhance the economic aspect and achieve an acceptable economic feasibility (local materials - solar energy - wind direction - methods and problems of implementation in construction... etc.)

o Reviewing the options of the materials used to reduce the environmental impact (recycled materials, or sustainable local materials to reduce the carbon footprint).

Steps of engineering study auditing:

1. Reviewing drawings and plans:

A comprehensive analysis of designs to ensure accuracy and consistency between different sections (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical, etc.).

* In one of the projects, an error in the foundation design was discovered during the auditing stage, which contributed to avoiding a possible collapse and saving millions of dollars.

2. Analyzing geotechnical studies:

Reviewing soil and foundation reports and linking them to the proposed design, while ensuring that the foundations are suitable to withstand the soil type.

3. Accounting audit:

Examining all calculations related to loads, sizes, and schedules to ensure their reliability. Including conducting digital modeling tests.

* One of the engineering projects witnessed a significant improvement in the scheduling after the auditing process recommended using more efficient building materials.

4. Verifying compliance with standards:

Ensuring that all elements meet technical requirements and local and international laws. And ensuring that engineering plans comply with approved codes.

5. Assessing the economic feasibility of engineering projects:

Reviewing the cost of projects and ensuring that resources are used efficiently.

6. Preparing audit reports:

Providing detailed recommendations and highlighting any weaknesses in the design with suggested solutions.

7. Coordinating between sections:

Ensuring the compatibility of the structural and architectural design with the requirements of the mechanical, electrical, and health design, among others.

The most common errors in the process of auditing engineering studies:

The following are some points that should be focused on during the audit to avoid future problems. These errors are often the result of haste or some negligence in reviewing and auditing studies, as well as the absence of coordination between different engineering teams:

1. Lack of coordination between engineering disciplines:

This often occurs when the architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical team works independently without sufficient coordination. The primary responsibility for coordination lies with the architectural designer, who must have the expertise and experience to have sufficient knowledge of the interconnection of different works in the project (structural, electrical, mechanical, etc.) and the impact of each on the other. He must also be able to solve any conflict that may arise between two or more specialties during the coordination process. This, of course, is linked to his efficiency and accumulated experience in work.

The process of matching different networks at the end of the study with structural elements and architectural design, including ventilation openings, interior walls, and movement paths, prevents any conflict between the studies of the specialties during implementation, which results in a significant waste of time and cost.

2. Overlooking the review of soil reports and their impact on foundations:

Sometimes, general assumptions or previous analysis of neighboring sites of the studied site are relied upon, without conducting a comprehensive analysis of the soil type in the project site. This leads to the design of foundations in an unsuitable manner, or the selection of an inappropriate foundational level, which will certainly lead to major future problems such as subsidence or cracks in the structure, and may require reinforcement during implementation, which is very costly.

All of this can be avoided by ensuring the existence of a detailed and sound soil report (Geotechnical Report) and linking it to the foundation design.

3. Focusing on the aesthetic aspect at the expense of functional performance:

In some cases, excessive focus on the aesthetic aspect in architectural design is made without taking into consideration the efficiency of use or structural requirements. Unfortunately, we find as a result many buildings executed with impractical spaces inside the building, and sometimes a waste of materials due to an exaggerated structural design to support the aesthetic shape.

While the architect can achieve a successful result to a large extent by balancing the project goal, the aesthetic design idea, and the economic feasibility and functional requirements of the project. Here is where the auditing process comes in to review these aspects in depth and shed light on the connection between all these important axes.

4. Errors in load analysis and structural distributions:

This occurs when the structure is designed based on inaccurate loads or when dynamic loads such as wind loads and seismic effects are neglected. This reduces the expected life of the building, and leads to the need to reinforce the structure after implementation, which is very expensive.

5. Absence of reviewing updated engineering codes and standards:

Some engineers use old codes or do not take into consideration the new amendments in local and international codes. This leads to legal problems due to non-compliance, or the suspension of the project in some cases due to mandatory amendments that require additional time, which is not taken into consideration, and may affect the safety and efficiency of the structure.

6. Ignoring the fine details in the executive drawings:

Not reviewing details such as iron joints, additional reinforcement in areas of high stress, or the locations of electrical and mechanical connections, as well as the placement of openings for each and their conflict with each other, or a lack of architectural details, especially in cases that require special details.

These cases and many others inevitably cause errors in implementation that lead to a waste of materials and sometimes the need to redo some work, or may cause weakness in the performance of the structure or frequent failures in mechanical and electrical systems, or visual distortions in interior spaces that detract from the work as a whole.

7. Overreliance on software without manual verification:

Using structural analysis programs without manually reviewing the results may lead to the adoption of incorrect results due to data entry errors. This often leads to huge problems, especially in the study of large projects, due to obtaining an inaccurate design that leads to a failure in structural performance, or problems in structural implementation due to problems in the drawings resulting from software.

Of course, this does not negate the importance of modern tools and techniques for engineering auditing, such as advanced engineering programs, including:

o Structural analysis programs such as ETABS, Revit, and SAFE, which help in simulating the performance of the structure before implementation.

o Three-dimensional modeling (BIM) techniques that allow for more accurate coordination between architectural, structural, and mechanical teams.

o Using drones to inspect sites and link them to engineering studies.

But there remains a need for manual review as a means of verification before adopting the study.

8. Failure to review implementation stages and link them to the engineering study:

Not auditing how the studies are applied on the ground, or ensuring that the plans are sufficient to make any contractor understand the design details clearly. This makes the possibility of incorrect implementation very likely, which leads to problems during implementation such as poor positioning of elements or incorrect implementation, and may lead to the need to redraw some plans and drawings or the need to modify during implementation.

How to avoid common errors in construction projects, such as these examples and others?

Tips for ideal engineering review:

1. Forming the audit team:

When forming a multidisciplinary audit team, it is necessary to have sufficient efficiency and experience in the field of design and in similar projects to the proposed project. Here, it is necessary to point out the necessity of the audit team's experience being greater than or equal to the design team's experience to achieve the desired result from the audit process. It is also essential that the audit team includes all specialties present in the study, and that no specialty is neglected, regardless of how limited its role in the project's work is. With a focus on coordination and joint work to review designs jointly.

2. Conducting periodic reviews:

In many cases of engineering project management, the audit team reviews designs in stages consistently with the progress of the study and design process, instead of reviewing them once. Experiments have proven that this gives better results in a shorter time, as it also makes coordination between the study team and the audit team stronger and more effective.

3. Using checklists:

This is an essential step in the work of engineering companies and offices to organize their work and unify the methodology of auditing studies, where reference lists consisting of specific points are prepared, through which the different aspects of each engineering study (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical, etc.) are reviewed to ensure that no important details are overlooked during the audit process.

These lists are a methodological tool that helps engineers ensure that all elements have been reviewed according to safety standards, construction, and approved codes.

4. Relying on an independent audit team:

Seeking external consultants to audit studies may provide an additional perspective and reveal errors that are not clear to the internal team.

This, in turn, enriches the experience and thus makes the project more complete.

The joint effort in engineering auditing largely ensures the integration of all aspects of the project. The repetition of common errors in construction projects indicates the importance of engineering planning through the existence of strict and systematic audit processes. By understanding these errors and avoiding them, the quality of projects can be improved and construction costs can be managed.

Case study of engineering projects and the impact of neglecting the auditing of studies on their results:

The collapse of the Minneapolis Bridge (I-35W Saint Anthony Falls Bridge):

The I-35W bridge over the Mississippi River, also known as the Saint Anthony Falls Bridge, was one of the most important bridges in the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the United States. It was opened in 1967, and carried Highway 35W, which connects the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul.

On August 1, 2007, during rush hour, a large part of the bridge collapsed into the middle of the Mississippi River, resulting in a major humanitarian disaster. The accident resulted in the death of 13 people and the injury of dozens, in addition to huge material losses and the disruption of traffic in the area.

Investigations revealed that the collapse was due to a combination of reasons, including:

• Structural design defects: Errors were discovered in the original design of the bridge, especially in the connections of the main supports. It turned out that there was a problem with the size of the metal plates that were designed to connect the structural beams, where they were less than required to bear the expected loads.

• The bridge was subjected to excessive stress due to the increase in traffic volume and the weight of heavy trucks, which were not studied sufficiently.

• The necessary maintenance of the bridge was not carried out regularly, which contributed to the deterioration of its condition.

Case study of a residential building in Asia - The problem of not auditing the architectural study:

A multi-story residential building in one of the Asian countries. The architectural design focused on the external aesthetic shape with large windows and multiple balconies to enhance the view.

During implementation, it was discovered that the architectural study did not take into consideration all of the following points:

1. Ventilation and lighting:

• The large glass facades of the building led to an uncontrolled increase in the temperature of the interior apartments, which created a need for continuous air conditioning. The design of the interior walls limited the flow of air, which led to a weakness in the distribution of natural ventilation.

2. Interference with the structural study:

• The location of the structural columns was not compatible with the openings of the windows and balconies, which forced the implementation team to modify the locations of the columns. The modifications led to an increase in the thickness of some supporting walls, which reduced the living spaces in the apartments.

3. Neglecting the functional requirements of users:

• The distribution of rooms was not practical, where some apartments suffered from narrow spaces allocated for kitchens and bathrooms.

The focus on external beauty came at the expense of internal functional efficiency.

This resulted in an increase in costs, where an additional budget was spent to make modifications to the structural design in line with the architectural study, in addition to an additional cost to modify electrical and mechanical installations due to the change in the locations of columns and walls. There is no doubt that the project took additional time to review the plans and redesign, which led to a significant delay in the delivery date. Once the residence began, residents complained about the high cost of operating air conditioners on a daily basis, and the discomfort of some narrow spaces.

This very important example also confirms the importance of coordination between the architectural study and the structural study, as the architectural designer should work closely with the structural engineer to ensure the quality of the architectural and structural design together. In addition to the importance of conducting a functional analysis during the design, in which the flow of air and natural lighting are analyzed to avoid ventilation and energy problems.

There is no doubt that reviewing architectural plans and details by a specialized team should be done simultaneously with auditing the structural study to ensure the achievement of functional and structural beauty together, and this is side by side with the focus of the architectural study on the daily needs of users, and balancing between aesthetics and functions.

Residential building project in the Middle East:

In one of the major residential projects, it was discovered during implementation that the foundations of the building were not compatible with the soil type, which led to a subsidence in the floors. The reason was the lack of a complete audit of the soil study and the design of the foundations based on this study. The company was forced to modify the design during implementation, which increased the cost by 25%. This is one of the errors that some people are exposed to in the study of engineering projects, where the review of linking structural studies with geological analysis of the soil is neglected before starting to review the design.

Building case in Europe:

During the implementation of a large industrial factory, it was found that the design did not take into account the dynamic loads of heavy machinery. This led to the appearance of cracks in the walls and columns after only two years of operating the factory. They then reinforced the structure at a high additional cost.

Rosenberg Building Collapse:

A residential building collapsed in New York in 1968 due to defects in the design and construction processes. The building was not designed to withstand lateral loads, which led to its collapse as a result of strong winds.

The collapse of the gym roof in Bucharest:

The roof of a gym in Romania collapsed in 2008 due to the accumulation of snow. The roof design was not able to withstand the weight of the accumulated snow, which led to its collapse. While designing structures to withstand different environmental loads, such as snow and wind, is one of the basic factors that cannot be overlooked.

Reasons for the failure of engineering projects, an increase in cost by a large percentage, and the percentage changes according to several factors that are taken into consideration, including funding, economic feasibility, the nature of the project, and the sector... etc. However, in general, we reach the failure of the engineering project if the increase in cost in small projects exceeds 20-30%, and in large projects and infrastructure 10-15%. According to statistics we recently obtained on the reasons for the failure of engineering projects, 69% of these projects failed due to an increase in cost beyond the economic limit of the project, and 37% of them failed due to exceeding the time limit.

Here are some examples that illustrate the reasons for the increase in project costs and some of the errors that led to this large increase:

- Project of a tunnel in the United States of America:

A tunnel was designed to transport water based on inaccurate structural studies about the nature of the soil and the expected water pressure. A comprehensive audit of the soil report was not conducted. During implementation, parts of the tunnel collapsed due to the weakness of the soil's ability to bear, which required redesigning and using more expensive materials. The original cost was estimated at $250 million, but it rose to more than $400 million, an increase of 60%.

- Bridge project in Canada:

In one of the bridge projects, there was an error in the design of the dynamic loads resulting from wind and vibration. The audit did not include simulating performance under strong wind conditions. The need to reinforce the structure was discovered after installing the primary sections, which required adding supports and modifications to the design. The original cost of the bridge was $120 million, but the modifications added $45 million, an increase of 37.5%.

- Multi-story commercial building in India:

Inadequate columns were designed to bear seismic loads because the original study did not take into account the location of the building in an area of high seismic activity. During implementation, it was necessary to increase the reinforcement of the columns and load-bearing walls to an excessive extent, which significantly raised the cost of materials. The original cost was $20 million, but it rose to $28 million, an increase of 40% due to additional materials and modification work.

- Residential building in the Middle East:

The absence of coordination between the architectural study and the structural study led to a conflict between the locations of the structural columns and the air conditioning corridors and electrical installations. During implementation, it was necessary to redesign the electrical installations and air conditioning network, which led to redoing the work and wasting time and materials. The original cost of the project was $5 million, but the final cost reached $6.5 million, an increase of 30%.

- Power plant in Europe:

An error in the study of thermal loads resulting from the operation of turbines led to the inadequacy of the ventilation system. An additional ventilation system was installed that required structural modifications to integrate it. The original cost was $500 million, and the final cost reached $650 million, an increase of 30%.

- Highway project in Asia:

The absence of auditing the soil and foundation report led to the use of an inappropriate foundation design, which caused the sinking of parts of the road after implementation. It was necessary to rebuild large parts of the road using more expensive materials and methods. The original cost was $100 million, and it rose to $160 million, an increase of 60%.

Errors resulting from the absence of coordination (between the architectural, structural, and mechanical) are considered one of the biggest reasons for the increase in cost. The absence of conducting a detailed simulation also leads to the discovery of errors during implementation, where their correction is very expensive.

Cost-benefit analysis:

Investing in auditing is certainly economically viable in the long run. Any comparison between the cost of prior auditing and the cost of correcting errors during implementation confirms what we say in this article.

Although the auditing process may increase the initial design costs by 1-3%, it avoids increases ranging from 20-60% of the total project cost by avoiding waste and the cost of reworking, as we have seen in previous cases.

Many studies indicate that 70% of projects that overlook the stage of auditing studies suffer from cost and time overruns. Also, 85% of engineering errors discovered during implementation could have been avoided through prior auditing.

We should not overlook the role of auditing in avoiding legal and insurance risks.

Therefore, the importance of auditing engineering studies is not limited to saving money and time, but rather it is an integral part of any successful project.

Conclusion:

Auditing engineering studies before implementation is not just a routine procedure, but rather an essential investment that ensures the safety and efficiency of the project. Through a thorough review of plans, studying environmental and geotechnical factors, and using modern technology tools, risks can be reduced and success can be achieved in construction projects.

Any defect in the quality of architectural design not only affects aesthetics, but also causes structural and functional problems that cost the project additional costs and delays. Coordination between the architectural and structural study, with thorough reviews by a specialized and integrated team, is the key to avoiding such problems.

For all these reasons: projects that fail to allocate time and effort to audit studies often face costly obstacles, which makes auditing an essential stage that cannot be bypassed.

Construct Vision Team

Share the post

Subscribe to our newsletters