Structural design processes: Difference between revisions

Structural design processes (view source)

Revision as of 21:08, 19 November 2021

1,969 bytes added , 21:08, 19 November 2021

no edit summary

Iain

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

1,351

edits

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 Table 1 only indicates some of the complexity of the system plan.   It does not show iterations that are common, especially at the concept stage nor does it show interactions among the sub-processes.
+=== Controlling Risk ===
+A structural collapse can have serious consequences and all structural engineering activities should be treated as being, to some degree  [[Risk|safety critical]].
-=== Risk ===
-A structural collapse can have serious consequences and all structural engineering activities should be treated as being, to some degree, [[Index.php?title=Risk|safety critical]].
 It is important to pay special attention to the requirements of the client but such considerations should not over-ride duty of care to the publc.
@@ Line 64: / Line 62: @@
 === Review and revise ===
+[[Critical thinking]] is a key attribute in review work. Constantly asking reflective questions and responding to them is essential for ensuring successful outcomes.  Examples of such questions are:
+Key reflective questions are:
+* ''Validation'': Is the process being used suited to the context?
+* ''Verification'':  Has the process been correctly implemented?
+Throughout the design process it is especially important to focus on the [[Top-down strategy|requirements]] - to ensure that all requirements have been identified and are adequately addressed in the design. For examples of the use of requirements see  [[Structural design of a footbridge|Footbridge]]. The reasons for structural failures can often be led back to faults in requirements -  see, for example, the following case studies:  Tay Rail Bridge Disaster, Ronan Point Collapse, Florida Bridge Failure, Hartford Civic Center Collapse. Processes for identifying requirements and for ensuring that they are addressed need to be used.
+Review actiities include:
+* '''Constant review activity''' Throughout the design process, there should be continual assessment of the inputs, the processes and the outputs  - see Figure 4.  This involves asking questions such as: Are important issues being missed?  Should I seek advice about this? Has this been properly assessed? Such questions need to answered and action taken when appropriate.
+* '''Design reviews''' The design programme should include a schedule of formal meetings of the design team to review (a) progress and (b) the satisfaction of requirements.
+* '''Milestone reviews ''' The two major reviews in the design plan are:
+# At the end of the concept stage the state of the design is reviewed to ensure that what is proposed has the potential to satisfy the requirements i.e. that the design is valid.  This results in a Design Proposal for agreement by the client..
+# The final review verifies that the design will satisfy the requirements.