Quick Search

AUS-8 Poor quality of structural design on high-rise buildings

Report ID: 823

Published: CROSS-AUS Newsletter 2 - July 2019

Report Overview

The correspondent has been very concerned about the quality of structural engineering on some projects in recent years, particularly for certain high-rise buildings.

Report Content

The correspondent has been very concerned about the quality of structural engineering on some projects in recent years, particularly for certain high-rise buildings. According to the correspondent, there are engineers who regard the requirements of the Concrete Structures Standard (AS 3600) to be generally conservative and are the maximum requirement, rather than the minimum requirement.

The correspondent has experienced the following issues:

  • When the design of post-tensioned floors is given to a specialist sub-contractor, the design may not be coordinated nor indeed checked by the structural engineer. Hopefully the changes in AS 3600-2018 in the design of diaphragms and the tying together of elements will overcome this.
  • When the design of precast concrete is given to the precast manufacturer, they may have little understanding of structural design unless they employ structural engineers themselves. Again, there can be a lack of coordination between the in-situ concrete design and the precast concrete design.
  • It is possible that clause 11.5 of AS 3600-2009 may be misinterpreted using the simplified method to design concrete walls that may be supporting 20 to 30 storeys. This may result in a 150mm thick wall with a single layer of mesh in the middle. However, in the view of the reporter, the clause was never intended to be used in this way when it was originally included in AS 3600-1988. This problem should be resolved by the revisions to AS 3600-2018 which have introduced stricter requirements for the design of load-bearing concrete walls.
  • Lateral loads and in particular seismic loads are sometimes not well considered and in some cases are ignored. Again, changes in AS 3600-2018 together with a minimum earthquake hazard factor (Z) of 0.08 should bring this to the fore.
  • Many young engineers lack site experience and although they may have good structural analysis skills, the practicalities of construction and buildability issues may not be considered.
  • Checking and coordination of drawings is often lacking. While there is no such thing as a perfect set of design documents, a good set of documents goes a long way to making sure that everything works. When changes occur during construction, structural engineers are reluctant to amend the drawings and mark-ups are done on shop drawings instead.
  • Private certification may, in some cases, have contributed to the problem. There should be independent building surveyors and certifiers who are appointed by somebody other than the parties directly involved in the project.

There is much focus currently on the need for everybody to be registered, but that's not the answer in this correspondent’s opinion. What is needed are quality people and quality time to do the job properly.

Comments

This report raises several issues of concern, not all of which are new, and some that have been raised in other reports such as design of RC walls (AUS-3) and managing changes during construction (AUS-7). It also highlights several of the issues raised in the Shergold & Weir and Opal Tower reports around competency, co-ordination of drawings, the correct application of Australian Standards, site inspections, quality control, private certification and registration.

The issue of attitude to the Australian Standards raised in the report, and also in the accompanying AUS-3 report, is a serious one which has arisen from the changing nature of Standards and Codes over the last 50-60 years. The present Australian Standards have developed from Codes of Practice written to represent conservative good practice. Increasingly they seem to have become regarded as being accurate reproductions of theory that can be used without a detailed understanding of their background or the limitations of their use. When incorporated into design software their use becomes even more remote from their theoretical backing, and the outcomes are certified as meeting the code because the software is apparently based on the code. Ensuring that the relationship between theory, codes, and practice is properly understood is the responsibility of the profession.

 

CROSS-AUS depends on you for reports - if you have experienced a safety issue that you can share with CROSS-AUS, please Submit a CROSS-AUS Report which is treated as confidential

If you have any comments regarding this CROSS-AUS report, please Submit Feedback

View other CROSS-AUS reports published in CROSS-AUS Newsletter 2


Email Updates

How to Report

Online submission:
Submit by post: