QUALITY PROBLEMS of LITHUANIAN CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN DOCUMENTATION 1 2 Michail Samofalov , Vytautas Papinigis

QUALITY PROBLEMS OF LITHUANIAN CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN DOCUMENTATION 1 2 Michail Samofalov , Vytautas Papinigis

Vilnius Gediminas Technical University,1 Saulėtekio2 ave. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract. General situation in civil engineering design documentation is reviewed in this paper. Some characteristic mistakes in design are presented. Authors using their experience in engineering examination of real structural designs, discuss statistical data of the latest years. An attempt to improve engineering solutions using analysis of inaccuracies in design documentation and suggestion of new methods for its developmement, instead of creation of new theories and methods of structural analysis, is made. Such an approach in engineering is less popular as time and resourses for its implementation are required. Nevertheless, this method of solution for the problem of technical product quality and qualification of specilists is more correct. Finally, conclusions about quality as well as conditions for designers and recommendations for developent of national design codes are made.

Keywords: quality, examination, design, documentation.

Introduction acting code requirements. Volume of recourses allocated for verification of designs is not sufficient for alternative Technical examination is a specific practical activity re−calculation and moreover for alternative structural of a civil engineer. It is quite laborious and responsible design of construction works. Thus quality and results of business which requires high level of professional know- verification are highly influenced by completion form of ledge in specific narrow field as well as general under- the design documentation and experience of the expert as standing of existing traditions, ability to orientate your- well. self in concrete situations and to find necessary solutions. This paper can be useful in scientific sense and for According to the acting in Lithuania classification in practicing engineers as well. Individual errors and statis- the field of civil engineering, examination works tical data presented in this article cannot be used for (STR 1.06.03 2005) are subdivided in two types: state commercial purposes because of insufficient sample of examination of existing construction works and examina- the designs and the results of analysis with conclusions tion of designs of the construction works. In this publica- represent particularly individual opinion of the authors. tion information just on examination of a structural part Generalizations and conclusions presented below do not of the designs is discussed. affect in any way the design style of individual specialists The number of research publications concerning ex- or the work specificity of any particular institution. Nev- amination of design documentation in Lithuania is very ertheless, the question of technical solutions and man- scarce. Though this subject is quite important, many cli- agement problems of qualitative design (Cloud 1998) in ents and contractors conceal technical and organizational Lithuania is quite urgent today. problems arising during verification process (Kanoglu The detailed analysis of design verification results and Artidi 2004, Gabrielaitis and Baušys 2005, Gabrielai- provides numerous data on the basis of which it is possi- tis and Baušys 2006). Therefore, the improvement stage ble to improve quality of design documentation in gener- of design documentation according to the comments of al, and that one of structural solutions in particular (Shaw experts is the last and the most important one before 2001, Zavadskas et al. 2004), besides it allows to im- presentation of the projects to the client for approval and prove qualification of designers and experts, to refine further – to production (Watts 2008, Eisner 2002). codes for design, etc. Unfortunately, this source of infor- Verification of designs in Lithuania is of inspection- mation is almost not useful and in the most cases, on the al character (STR 1.06.03 2005). The main goal is to find contrary – the examination institutions attempt neither to out whether solutions used in the design conform to the generalize nor to publish results of their work. 768 Design documentation struction works is worked out in two stages: basic design and workshop (working) design (Fig 2). In case of quite Up to 1991 in Lithuania “Stroitelnyje Normi i Pra- sophisticated construction works preliminary design vila” (SNiP) – Construction Norms and Rules – and cor- propositions may be devised usually in order to make responding system of standards of the Soviet Union were public, investors, contracting authorities, etc. familiar active. During the period since 1991 to 2010 a gradual with long−term designs. It is important, when designing transition to the design codes of the European Union unique public construction works (airports, television (EU) was performed. For this purpose intermediate de- towers, underground, stadiums) or construction works of sign documents (STR 2.05.03 2003) (construction techni- highly sophisticated technology (electric power stations, cal regulations, STR) were created for the following two seaports) where only either architectural or technological aims: firstly, gradual familiarization of practical engi- part of a design is presented in the design proposal. neers with the system of requirement imposed by the EU (EN1990 2009) and, secondly, creation of national design codes and determination of corresponding unambiguous parameters for harmonization of national codes with the system of European codes. Therefore, technical universi- ties and colleges, institutions for certification of building materials and technological processes, research institutes and accredited laboratories as well as certified specialists in the field of civil engineering have to keep to new requirements of EC adopted for Lithuania. Use of unified EC is intended to be started from the 1st of March 2010. Quality requirements for civil engineering are presented in the European Economical Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988. The most important and concrete parameters concerning every principle requirement are given in the following sets of codes ECE/HBP/81, ECE/HBP/91 and widened in 1995. Later the documents of the EU indicated above were being improved. At present, requirements in the field of civil engineering acting in Lithuania can be classified into 5 Fig 1. Diagram of legal levels separate levels (Fig 1): – civil engineering law of Lithuania and allied The basic design describes conception of a construc- laws (law of rights for land etc.) is the most im- tion work with intention to collect information for the portant one, it provides only general require- workshop design, namely: geology, hydrology of the ments for solutions in the area of civil engineer- construction site, investigation of existing structures, ing; prediction of erection and technological design situations, − – construction technical regulations subdivided etc. in three principal groups (organizational, tech- Workshop design specifies and complements the ba- nical, economical) are the next laws according sic design without changing its principal solutions. to the importance of legal acts and they are the Specialized firms (producers of lifts, of concrete basic regulation documents for a practicing en- panels, etc.) on the base of the workshop design prepare gineer; production documentation (drawings, instructions for – the next level incorporates technical standards assemblage, recommendations for erection, etc.). A set of requirements, which can neither be disputed nor engineering−structural documentation (Šarka et al. 2008) changed by alternative ones (to this level be- of the construction works is supplemented with documen- long only documents mentioned in the con- tation related to execution (job acceptance certificates, − struction technical regulations); insignificant changes in design, etc) and maintenance – standards selectively used for materials, meth- (reports and certificates of inspection and repairs). ods of analysis, products, technological proc- Basic and workshop designs are compulsory parts of esses, control methods etc.; the list of design documentation set for the construction – all standards not mentioned above are of rec- works mentioned above while presence of other parts ommendatory type (internal institution rules, depends on a specific situation. According to specifica- recommendations issued by professional asso- tion (STR 1.05.06 2009, STR 1.06.03 2005) acting in ciations, aids published by research institutes, Lithuania in case of especially important construction textbooks, guidelines etc.). works a part of basic design must be investigated experi- Three upper document levels are compulsory while mentally. the two lower ones – not compulsory, selective only. In design of simple construction works one stage de- According to the acting code (STR 1.05.06 2009) signing, for which basic−workshop design is produced, is design documentation for a structural part of the con- permitted. 769 A structural part of the basic design consists of: dure. To day in Lithuania there are about 1100 design – explanatory note (general situation, peculiari- institutions and 30 independent examination bureaus. ties); – technical specifications (requirements for job); Examination process and investigation conditions – structural analysis (for the whole engineering works or frame); General examination for all parts or for a particular – drawings (general plans and sections, part of design is performed according to a contract be- non−typical solutions); tween customer and examination bureau. If during ex- – summary of required materials (approximately). amination, it is found out that design solutions do not S structural part of the workshop design consists of: conform to acting code requirements then intermediate – explanatory note (if there are changes); examination report is made by the experts with obligatory – detailed analysis (for joints and individual comments and recommendations. When design has been members); corrected or sound explanations are presented the exami- – drawings (for construction, not for factories); nation bureau issues the final report in which the cus- – specification for materials (if required by con- tomer is recommended to approve the design. The general tractor). examination report is signed by the General Expert (GE) while examination report of a design part – by expert for that design part, e.g., Expert of Structural Design (ESD). A short description of conditions and classification proposed by the authors (Table 1) will help to realize extent and area of investigations presented below. A sample of 50 random basic and workshop designs (as separate ones) verified by a group of experts in 2009 is investigated. Qualitative and quantitative judgment or evaluation of design solutions and completion (form) of design documentation can be performed on the basis of experience of specialists in this area and by formal assortment of comments on designs. Thus, the team of experts for the sample from 50 designs presented in this article consists of 5 specialists with experience in design and examination from 10 to 30 years (average experience is 20 years). All specialist have university civil engineering education,

two of them have doctorate degree (PhD). All experts are certified by Ministry of Environment of Lithuania. As the Fig 2. Design documentation implementation stages structural design part is quite complicated and consists of a substantial amount of documentation the experts usually General Manager of the Design (GMD) is responsi- are involved in examination of such special topics: design ble for preparation and coordination of design for all parts diagram, foundations (LST EN 1997 2007), concrete of the construction works. Manager of the Structural (STR 2.05.05 2009, EN1992 2009) structures, steel struc- Design (MSD) is responsible for design of structural part tures (STR 2.05.08 2007, EN1993 2009), timber struc- of the construction works. Juridical responsibility (insur- tures (STR 2.05.07 2005, EN1995 2009). In such a way ance, provision for technical means, organizational possi- comments of different experts on the same design may be bilities, etc.) is laid on institutions which provide such partially doubled, but this does not worsen verification specialists. As MSD must remain the same person up to quality but on the contrary – it allows to see the problem the end of the whole design and all subparts including from different positions. (foundations, concrete structures, steel structures, profiled Distribution analysis of designs according to con- decking etc.). struction type indicates that a substantial part of the con- Activity of examination bureau and that of experts in struction works are under reconstruction. It is due to re- particular is verification by its character and is provided duced demand on the market for new construction works to pay the design authors’ attention to nonconformity of associated with temporary financial crisis. Another pecu- design solutions with code provisions and to possible liarity – mainly concrete construction works are under inaccuracies in calculations and in detailing and comple- reconstruction, since reconstruction of long−span steel tion of drawings. As an expert may be either physical or construction works is inexpedient. Very popular is appli- juridical person. Examination bureau has no right to de- cation of mixed structure over−ground load bearing sign and vice versa. frames for construction works, therefore in the above Both specialists (designers and experts) and institu- mentioned sample of 50 designs these structures were: tions have to be certified by a special body established by steel and concrete(58 %); steel, concrete and timber the ministry and in accordance with the defined proce- (12 %).

770 Table 1. Classification and quantities of investigated construc- number remarks taken from verification experience of tion works designs other designs. Ratio between the mean number of re- Type of buildings marks and their maximum number is important (Table 2). New buildings, extensions 72 % For example, if for engineering calculations the maxi- Reconstruction, up−extensions 28 % mum number of remarks is 5 and the mean value is 3 then it means that remarks of this group are important almost Operation of buildings for all designs and the evaluation coefficient is 0,6. Shopping centre 14 % In the sample presented above 10 % of designs were Sports, entertainment 8 % approved without any remarks. Office, administrative 24 % Unfortunately, cases when customers present for ex- Logistic 16 % amination preliminary sketch design instead of basic Engineering buildings 8 % design are becoming more frequent. Meanwhile, often Industry, agriculture 30 % even designers remain non−informed. Lithuanian techni- Design stages cal regulations do not allow such a case therefore such Basic design 52 % exceptions causes a little disturbance in the results of analysis of remarks. There are cases when even more Workshop design 38 % problems and remarks appear after correction of designs − Technical detailed design 10 % than before their correction. Such cases are not typical Design part weight and therefore in the sample presented they are not in- Calculations all cluded. Investigations do not concern vast construction Foundation 68 % complexes (cost estimate of more than 15 mil. of Euros) Concrete structures 70 % since examination of these structures is performed ac- Steel structures 100 % cording to a specially created algorithm which allows for Timber structures 12 % particularities of these unique complexes. Various estimation coefficients may be applied to Mounting process all take into account influence of remarks on various groups. For example, if on the steel plate drawing distance be- Remarks made by experts are used as parameters for tween centre of hole and plate edge is not shown then it estimation of inaccuracies. Analysis of such type results may be considered as graphical inaccuracy or as detailing does not give a complete picture of the design quality. mistake either. In this case weight of remark has to be Moreover, an expert also can be mistaken or he can treat doubled. information given in the design wrongly. None the less, an attempt of formal sorting of remarks gives the oppor- Inaccuracies in designs: formal requirements for tunity to realize importance and influence of particular completion form groups of problems and so to obtain a key for increasing requirements in the determined area of design and code This type of inaccuracies is the most common one improvement. Remarks of experts on designs in this re- and it extends beyond the application limits of acting port are distributed in 8 groups (Table 2). technical regulations of Lithuania. Nonetheless, emer- gence of these inaccuracies is substantial (12%) and it Table 2. Grouping of expert remarks points out that they are not evaluated seriously enough Group of remarks % mid/max neither by design institutions nor by the designers. The General completion form 12 0,12 main of them are: Explanatory note 17 0,30 – in design there is no indication who is GMD, MSD, lacking of required requisites (signatures, Technical specifications 3 0,12 dates, untrue certificate numbers); Calculations 23 0,27 – drawings and text documents not signed; Detailing rules 15 0,13 – in different volumes of design different GMD Completion of drawings 24 0,14 and MSD indicated; Technological process 1 0,07 – list of design volumes lacking; Recommendations 5 0,12 – list of design drawings lacking; All 100 0,27 – grammar mistakes; – notations used in design not conform to the act- Quantitative distribution of remarks describes situa- ing standards; tion only approximately since actual influence of each – if in charge of basic and workshop designs were value is different. For example, a remark “Engineering different MSD then reconciling document is calculations not given” would have been expressed via lacking; coefficient indicating the number of remarks in the case – in design of a complex of construction works when a report on engineering calculations is presented. responsibility for each project not allocated be- Following a formal way, such a remark has to be given to tween GMD. a weighted coefficient expressing a mean value of the 771 Authors of this report are of the opinion that in the workshop design to other design institution or to other near future there is a tendency for the part of such inaccu- design parts MSD. racies to grow. Inaccuracies in designs: technical specifications Inaccuracies in designs: Explanatory note According to acting Lithuanian regulations (STR According to the acting regulations (STR 1.05.06 1.05.06 2009) technical specifications are to be prepared 2009) it is the most important document in design and it for the basic design only. Workshop design may include is a pity that engineering staff of customer, contractor and particular instructions for nonstandard jobs (for example, subcontractors do not pay adequate attention to it. Such erection of lifts). superficial relation of construction process partners is the Though technical specifications are intended for de- main reason of inaccuracies in the explanatory note. scription of the construction jobs and requirements for The explanatory note goals are: to describe construc- their implementation in particular construction works, tion conditions and general situation created by the con- practically almost always technical specifications are struction works design and also to stress particularities of presented in a general form suitable if not for any con- design, to set general and concrete requirements. The struction works but anyhow for the construction works most common inaccuracies are as follows: group to be concerned. – not defined construction works category influ- The presented list of normative documents in techni- encing selection of coefficients for calculations cal specifications as usually is too extensive for the par- and selection of structural solutions; ticular construction works. However, such important – category of environmental aggression (exposure individual particularities of the construction unit, such as class) not given while it is important for under- erection of nonstandard equipment (joints of pipes, fix- ground and for over−ground parts of construc- tures for suspended monorail crane, fixtures for sus- tion works; pended stands etc.) and complicated structures (for ex- – in preparation of working documentation pres- ample, walls and roofs of a circular reservoir), are not ence of the explanatory note is not compulsory explained. Since joints of the structures are presented in when there is a complete coincidence with solu- the working documentation then this problem is not usu- tions of the basic design but it is a very rare ally discussed in technical specifications as well (flanged case in Lithuanian design practice – moreover, joints, bolted erection joints, welded butt joints etc.). explanatory note in workshop design very often The engineering staff of construction and assem- is ignored while information on principal blage firms does not read technical specifications. Quite changes is attempted to be concealed; often they are not read even by GMD and MSD, because – there is no information on deformation blocks, in technical specifications there are names of other con- deformation joints etc. required for the design struction works or structural members and construction of details; materials which are not used in the design of construction – listed standards not applied in the design while works to be concerned. these ones used therein – not referred to; MSD is obliged to be able to present in technical – listed standards either do not act or they are specifications topics necessary for the particular construc- out−of−date; tion works. – not shown the most general coefficients applied in calculations (since calculations are kept in Inaccuracies in designs: calculations archive of the designer and are not conveyed to In modern designing selection and calculation tech- the customer) − importance coefficients for nique for the whole construction works is closely related construction works, partial safety factors for with hardware and software (Perelmuter 2007, Medzia- loads etc.; lowski et al. 2006). Modern abilities are created by com- – no mention about existing and adjacent con- puters and universal methods of analysis such as the finite struction works, and those neighbouring to the element method. Still direct simulation of a complicated design construction work; structure as an integral mechanical system in many cases – not indicated whether a new construction work does not reflect actual behaviour of construction works is designed or reconstruction of existing con- structures and its separate parts at natural conditions. struction work is taken place; Such nonconformity appears already in the assembly – it is not pointed out in conclusion whether de- stage which is not considered by the designers who simu- signed construction works satisfies require- late service stage only. Disassembly stage of stationary ments imposed by the acting standards or not. construction works usually is not considered by the de- The designer does not pay adequate attention to the signers as service life of the construction works as a rule explanatory note because he has no “feedback”, i. e. data is commensurable with or even greater than a future ser- about what kind of information need customer, quantity vice length of a specialist. surveyor, contractor or managers of other design parts. General shortcomings of the calculation design Sometimes some solutions are concealed in intentionally documentation of a structural design part are as follows: because of disinclination for possibility of passing the

772 – design documentation is not signed by the – in design loadings assembly situations (loads, GMD; supports, joints, poor strength etc.) are not – exact task for structural analysis of construction taken into account as well as test versions of is not defined in written form (it may be incor- structures and engineering services, starting and porated into project requirements for imple- stoppage of engineering network and installa- mentation of structural part) by the customer, tions, situations in case of fire, panic movement GMD and MSD of other design parts; of people etc. – little time is devoted to analysis and its comple- – profiled decking is treated as a rigid disc though tion in a required form; conditions for its rigid behaviour are not pro- – the time allocated for selection of a diagram for vided and sometimes it is impossible (when op- the structural analysis is partly used by the ar- eration of cranes in the construction works is chitects for development solutions of construc- envisaged or dynamic loads due to installations tion works and for coordination with other de- are acting etc.); sign parts; – braces are selected without allowance for par- – calculations are not verified by the internal in- ticularities of the construction works formally spection of the design institution, control recal- meeting code requirements with reference to culations are not performed; the fact that engineering software in linear – an individual specialist may be engaged for analysis does not consider global stability of the execution of structural analysis who does not system (an obvious drawback of professional completelyunderstand design situation. qualification); – stability problems of complicated systems As a rule, at the stage of the detailed project report (arches, domes, masts, lattice columns etc.) are basic design structural analysis of the whole construction not being solved; works and of some nonstandard joints is made. The – it is ignored that thin−walled bars and plate analysis is presented in the form of one or several vol- structures deform according to more compli- umes of design which are submitted to examination but cated laws and their analysis requires a special are not conveyed to the customer (according to a copy- approach; right law it is kept in archive of the design institution). – loads transferred by the continuous system The most common mistakes in this stage are as follows: (profiled decking, crane beams, suspended rails – eccentricities and hinges are set in wrong direc- etc.) are taken as these ones transferred by a tions (very often designers confuse local system simple system, i. e., a different distribution of of axes with global one); the support reactions is not taken in to account – designers do not pay attention to notification of (Fig 4); software about the instant system instability, – profiled decking is not verified for the loads while some programs exclude system instability due to suspended engineering networks. automatically, though not always correctly;

a) b)

Fig 3. Layout of braces on the upper chord of roof truss: insufficient (a); sufficient (b)

773 Inaccuracies in designs: detailing rules

First of all, during design process an important fact is not taken in to account – MSD has to be acquainted with the principal conception of the whole construction works and with the main realizations means of all other design parts (architecture, function scheme, production technology, electricity network, water supply etc.). It is especially important in case of complicated and nonstandard public construction works (theaters, stadiums etc.). Not less important for the designers of technological design part is to accept such solutions which could be realized in the actual conditions of the workshop design. Fig 4. Diagram of distribution of support reactions in a At the basic design stage the most important is crea- simple system (a); in a continuous system (b) tion of a correct diagram for structural analysis, i. e. correct location of supports, rational selection of distances

between columns, heights of trusses, assumption of brac- During workshop design calculations in selecting ing system etc. This detailing stage converges with that cross sections of steel bars and sheets, reinforcement of one discussed in the chapter above. None the less, while concrete slabs and bars, structural joints are designed selecting cross sections of bars and slabs or connection (shear, local pressure, welds, bolts, inserts, punching of types in joints during basic design stage it is worth to slabs etc.). Joints, as a rule, are analyzed by analytic think (without realization so far) about detailing methods methods. Analysis of complicated nonstandard situations for the workshop design stage. Frequent mistakes discov- is exceptional when more detailed investigation and ered during verification of the basic design (BD) docu- analysis of stress and strain state is necessary. mentation of the design:

− a) – at the stage of BD non flanged joints (without additional details) are assumed in which cross sections differing substantially in width are connected – punching and local stability conditions are not satisfied (Fig 6a); – at the stage of BD non−fashioned joints are assumed in which cross sections of the same width are connected – conditions of high quality welding are absent (Fig 6b); – a very thick sheet is connected with a thin sheet b) in a joint in which during welding either the thin sheet can be deteriorated or weld penetra- tion depth in the thicker sheet may be insufficient (Fig 7); – by reason of economy bars of flexibility ex- ceeding a limiting one are selected. Shortcomings found in workshop documentation: – weld thickness is selected from strength conditions only without allowance for structural−technological limitations for minimum Fig 5. Solution of central flanged joint of a roof truss: and maximum (in relation to thicknesses of correct (a); incorrect (b) sheets to be connected); – formal requirements for distances between holes and between holes and edges of the de- In practice the main problem in analysis of joints is tails to be connected are not satisfied; the fact that they are not given adequate final form. – surfaces that must be milled not indicated in the Therefore, the detailer almost has no opportunity to fol- drawings; low changes, which are always numerous in designs, and – detailing rules providing conditions for high to make corrections in time (Fig 5). quality welds are not satisfied (Fig 8); A traditional mistake can be such: verification of – cross sections of beams in places subjected to joints at the stage of the workshop design points out that concentrated loads are not reinforced by stiff- the cross section, which was selected in basic design, has eners (Fig 9a); to be changed. It leads to a conflict with the customer – in spine truss lattice vertical strut is not used because estimate cost of the construction works increases under support joint of the roof truss (Fig 9b). in comparison with the original one.

774 a) b) a)

Fig 6. Connection of a lattice member to a bottom Fig 9. Strengthened local zone under concentrated chord of the truss when members are very: narrow (a); load: truss (a); beam (b) wide (b) During a period from 1990 to 2010 experience of a) Lithuanian engineers in design of structures has changed substantially and unfortunately it became worse. It is directly associated with decrease in quantity of industrial buildings in service. Earlier experience and culture of design has been lost partly and a new generation of practicing specialists established themselves by self− education and regrettably non systematic one. For new industrial enterprises with foreign funds there is a tendency to hire foreign engineers. As exceptions can be noted several huge industrial complexes (Nuclear electric power plant near Ignalina, Oil processing plant near Mažeikiai etc.) where up till now specialized design departments b) with substantial experience of work still exist.

Inaccuracies in designs: completion of drawings

Quality of completion of drawings is very important at stages of basic and workshop designs (Simmons et al. 2009). But requirement are different since with basic design will deal engineers, while with workshop design – in addition to engineers, foremen and workers will be concerned. The most common inaccuracies found in basic designs: – class of steel and a corresponding standard not shown; Fig 7. Welded connections of a box section thin wall – notations do not correspond to requirements of to a thick sheet: roof truss support joint (a); flanged national standards (STR 1.05.08 2008); joint (b) – layout of structural elements in sections does not correspond to that one in plan; a) b) – not shown dimensions of structures and alti- tudes; – not shown dimensions of deformation blocks; – drawing size and location of a title block do not correspond to the requirements of (STR 1.05.08 2008); – in the lists of materials approximate quantities

of additional materials (facets, stiffeners, bolts, welds etc.) not indicated. Fig 8. Flanged joint for truss upper chord: view (a); The most frequent inaccuracies in workshop (work- section (b) ing) drawings: – lack of dimensions for preparation of production, (factory), (workshop) drawings;

775 – geometrical dimensions of standard rolled cross – joint in steel structure detailed so that it is im- sections and a code of the corresponding stan- possible to make weld of high quality and to dard not indicated; perform control; – not those dimensions shown, which are re- – not defined a procedure for welding of parts in quired for the manufacturer (Fig 10); a complicated steel structure; – dimensions in drawing do not coincide with – because of high reinforcement percentage and a those presented in material specifications; close layout in the contour of reinforcing bars, – classes of bolts, nuts, washers not shown; high quality compaction of concrete is impossi- – in a note a formal mention about weld thickness ble; is made which is not fit for the individual case; – reinforcement cages designed in such a way – field joints not shown. that it is impossible to joint them together. Since solutions of technological problems are indi- a) vidual even for serial construction works and depend directly on construction conditions and manufacture particularities, then requirements imposed by acting in Lithuania regulations are the most general. It does not give opportunity for refinement of requirements for such type of problems, especially, when a structural engineer has no experience of work in production.

Noncompulsory requirements to designs

Such remarks are based on a practical experience of experts and seek to attract attention of authors of designs b) to shortcomings not regulated by the standards, for example: – non−conversant drawing scale selected; – structure designed in this way not possible to be manufactured in Lithuania; – not indicated sizes of technological installation to be assembled, there is no a foot−note; – grid of axes for the construction works would be useful to complement with additional axes. Though design changes specified by these remarks are not obligatory it would be worth for the authors of design to try other versions for solutions of some problems.

Final conclusions and recommendations

Fig 10. Layout of part dimensions with non−right an- On the basis of performed investigations, experience gles: along outline (a); along holes (b) of experts and also taking into consideration verification results of the designs described above the following con- Usually because of shortage in time for design clusions and recommendations are made: elaboration, in manufacture and assembly of structures in – since volume of low−quality produced design case of equivocal drawings, solution may be made by an documentation is substantial and there is a gen- incompetent participant of the process. Such solution may eral tendency for solutions taken by the struc- be wrong. tural engineers to worsen, then examination of designs has to be obligatory and moreover – Inaccuracies in designs: technological processes of more attention must be paid to verification, and manufacture and assembly of building structures acting regulations should be revised and supplemented with more concrete requirements (it Normally problems of allowance for technology of may be done separately according to types of manufacture and assembly of building structures as well structures: concrete, steel, timber, foundations; as process equipment set−up are associated with working according to the types of construction works); documentation. Most of all, they are problems not men- – at present not many engineers in the text part of tioned in text and graphical parts of the design: the design are able in a correct way to express – not explained how to protect against corrosion their opinion and to describe particular situation column steel bases in the soil; stressing peculiarities and possible outcomes; – joint detailed in such a way that there is no – more stringent requirements are be to paid to place for a key to tighten the nut; the training and certification of specialists, state 776 institutions should support such development puter Applications in Technology 20(1–3): 3–14. trends and give priority to them; doi:10.1504/IJCAT.2004.003831 – some time reserve for preparation of design LST EN 1997. Eurokodas 7. Geotechninis projektavimas [Geo- documentation has to be foreseen to make par- technical Design]. Vilnius, 2007, 167 p. allel processes of design and construction im- Medzialowski, C.; Chyzy, T.; Krętowska, J. 2006. Numerical possible – designing must be a step ahead; model of three-dimensional coupled wall structures, Jour- – in design institutions internal control of the de- nal of Civil Engineering and Management 13(1): 37–45. sign solutions and corresponding documenta- Перельмутер, А. В.; Сливкер, В. И. 2007. Расчётные модели tion has to be strongly regulated; сооружений и возможность их анализа. 3-е издание – operation model of examination bureaus based [Design Models of Construction Works and Possibility for rd Москва ДМК Пресс с on competition and conditions created by it, their Analysis. 3 ed.]. : . 595 . worsen work of the experts and therefore an al- Shaw, M. C. 2001. Engineering Problem Solving – A Classical st ternative model needs to be established which Perspective. 1 ed. USA: William Andrew Publishing. would be able to compensate shortcomings of 449 p. ISBN: 0-8155-1447-6. the present situation – specifically, to develop Perelmuter, C.; Maguire, D.; Phelps, N. 2009. Manual of Engi- rd principles of systematization of requirements neering Drawing. 3 ed. Great Britain: Elsevier. 328 p. and control of examination results. ISBN-13: 978-0-7506-8985-4. The authors of this report look forward to positive STR 1.05.06. Statinio projektavimas [Design of Construction influence of the application start of European standards Works]. Vilnius, 2009. on quality increase of the designs in the future. Unfortu- STR 1.05.08. Statinio projekto architektūrinės ir konstrukcinės nately, the first introduction stage of Eurocodes may be dalių brėžinių braižymo taisyklės ir grafiniai žymėjimai quite difficult for the structural engineers because of not [Drafting Rules for Drawings of Architectural and Struc- adequate level of their education. tural Parts of Construction Work Design and Graphical Notations]. Vilnius, 2008. References STR 1.06.03. Statinio projekto ir statinio ekspertizė [Examina- tion of Construction Works Design and Construction Cloud, P. A. 1998. Engineering procedures Handbook. 1st ed. Works]. Vilnius, 2005. USA: William Andrew Publishing. 431 p. ISBN-13: 978- STR 2.05.03. Statybinių konstrukcijų projektavimo pagrindai. 0-8155-1410-7. [Basis of Structural Design]. Vilnius, 2003. Eisner, H. 2002. Essentials of Project and Systems Engineering STR 2.05.05. Betoninių ir gelžbetonių konstrukcijų projektavi- Management. 2nd ed. USA: John Wiley & Sons. 448 p. mas [Design of Concrete and Reinforced Concrete Struc- ISBN:0-4710-3195X. tures]. Vilnius, 2009. EN1990 Eurocode 0: Basis of Structural Design. Brussels: STR 2.05.07. Medinių konstrukcijų projektavimas [Design of CEN, 2009. Timber Structures]. Vilnius, 2005. EN1992 Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures. Brussels: STR 2.05.08. Plieninių konstrukcijų projektavimas. Pagrindinės CEN, 2009. nuostatos [Design of Steel Structures. General Rules]. EN1993 Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures. Brussels: Vilnius, 2007. CEN, 2009. Šarka, V.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Ustinovičius, L.; Šarkienė, E.; č Č ų ų EN1995 Eurocode 5: Design of Timber Structures. Brussels: Ignatavi ius, . 2008. Projekto daugiatiksli sprendim ė CEN, 2009. sintez s sistema statyboje [System of project multicriteria decision synthesis in construction], Ūkio technologinis ir Gabrielaitis, L; Baušys, R. 2005. A case study of project docu- ekonominis vystymas [Technological and economic devel- Proc. Of 11th ment management in building design, in opment of economy]. 14(4): 546–565. Joint CIB International Symposium “Advancing Facilities Management and Construction through Innovation”, Hel- Zavadskas, E. K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Gulbinas, A. 2004. Multiple sinki, Finland, June 13–16, 2005. Helsinki: 25–33. criteria decision support web-based system for building refurbishment, Journal of Civil Engineering and Man- Gabrielaitis, L; Baušys, R. 2006. Electronic document manage- agement 10(1): 103–108. ment in building design, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 12(2): 103–108. Watts, F. B. 2008. Engineering Documentation Control Hand- book. 3rd ed. USA: William Andrew Publishing. 376 p. Kanoglu, A.; Artidi, D. 2004. An integrated automation system ISBN-13: 978-0-8155-1595-1. for design/build organization, Internal Journal of Com-

777