The text presented here is not precisely as published by OUP, but modifications are minor. Illustrations are another matter. Where images used in the original book were not my copyright, I have in most cases been able to substitute links to coloured images on the web.
When this text was submitted as part of a PhD thesis in 1996, the Notes were greatly extended. Most readers may prefer to ignore them. They have been collected at the end of each chapter, with internal links leading to them and back to the text. They are a mixture of: simple page references; additional examples or quotations to justify generalisations; and some afterthoughts.
Note [added 2002]. This chapter was written in the early 1980s and is out of date because of the efforts which have since been made to avoid the adversarial nature of the traditional relationship between the client's representatives (consultants) and the contractor. Examples are the Alliance form of contract, and various schemes involving Partnership. Also, forms of government procurement for infrastructure, such as 'Build-Own-Operate', 'Build-Own-Operate-Transfer' and what we Australians call 'Public Private Partnerships' have become popular. However, the chapter is still worth a quick look.
For more recent views see e.g.
MacMillan, S., Kirby, P., and Spence, R. (eds) 'Interdisciplinary design in practice', Telford, London, 2001.
Critchlow,J. and Elliott, F. 'Making partnering work in the Construction Industry', Chandos (Oxford), 2001.
Austin, S. et al 'Design Chains', Telford, London, 2001.
Introduction.
Having surveyed the entire context within which structural design takes place and had a taste of the complex factors which surround the process of stress analysis, we shall now look at the planning of buildings in terms of finance and function and the effects this may have on the work of the structural engineer. [Note 1.]
Politics and organizational behaviour have already been dismissed as being beyond the scope of the book. The same must apply to the actual financing of projects; the business of raising money to invest in a new private or public venture. The ability of the client organization to raise money from, say, debenture issues or returns in the case of private industry, or from taxes or loans in the case of government, may indeed influence the engineer, even though he is rarely involved in problems of this nature. If he knows something of financing and community values it may explain much of the reasons for the existence and nature of the project he is being asked to design.
A knowledge of these factors will also give him a perspective of his role in the project, particularly if he has spent some months working on the design of a project only to learn that it has been shelved or abandoned completely. However, what concerns us in this Chapter is more the day-to-day effects on engineering decisions. If design is properly integrated these can be quite considerable and it is helpful if the engineer has some awareness of the mechanisms of finance and the manner in which financial decisions are reached.
The planning process.
Planning has been described as "making the basic decisions which define a system". [Note 2.] The major considerations in this process are the expression of the functional objectives of the project, the estimation of the cost of achieving these aims, and in most cases, a balancing of objectives against cost or a choice amongst several alternatives to ensure an outcome satisfactory to the originators or users of the project.
In the words of Armstrong (1979):
"Decision is the useful outcome of economic study. Men and society choose what to do, when to do it, and in what way to do it. The professional engineer assists in or contributes to this choice even where he does not make it. Choice will be enhanced by the generation of feasible and comparable alternatives, an exercise for which the engineer is particularly qualified …" [p.248]
The decision concerning 'what' to do (the functional objectives) obviously has a great effect on the necessary form of structures and hence on the design engineer. Financial and functional planning and their effects on structure will be considered in more detail in later sections. First, however, it is appropriate to give some impression of the planning process in order to place the work of the structural engineer in perspective.
It is much easier to discuss planning in the private sector than in the public, because private projects are much more self-contained and their success can be measured in the relatively simple terms of profit earned for investors. Moreover, in a capitalist society, thinking in the public sector is greatly influenced by the attitudes of the private sector, so that it is not inappropriate to use the private system as an introduction to both fields. Most texts on planning refer to habitable buildings and this will be reflected in the following discussion. The general principles apply to all structures, but care will be needed in extrapolating from specific cases.
Seeley (1972) summarizes several descriptions (actually prescriptions) for the planning process. [Note 3.] These include the RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) 'Plan of Work'. In this the stages are defined as follows.
| Brief | 1. Inception and Feasibility. |
| Sketch Plans | 2. Outline Proposals. |
| 3. Scheme Design. | |
| Working Drawings | 4. Detail Design. |
| 5. Bills of Quantities. | |
| 6. Tender Action. | |
| Site Operations | 7. Project Planning. |
| 8. Operations Site. | |
| 9. Completion and Feedback. |
Griffin (1972) identifies three major phases (including the operation of the venture) which he splits into many minor ones. [pp. 11-12]
- Decision State.
- Assembly of the development team, including the owners.
- Economic design (market and feasibility studies).
- Site selection.
- Program and budget.
- Construction cost projections.
- Schematic physical design.
- Land acquisition (option, lease or purchase).
- Preparation of financial package for submission to prospective lenders.
- Design Stage: Preliminary physical design.
- Financing negotiations (mortgage and construction loans).
- Final design, construction documents (specifications, drawings).
- Delivery Stage: Construction.
- Investment management - property
- management/leasing; sales of exchanges; liquidation of investment.
The pressure for speedy completion of projects, which is explained in the following chapter, sometimes results in the telescoping of the planning process, so that the phases described above overlap on different parts of the project. However, the basic principles remain the same.
The relative importance of structure.
It is evident from these descriptions that the structural design is but a small part of the overall process. The cost of constructing the building is submerged in land costs, operating costs, furnishing, interest, taxation, professional fees, expenses involved in entrepreneurial activities and costs of professional advice. Furthermore, the cost of the structure is only a fraction of the total cost of the building: perhaps 20 to 40 per cent depending on circumstances. Services may account for as much as 50 per cent of total cost. Architectural finishes will account for the rest.
Steyert (1972) demonstrates this graphically by the bar diagram shown in Figure 3.1. He points out that a modification to the basic structure which causes a ten per cent increase in its cost causes an increase of only 3.18 percent in construction cost and 1.16 percent in total cost. If the modification produces increased returns or saves money in the architectural sphere, it may well be worthwhile.
Fig. 3.1. Chart showing the relative importance of cost of building structure in relation to total project cost. [Note 4.]
Structural costs may be similarly overshadowed in industrial structures such as power stations and mines where expensive machinery is installed, and in bridges, where the cost of approach roads is important. The significance of this is not that the structural content of a project is unimportant, but that the structural designer should make all his decisions in the light of their possible effect on other, possibly more costly, aspects of the scheme.
The organization of design: the 'quadripartite' system.
The process by which structures come into being, and thus the final results, are greatly influenced by the way in which the individuals involved organize themselves into administrative units and by the formal and informal rules which govern the interaction of those units. The starting point of the following discussion will be the conventional arrangement for the design of buildings, sometimes known as 'The System' in which four major units: Client, Architect, Consultant Engineers, and Contractors take responsibility for different phases and aspects of the project. [Note 5.] Discussion will again be limited initially to the private sector.
The firm (or individual) which first expresses a need for the structure becomes the 'Client'. This might be a firm which requires an additional factory or head-office building, or a developer considering construction of office space as an investment. [Note 6.]
If the structure is a habitable building the Client will in accordance with 'The System' approach an Architectural Consultant who will be responsible for its planning. The Architect's firm will design the arrangement of space within the building, its cladding, its internal environment and its appearance. To assist him in the more specialized fields of structure, acoustics, air conditioning, and so on, the Architect may call in other consultants and act as leader of the resulting team.
The role of the client is by no means passive. It is impossible for a client to express his requirements in more than the vaguest terms unless he knows something of the various possible means of satisfying them. This knowledge rests chiefly with the architect. Planning of a project must thus be a two-way process of interaction between client and architect.
In the planning stage the client will also be balancing the capital and running costs of the building, as its details begin to take shape, against potential earnings. In this process economists, accountants and lawyers are likely to be involved along with production staff and executives who will operate or manage the new facility. A client who knows his own business thoroughly and also has previous experience of building can greatly reduce the time required for planning.
A major influence in the early stages is the regulatory authority; usually a city or borough council or a body established by state government, which must approve certain planning decisions including the use of land for industrial or residential purposes, provisions for access and parking of vehicles, access of sunlight to buildings and density of occupation. It must also approve the detailed design in terms of architecture (sometimes including aesthetics), structure and services. It derives the power to do this through national laws and regulations. Usually it employs codes produced by a number of national Standards Associations to define the expected standards in detail. By-laws are enacted which require that designs comply with the codes.
The attitude of the regulatory authority is of paramount importance in planning. A collaborative approach in which it specifies its requirements clearly to the applicants and helps them achieve compliance can greatly shorten all stages of design. On the other hand an authoritarian or excessively cautious approach in which the authority simply continues to reject proposals until the designers happen to arrive at an acceptable version may hold up a project for many months and cause considerable wastage of design effort.
Once the essentials of the project have been determined, the architect and specialist consultants produce specifications and drawings covering their different fields of responsibility. The extent which these specify the minute details of construction vary from one profession and from one country to another. Traditionally architects specify their work in most detail, with structural engineers next and services engineers least. Conventionally, steel fabricators are expected to produce the minutely detailed drawings for their own use from the general outlines provided by the structural engineers. Particularly in the U.S.A. reinforcement suppliers and fixers are expected to detail the lengths, shapes and numbers of bars required from general information supplied by the designer. Services engineers often supply only line-drawings, leaving the suppliers and fixers to detail supports, exact lengths of ducts and connections.
In the U.K. it is conventional to prepare a 'Bill of Quantities' which sets out the various items required for construction and the estimated quantities of each. The list therefore includes so many cubic metres of excavation and of concrete, so many tonnes of reinforcement, lengths of pipes and ductwork etc. The purpose of this is partly so that an estimate of cost may be obtained for the client by multiplying the quantity of each item by its estimated unit cost. It is prepared by a 'Quantity Surveyor' who because of his experience in estimating costs often plays an important role in the design stage.
Tenders are then called and contractors submit prices for the completion of the work according to the specifications and drawings. In the Bill of Quantities system, they enter a separate unit price against each item on the list. The various professional consultants advise the client through the architect on the acceptance of the best (not necessarily the lowest) tenders.
When construction commences the consultants provide a supervisory service to ensure that construction is carried out in accordance with the specifications and drawings. Their role is also to act as intermediaries between the client and the contractor in sorting out any ambiguities, uncertainties or unspecified details. On all projects unexpected problems arise, often due to foundation conditions which have not been revealed by the original site investigation. Changes in the design are often requested by the client after construction has commenced. In these cases the contractor is normally recompensed for the extra work involved and lengthy negotiations may ensue as to the correct amount to be paid.
The consultants also certify the work as it is completed and authorize progress payments to the contractor.
Variations on the quadripartite system.
There are a number of minor variations on the basic system described above. Sometimes, as in the case of the Sydney Opera House, one or more of the consultants may be chosen by the Client rather than by the Architect even though the latter is normally expected to act as leader of the team. In some cases a client may ask several consultants to quote a fee for design, thus placing them in a competitive situation.
For structures which have a mainly utilitarian function, such as bridges or factories, the Client may approach a structural engineering consultant first, and the Architect, if one is called in at all, will have a subordinate role. All supervision and payments will then be handled through the engineering consultant.
Some clients now appoint a 'management contractor' on a fee basis as a member of the design team with responsibility for checking the availability of materials and labour and ensuring that the structure is not unnecessarily difficult to build. This firm appoints sub- contractors for the actual construction and supervises their work.
The increasing complexity of modern buildings, requiring the closest integration of architectural planning, structure, services and means of construction has led to a greater willingness in the English-speaking world to use arrangements which combine some of the four basic elements in order to reduce the problems of communication and collaboration. These are commonly known as package systems.
Many consulting firms employ both engineers and architects to provide a complete design service from planning to plumbing. [Note 7.] Contractors may install similarly comprehensive design teams and offer a complete 'design-and-construct' service to the Client. Unless the Client has experienced good service from one particular designer-builder he will call tenders thus requiring a number of firms to each prepare a sufficiently detailed design to permit reasonably accurate costing.
To take advantage of the design-and-build service the client must have already completed his planning, so that he can specify to the contractor the nature of the building that he desires. To do this the client may establish his own 'in-house' team of professionals to carry the project through the planning stage, or he may employ a comprehensive consultancy service. [Note 8.] Often comprehensive planning, design and construct services are offered, not by a permanent organization, but by a loose coalition of independent firms which have banded together for a specified period or to bid for a particular project.
In answer to the need for better co-ordination, a new profession of 'project manager' has arisen. Firms or individuals may offer services ranging from initial feasibility studies through to commissioning of the finished building and act either as co-ordinators or as managers taking full responsibility for all aspects. This development has caused some alarm to the architects, the traditional leaders of the design team, who see themselves being relegated to the position of 'specialist in aesthetics'. [Note 9.] As a result the Institutes in both the USA and UK have relaxed their codes of ethics. Architects in the USA may now invest in projects, acting as developer and also as builder.
Organization in the public sector.
To turn to the public sector, much design is carried out wholly within Government organizations, particularly for the larger projects. Again there are many types of organization, and these differ from one country to another. There are permanent organizations at national, federal, or state level, which may have a fairly general responsibility such as 'public works' or a more specific one such as roads, railways or electricity supply. On the other hand instrumentalities may be set up for a specific project. Examples are the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority in Australia, or the Tennessee Valley Authority in the United States. [Note 10.] In such cases, as with the SMHEA, the life of the design organization may be limited. At the more local level, whether it be called the city, borough, county or shire are permanent public organizations providing a wide range of engineering services.
The engineers in these bodies work on projects theoretically handed to them by the politicians in response to public pressures and needs. Thus the politicians or the public may be seen as a sort of 'Client', although there is obviously a different form of dialogue between engineer and politician from that which occurs between Client and Consultant in private industry. Until the recent development of conservation and other pressure groups, there was very little interaction between the engineer and the public.
Within government departments the permutations of organization are as many as in the private sector. Some carry out all their own design and construction. Others let out design work to independent consultants, while some do their own design and call tenders for construction. In certain departments, especially those concerned solely with utilitarian structures, architects may be employed within the organization subordinate to senior engineers, to advise on aesthetics and to look after the design of architectural finishes and furnishings; a role which many find uncongenial. Government bodies concerned with schools, post offices and so on may be split into engineering and architectural sections which interact very much like their counterparts in private industry.
Therefore, regardless of the organization, public or private, the internal arrangements tend to reflect the traditional divisions of inception, design, and construction, with separate groups responsible for planning, architecture, structural design, mechanical and electrical services, and construction. Charts 3.1 and 3.2 show the administrative arrangements of two large organizations.
Chart. 3.1. General organization of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority (after Hardman, 1970). [Link]
Chart. 3.2. Organization of the Chicago office of Welton Beckett and Assocs (Hunt 1972). [Link]
Discussion of the merits of the various systems.
There is continual debate about which system produces the best results. The tradition of the independent consultant is firmly entrenched in the U.K. and to a lesser extent in the U.S.A. On the continent of Europe and in the Third World design-and-construct is more common. The case for the separation of design and construction and for the independent consultant is basically that 'cheapest is not necessarily best'. An argument often stated is that a person requiring the services of a surgeon or a lawyer would not call tenders and appoint the one who asked the lowest fee. He would be far more interested in the reputation of the professional based on the competence he had displayed on previous occasions.
The role of the consulting (or 'consultant') engineer as we know him arose during the boom in construction which occurred in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Many unethical practices had developed as firms grew up selling proprietary types of floor systems in the relatively new materials of reinforced concrete and cast iron or steel. The architects of the day were unable to distinguish the relative merits of these systems or even tell whether they were properly designed for the task in hand. Engineers acting on behalf of these firms found themselves in an invidious situation when expected to advance their employer's interests regardless of the facts of the situation. In the United States, firms supplying bridges for the expanding railway system, often ignorant of proper engineering principles, pared strength to a minimum in order to gain contracts or increase profits. Many of these bridges failed, with considerable loss of life. [Note 11.]
As a result the profession of the independent consulting engineer was established. The idea is that the consultant does not advertise his skills in any active manner and is required to charge a standard fee fixed by the profession. He is appointed by the client purely on his reputation for quality within the industry. He is thus able to provide impartial advice, relatively free of the pressures of competition, and to call tenders and supervize construction in a manner which ensures good quality for the client whilst being fair to the contractor. [Note 12.] Memories of unethical practices seem to be very persistent in the UK where is still a fear that a firm involved in tendering as well as design will be liable to cut down on the quality of design in order to reduce its bid to a minimum.
A further argument against design and construction by the one firm is that if each contractor is expected to do his own design as part of preparing his bid, a great deal of effort will have been wasted by the unsuccessful tenderers, and the customer must eventually pay for this through higher prices.
However in recent times the concept of the consultant has come under increasing attack. Contractors complain that since the consultant is paid by the client he cannot be unbiased in disputes between client and contractor. They also point out that construction engineers can have ethics too, and perhaps more important have a strong desire to remain in business; so it is not in their long-term interests to reduce quality irresponsibly. In order to protect themselves against dishonest or irresponsible tenderers it is possible for clients to maintain a short-list of reputable construction firms which are 'invited' to tender for a given project.
There has also been a world-wide loss of respect for the professions in general and in most English-speaking countries enquiries have been held into what the public sees as restrictive trade practices and what the professions see as their codes of ethics. These include bans on advertizing and on competition on a fee basis. One of the most glaring anomalies is the convention that a consultant receives a fee which is usually a fixed percentage of the cost of his part of the project. This means that if he works hard or uses his ingenuity to reduce the cost of the project, he decreases his fee! The client is therefore dependent on professional ethics and 'competition by reputation' to ensure the quality of design.
The advantage of the package design is that the firm concerned has a real motivation to reduce the cost of the design process and of the final product. It also has experienced personnel on its pay-roll who can give advice on possible construction techniques so that provision for these can be made in the original concept. Any construction firm has particular skills and specialized equipment and the design-and-construct system allows it to make the best use of them. [Note 13.]
In addition, the increasing complexity of financial planning and higher expectations of the environmental performance of buildings have led to increased pressure for integration of the entire developmental process. [Note 14.] Griffin (1972, p.3) with the backing of the American Institute of Architects advocated the integration of the entire development team including "investor, realtor, mortgage banker, user, attorney, economist, architect, engineer and contractor".
Middleton (1967) pointed to the attractiveness for the client of the comprehensive service offered by the larger units in the construction authority:
" 'You require a factory, an office block? We will find the land, negotiate and purchase it, obtain planning consent, design the building, construct and landscape it, finance it.' The process, for busy clients exasperated by the multiplicity of fragmented services they must otherwise call upon, is stream lined and painless; its attraction is obvious." [Note 15.]
The importance of the early decisions in the planning process is confirmed by Steyert (1972) who wrote of high-rise apartment buildings:
"… the economic success of a project is generally determined by the design concept developed in the first few weeks of the design process, not in the months of work that follow. In that initial period the architect, his client and their consultants rapidly arrive at a preliminary design. … Ninety percent of the design man hours are spent on work that affects cost plus or minus seven per cent, while ten percent of the design man hours are spent on the conceptual design which affects cost plus or minus thirty percent. The paradox of modern design is that computer programs are used to save basically pennies, while unquantitative rules-of-thumb on building economy establish overall building form." [p.1]
Atkins (1962) presented a similar perspective with regard to industrial buildings when he wrote:
"Engineering is a technical tool to be used to determine the economics of a project; it is not a separate and self-sufficient science … Since the economics of a project under construction are partly determined by its management and finance control, it follows that engineering solutions should permit application of these important factors in the simplest possible form." [p.429]
The need for interdisciplinary planning of utilitarian structures such as power stations and bridges is not so often aired, but a paper by Schmaus and Rolling (1979) discussed the design of a bridge over the Danube in terms of its effect upon city planning, aesthetics, road, rail and river traffic and the administrative, constructional and design problems associated with each aspect. [Note 16.]
In recent years there has been much criticism of the quadripartite system in the U.K. on the grounds of higher unit costs and lead times several times longer than those in the U.S.A. and continental Europe. Some of the blame for this may be apportioned to the client, regulatory authorities and trade unions but much is due to the inevitable delays in communication between four separate entities in planning, design, tendering and construction.
Martin et al. (1979) wrote:
"… as structural engineers we had been frustrated to realize -usually too late - that, however logical a structural solution might have appeared in discussion with the architect, once some appreciation had eventually emerged of the objectives of the service engineer and of the options that could have been open to him, it became apparent that in terms of the total building, the structure selected might not have been the best choice." [p.214]
Although this quotation refers exclusively to services, it is obvious that similar principles apply to all aspects of the design: the earlier a particular aspect can be considered as part of the design process, the better. [Note 17.]
One specific but important question raised by the differentiation between designer and builder is whether the designer should envisage a particular method of construction while conceiving a structure or even worry about whether it is humanly possible to erect it. This problem was highlighted by the enquiry into the collapse during construction of the West Gate Bridge in Melbourne. The consultants argued that it was a designer's responsibility to choose the most efficient structural form possible without consideration of possible erection techniques. The basis for this argument is that matters of construction are best left to the experts in construction, the contractors, who will then find the most efficient methods of erecting the given structure. To assume a construction method during design would, according to this viewpoint, limit the contractor to what might be an inefficient technique unsuited to his particular skills and equipment. This principle, that efficiency is best obtained by division of responsibility, is held quite strongly by many British consultants.
On the other hand many eminent engineers argue that to obtain minimum cost, the construction expert should be involved from the start so that the form which emerges from the design is one that can be erected quickly and efficiently. [Note 18.] This is, of course, the whole principle of the 'package deal'. An interesting, if extreme, example of such an approach is the Rio Colorado Bridge in Costa Rica. This is an inverted suspension bridge in which the cables are situated below the deck. The cables were stiffened with precast panels to form a working surface from which the props and deck could be constructed. [Note 19.]
Fig. 3.2. Rio Colorado Bridge, Costa Rica: form heavily influenced by proposed method of construction. (Engrs: T. Y. Lin International and Indeca Ltd.)
One common way of achieving the best of both worlds is to prepare a design without committing oneself to a particular method of construction, and then allow contractors the option of including in their bids alternative designs which best utilize the techniques available to them. The first design provides a yardstick of achievable economy against which any alternatives suggested by tenderers may be judged. [Note 20.]
Conclusion.
It may appear that the larger perspective which includes the role of the economist and lawyer in development devalues the role of the structural engineer because it sees him as no longer the master of his own small domain. However, despite the increasing importance and expense of services and plant, the structure still remains an essential element of any building and of most civil engineering projects. [Note 21.] Furthermore, recognizing the reality of the design situation actually opens up new challenges and opportunities and enhances the engineer's contribution. [Note 22.] The available signs appear to point to the fact that a greater degree of integration of planning, design, and construction and of architecture, structural engineering and services engineering is inevitable and to be welcomed. The only question is of the form that this will take. At one extreme is the large single organization employing all necessary professions from economists through to specialists in construction. At the other is the temporary joint venture formed for the purposes of a single project from a loosely knit team of individual consulting firms.
In both cases there may be problems. If the single organization becomes too large the engineering and architecture departments may behave towards one another very much as they do under 'The System'. Martin et al (1979, p.214) state that it is still "rare to find a team consisting of several professions working together on a long-standing basis, having a primary loyalty or sense of duty towards the leadership of that mixed team rather than towards the leadership of their individual professions". Some reasons for this are discussed in Chapter 8 when interaction between the structural engineer and the architect is considered in more detail. [Note 23.] Suffice it to say that one of the main factors is the personalities of the individuals concerned. Some systems suit particular individuals better than others. The answer to the question therefore seems to be that all of them will be used in the future depending on which is best suited to the circumstances surrounding a particular project and the skills and interests of the client and professionals involved. [Note 24.]
The final word is perhaps best left with Akroyd (1970) who felt that the contractual organization does not really matter a great deal because:
"the commercial patronage by which the work is handed out limits the legal niceties to giving a fairly satisfactory performance for a fairly satisfactory fee."
The difficulty of personality clashes between the Architect and Structural Engineer is not obviated by using a designer-contractor because:
"his work is carried out by people, and people can agree or disagree, irrespective of how they are employed." [p.152, col.1]
[Top.]
[Contents.] [References.]
[Previous Chapter.] [Next Chapter.]
Notes.
Note 1. The above account (SOH) makes it obvious that the way in which the design of a project is organized has a great influence on the manner in which problems are presented to the design engineer: how he receives his instructions; what demands are placed on him; to what extent changes in policy can occur; and to what extent he can exercise power to maximize his personal satisfaction and lessen frustration and unnecessary work. Before one can examine the political situation of the designer it is necessary to have a brief look at the general organizational structure in which he may find himself. This has much to do with the way in which projects are planned and the design process is managed. [Return.]
Note 2. Standards Association of Australia. SAA MA1.1 - 1973 Steel Structures. Part 1 - Planning, p.1.1. [Return.]
Note 3. Seeley (1972), Chapter 7. See also Hunt (1972), p.32. [Return.]
Note 4. Steyert's chart showed 'Construction Cost' comprised of: contractor's charges, elevators, plumbing, electrical, HVAC, structure (32%) and architectural features (33%). As a proportion of capital costs (when design fee, carrying charges and land costs had been added) these figures became 18% and 19%. As a proportion of Total Costs (allowing for operating expenses and real estate taxes) they became 11.6% and 12.2%.
Steyert's chart is most easily found in Foxhall (1975), p.170. For a similar breakdown see Croome and Sherratt (1977), p.48. [Return.]
Note 5. See e.g. Akroyd (1970) esp pp. 151-2, and The Consulting Engineer May 1975, Vol 39, No.5, pp.18-20. [Return.]
Note 6. Inception and the Client's role: see e.g. Lucas (1970) [Return.]
Note 7. Combined architectural-engineering firms. It is interesting to note how many of these appear in the Engineering News Record list of the top 500 design firms in the USA. Growth of, and desirability of, multi-disciplinary teams: see The Consulting Engineer June 1978, 30, 35; Stubbins (1974), p.2; RIBA (1973), p.160; Armstrong and Jack (1970). [Return.]
Note 8. See e.g. Engineering News Record 8 June 1978, p.16. [Return.]
Note 9. See Chapter 4 for further discussion of this point. [Return.]
Note 10. See e.g. for the Snowy Mountains Scheme, Hardman (1970) and SMHEA Annual Reports, and for the TVA, Pritchett (1943) (especially Chapter 6) and Morgan (1974) (a personal account of politico-engineering). [Return.]
Note 11. Rise of the consulting engineer. For UK see Stone (1969) pp.468-9. For the USA see Jackson,D.C. Civil Engineering - ASCE, Oct. 1977, pp.97-101, especially p.101. [Return.]
Note 12. Role of the consulting engineer. See also ASCE (1972) Consulting Engineering, (Manual No. 45), The Consulting Engineer, June 1978, pp.24-35, Engineers Australia 3 Nov 1978, 19-20, and Arup (1976), 352-3. [Return.]
Note 13. For arguments in favour of design-and-construct, see e.g. Civil Engineering -ASCE Oct. 1977, 131-6, and Dec. 1977, 76-82, especially p.77. Orr (1970); New Civil Engineer (NCE) 30 June 1977, 17-19; Nervi (1965), p.105.
To provide perspective, compare the systems of other countries as described by e.g. Yam (1977); Barclay,M. et al. (1974) and discussion in the Structural Engineer, Oct.1974, V52, No10, 381-8; New Civil Engineer 3 Feb. 1977, 16-18; and Jour. RIBA, Jan. 1977. [Return.]
Note 14. See The Consulting Engineer June 1978, pp. 25 and 35. [Return.]
Note 15. Middleton (1967), p.93. Middleton continues: "From the standpoint of the professional, such teams tend to be suspect because their final control is vested in other than professional hands". In his pp. 98-103, Middleton advocates the close collaboration of all professionals directly involved in a project, from interior designers to engineers, and lists a number of successful multi-disciplinary practices starting with two which were formed in 1933. [Return.]
Note 16. See also Atkins (1962) and Gott and Berridge (1966). [Return.]
Note 17. See also Ryan's description of the conventional design process. (Ryan, 1974, p.21. He rather ill-advisedly uses the past tense. "The architect developed a sketch scheme based on such factors as the client's space requirements, cost limits and site limitations. This was then considered by a structural engineer to select a structural system, taking into account the span requirements, floor loading, and subsoil conditions. The basic scheme, plus the structure, was then passed to a services engineer to devise a suitable heating and ventilation plant or possibly an air-conditioning system, and later a lighting engineer might be called in to design an artificial lighting system for night-time use. Too often had early decisions been taken [on the basis of] one factor alone, so that when it came to build in the other factors, it was too late to obtain an optimum solution." [Return.]
Note 18. See Victoria, Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Failure of West Gate Bridge, 1970: Report, Melbourne, 1971, p.40, Section 3.3.1 "Design Procedure". See also Engineering News Record, 9 Nov. 1978, p.16, and Arup,O. Jour. RIBA Aug 1966, 352-3. [Return.]
Note 19. Engineering News Record. V.188, No19, 11 May 1972. Constructional Review, 46, 1, Feb. 1973, 36-9. [Return.]
Note 20. This is common practice in Europe. A local example was the design of the Gladesville Bridge in Sydney, for which the NSW Government Railways had prepared a conventional design in the form of steel trusses with cantilevered sections. The more aesthetically pleasing version which was built was offered by the winning contractor with P.L.Nervi acting as expert consultant. See Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers, 30, Mar. 1965, 489-530. [Return.]
Note 21. Nevertheless, the provision of such services as heating, ventilating and air-conditioning has had an increasing influence on both the form and the economics of buildings. As a result, there has been increased advocacy and discussion of the proper integration of the services engineer into the design team. See e.g. Cowan (1977), 106, 107, 137-9, Tseng Yao Sun (1979), Martin et al (1979), and Banham (1969). [Return.]
Note 22. As Martin et al point out (p.214), "there was [initially] little appreciation of the fact that there were some quite fundamental areas of building design left over, as it were, hardly touched by any part of the traditional design team because the normal boundaries of current professional practice skirted around them". [Return.]
Note 23. Middleton also discusses the reasons for this. See his pp.94-5. Cowan (1977) suggests that increased cooperation between engineer and architect (or at least increased interest in the problem) has much to do with the philosophies of the Modern Architecture movement in the first half of the 20th century. See Cowan (1977) pp. 106, 107, and 137-9. See also Aesthetics of built form, Chapters 7 and 8. [Return.]
Note 24. See also Eckstein (1976) [Return.]
[Top.]
The art in structural design navigation:
[Chapter 2.]
[Chapter 4.]
[Contents]
[References]
Site navigation:
[Aesthetics of built form.]
[Papers.]
[Work of Jörg Schlaich.]
[John Monash's early engineering.]