GENERAL MEETING OF THE NIGERIAN INSTITUTION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
THEME: ISSUES ON FAILURE OF ENGINEERING
STRUCTURES IN NIGERIA
DATE: 25TH – 26TH OCTOBER, 2016
VENUE: ABUJA INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE CENTRE INTRODUCTION The philosophy of structural design is to achieve structures that are not only safe but economical. Therefore, a design that is absolutely safe but wasteful in cost is not a good design, whereas a design that is unsafe but economical is even worse, as it could lead to a collapsed building if eventually used for construction. Reference to safe and unsafe refers to high solid and structurally adequate is the structure, and therefore in order to avoid structural collapse, structural designs must be capable of producing structurally adequate, and hence, safe structures. It can be expected that the more the adequacy of a structure, and therefore, the more structurally safe it is, the higher the cost. This is because such a design will take care of all eventualities that can lead to structural failure, and hence to be costlier than an inadequate structure. However in reality, that relationship may not always hold. That is, a less safe structure can even be less economical than a safer structure. How then do we relate cost to design? How do we reduce cost on a structure and still achieve structurally safe structures? This presentation will discuss methods of reducing cost in structural design, which can lead to a structurally unsafe structure, which are characterized here as CRUDE methods. The presentation will also discuss methods of reducing costs without sacrificing the safety requirements, which are termed REFINED methods in the presentation. ECONOMIC FACTORS IN STRUCTURAL DESIGN It is generally expected that when a person is financially buoyant, it will be relatively easier for him or her to spend adequately for any cause. The same reasoning applies to the state of a national economy. As shown by Windapo and Rotimi (2012) in a causal loop diagram of a system dynamic model created to show the degree of alignment/compliance to sustainable construction principles and unsustainable practices on building collapse/performance and indirectly on capital growth/sustainable development, there are dynamic relationships between economic conditions and the behavior of construction stakeholders to comply with design standards in Nigeria. UNSAFE PRACTICES TO REDUCE CONSTRUCTION COSTS Any practices that tend not to comply with design specifications during construction are unsafe and should not be used to ‘cushion’ the effects of economy downturn. Such unacceptable methods which have been identified as causing building collapse include: Use of cheaper but poor materials Use of poor but inadequate material combinations, e.g. poor concrete mix ratios Use of shoddy but cheap workmanship Use of inappropriate but less effective equipment Inadequate construction intensity Etc. SAFE AND REFINED METHODS OF REDUCING COST On the other hand, cost have to be reduced on construction projects, especially in this period of recession. What then are the permissible and safe methods. The following four (4) methods are discussed: Avoiding materials wastage; life-cycle applications; and Design optimization DESIGN TO PREVENT MATERIALS WASTAGE The design engineer must be conscious of the need to detail materials to fit standardization. This occurs in such materials as reinforcement, formworks, falseworks, etc. The principle is that the mounts of cut-offs should be reduced to the minimum. This does not only reduce construction costs, but also reduce the amount of wastages to be disposed off the site, which itself costs money. LIFE CYCLE COST APPLICATIONS ASTM E917-83 (1983) describes the standard practices for evaluating LCC of buildings and building systems. The motivation for the LCC is that on any investment decision, all costs arising from the decision, both immediate and in future are potentially important. Construction projects completed on the basis of lower initial cost alone have often proved to be far more expensive in the long run, besides causing damage to the environment and bringing poorer return on the investment. Thus the durability of structure and its life cycle cost are closely inter-linked. Therefore, for economically sound structure, the emphasis should be on reduction of life cycle costs and not merely the reduction of initial cost, and hence, it is the duty of the design engineer to minimize life cycle costs of their designs. Life Cycle Cost of a Structure is made up of several components listed below (Narayanan. R. and Kalyanaraman, V (2000)). Initial Cost Actual “Cash” Cost of the project Cost of the Investment locked-up without Returns (“The Time Cost”) Cost penalty to the community by traffic delays and detours; Losses suffered by local Business (“Hidden Penalty Cost”) Cost of damage to the Environment due to Pollution (“The Environment Cost”) Periodic Maintenance Cost, including energy cost Cost of dismantling the structure, at the end of its life Less the salvage value of the construction products. DESIGN OPTIMIZATION Another effective means of reducing cost is design optimization. Design optimization is loosely defined by Papalambros and Wilde (2000) as the selection of the "best" design within the available means. When stated so simply, optimization seems an obvious objective of any design task. Papalambros and Wilde (2000) observe that design optimization involves: The selection of a set of variables to describe the design alternatives. The selection of an objective (criterion), expressed in terms of the design variables, which we seek to minimize or maximize. The determination of a set of constraints, expressed in terms of the design variables, which must be satisfied by any acceptable design. The determination of a set of values for the design variables, which minimise (or maximise) the objective, while satisfying all the constraints." QUOTE OF HERBERT HOVER In order to drum down the status and duties of the structural engineer, let me quote a speech of Herbert Hoover: Herbert Hoover, a former President of the United States of America - (the massive arch dam called “Hoover Dam” in the U.S.A. is named after him), described the Engineering profession as follows (1961): “It is a great profession. There is the fascination of watching the figment of the imagination emerge through the aid of Science to a plan on paper. Then it moves to realisation in stone or metal or energy. Then it brings jobs and homes to men. Then it elevates the standards of living and adds to the comforts of life. That is the Engineer’s high privilege. The great liability of the engineer compared to men of other professions is that his works are out on the open, where all can see them. His acts, step by step, are in hard substance. He cannot bury his mistakes in the grave like physicians. He cannot argue them into thin air or blame the judge like the lawyers. He cannot, like the architects, cover his failures with trees and vines. He cannot, like the politicians, screen his shortcomings by blaming his opponents and hope that the people will forget. The engineer simply cannot deny that he did it. If his works do not work, he is damned forever…. “On the other hand, unlike the doctor, his is not a life among the weak. Unlike the soldier, destruction is not his purpose. Unlike the lawyer, quarrels are not his daily bread. To the engineer falls the job of clothing the bare bones of science with life comfort and hope. No doubt, as the years go by, the people forget which engineer did it, even if they ever knew. Or some politician puts his name on it. Or they credit it to some promoter, who used other people’s money… But the engineer himself looks back at the unending stream of goodness which flows from his success with satisfaction that few other professions may know. And the verdict of his fellow professionals is all the accolade he wants.” Therefore, structural engineering is a high-liability profession—a profession where mistakes can result in the loss of life and property. Operating in an environment of high consequence tends to breed conservatism. CONCLUSION Structures must be designed to be structurally adequate and therefore safe against collapse or failure. At the same time, the cost of construction has to be brought down in this era of economic recession. There are crude ways of achieving this, which are essentially using poor materials and poor processes which lead to collapse of structures. Such approaches should be avoided. On the other hand, the structural engineer has to be more economically conscious in their designs, so as to achieve affordability and fundability. Three methods of achieving this are (1) avoiding wastages through inefficient sizing and detailing (2) Use of life cycle cost philosophy during the design stage(3) Use of design optimization. The important message is that both safety and economy are key expectations in structural design, and the engineer cannot open his eyes for one and close them for the other. Otherwise, such designs will not be fulfilling. Thank you for listening.