how often do your calculations get checked

huangyhg

how often do your calculations get checked ?
hi all.
in my 13 years as a structural engineer (8 in buildings & 5 in railcar structures), i can count on one hand the number of times my design calcs. have been checked by a second engineer.  i've always worked in small engineering firms that simply didn't have the time or budget for it.  
usually, design drawings have been reviewed for blatant omissions etc, but nothing more.  
i'm curious how many of you other engineers out there are in the same boat.  any thoughts?
check out our whitepaper library.
trainguy...i have worked in various size groups.  when i was on my own, no one (other than engineers reviewing the work for others) reviewed my calcs.  in medium to large firms, i have been involved in situations where all calcs and other documents are reviewed.  as a mentor/senior level reviewer, i certainly subscribe to this process.
it is a comfort to have another set of eyes on anything.
trainguy.
just like ron, i've worked on jobs where my calculations were checked by senior engineers/peers and on other jobs where my calculations and drawings were not checked at all prior to ifc.  i too welcome a second set of eyes looking over my design.  no one's perfect all the time!
regards.
i think we are discussing a vital topic.
the value of an unbiased check by a second person is often ignored due to the time and budget constraints. we have a quality system in our company which emphasises the second check. we should realise that in spite of one's experience and knowledge slippages do occur and these checks help to eliminate such errors before the deliverable leaves for the site. it is far better that the errors are identified and rectified inside the design group rather than being pointed out by the customer.
i strongly recommend that in the interest of the project a reasonable provision shall be included in the budget and schedule for this activity.
we try to minimise the time and effort required for this activity by using validated software (either in-house developed or marketed ones)for analysis, design and detailing so that the checking of a less volumenous input ensures the correctness of a larger output.
when i first started in the field my calcs were checked often.  not so much anymore, but with experience yu get a feel if something is amiss.
also, sermc puts out a calculations checklist which you can run through yourself, which is very helpful in catching errors.
they have a drawing checklist, also.
i work for a large company [enr top 10] and i hate to say that over the past five years not much gets checked in my office despite the management's claim about quality being of the utmost importance. there's usually no budget for it because projects have to support a lot of dead weight.
no one wants to check calculations on their own; so it falls onto the project manager since his/her neck is on the line.
so what we usually end up with is a less than thorough review of plans and a crap shot on the calculations. some   
i've experienced the whole gamut.  at a large company i was at checking was pretty thorough. i think this is appropriate because as someone said above we're only human.  i've also experienced a lot of very cursory or not at all checking.  again, for the same reasons stated above. "oh we're a small company, we can't afford to check everything."  here's my problem, and i'm pointing the finger at myself as well. we're the engineers, so why are we letting other people decide what's an appropriate level of checking? i'd be interested in people's thoughts on this.
it is paradoxical to feel 'we are small organisation and we can't afford checking time'.there is a wrong thought among people that the time spent on checking is not paying. if one thinks of the rework due to the errors detected later,this additional time and effort are not only unpaid but also bring down the level of confidence of the customer on the design team. it also demoralises the design group to some extent. considering such an event, i would never mind a little extra time to make my document error free. a systematic checking effort earns you a satisfied customer and the improved morale within the team.
i would definitely vote for a chcking system in any engineering activity. one can think of reducing the checking time by innovative methods without defeating the purpose of the system.
i've worked in the nuclear power industry where every sheet of calculations were checked.  since then i have worked in a field where calculations were not routinely checked.  however, the actual deliverables (drawings and specifications) are always checked.  i think it's more important to check what's being built from rather than the calculations.  you can catch problems beyond what is shown in the calculations (details, etc.).  if necessary, the reviewer can look at the calculations to see what is behind the design.
i work in an office of seven design engineers which comprises 2 chief engineers, 2 senior engineers, 2 designers and one graduate.  weare in he heavy civil's & tunnelling business and dsign both permanent and temporary works schemes.  no calcs or dwgs are issued without a signed off check being carried out.  the procedure is to get one of the engineers who are not directly involved with your project to carry out the checks.  the key is to ensure that the checker is suitably experienced to carry out the check before passing it to him/her.
andy machon


bridgebuster...your comments "hit home".  some time ago i left a large international firm (enr top 30) for a smaller, regional firm.  at the large firm, the same was happening....lip service to quality.  though there are many fine engineers at that company who will maintain their own personal commitment to quality, the same cannot be said of management's policies that compromise such quality.
at the smaller firm, we are striving to make sure that quality issues are not shorted.  as with larger firms, we have procedures in place to require sign-off of all calculations, reports, documents, designs, etc.  the difficulty in a smaller firm is the lack of sufficient number of senior level individuals to affect these processes.  often a single senior individual is responsible for the technical review of several different locations, some of which can be hundreds of miles apart.  i suppose fedex loves us!