Introduction

In the field of engineering, a Project Audit—also known as a Design Review or Cross-Check—consists of a comprehensive review of the project across various disciplines, such as mechanical, civil, and structural engineering. In addition, this audit can be conducted at different stages of a given asset’s project cycle, whether the asset is new, in the design phase, or even already in operation.

In general, in large-scale structures and equipment, the occurrence of failures can lead to major accidents with human, environmental, social, and economic impacts. In financial terms, a study by the American Society of Safety Engineers [1] indicates that for every dollar spent on prevention, three to six dollars are saved in associated losses, as shown in Figure 1. Furthermore, when property damage is taken into account, that amount could reach $50. Consequently, the cost of investing in design reviews is significantly lower when one considers the potential for harmful consequences that an accident could entail.

Figure 1: Accident Cost Iceberg [2]. 

Stages of the Project Audit

First, the audit complements routine engineering services by identifying potential deficiencies in the project design. If the service is performed with the asset’s entire life cycle in mind, it can be carried out in five distinct phases, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Stages of the Project Audit [3].

 

1 - Support for drawing up technical specifications

This is the first stage of the audit process, responsible for specifying to bidders the project requirements—such as the standards that must be followed and the conditions to be met throughout the project’s lifespan. Therefore, an error in the specifications at this early stage can compromise all subsequent stages and result in serious losses. 

In addition, technical support also allows the client to compile all engineering documentation necessary to verify compliance with the requested items and to make any necessary corrections to identified nonconformities. Based on the data generated during the process, a database is created that enables the incorporation of lessons learned into the company’s intellectual capital. Furthermore, it serves as a mechanism to protect the client against future claims or lawsuits by competitors, as it allows for the establishment of parameters for the execution of the contract.

2 - Technical Evaluation bidders

Next, after the technical specifications have been drafted, a critical evaluation of the bidders must be conducted to identify the companies capable of meeting the required technical criteria. In this regard, Kot can provide technical support to the client during the bidders’ clarification and evaluation meetings, issuing its technical opinion at the end of the process.

Thus, steps 1 and 2 apply to the project’s design phase and can help mitigate the risk of accidents and ensure a more level technical playing field among bidders. Furthermore, as with technical specifications, the client can be protected from potential issues during the asset’s delivery.

3 - Suggestions for the Basic Conceptual Project

Drawing on its experience, Kot can also be involved in the conceptual and preliminary phases of the project, verifying compliance with technical specifications and identifying any deviations. Furthermore, the objective at this stage remains to support the client by providing technical assistance in liaising with bidders, thereby preventing discrepancies in later, more advanced phases of the project and, consequently, avoiding impacts on costs and deadlines due to potential rework.

4 - Structural and mechanical verification of detailed engineering

The most comprehensive phase of the study involves the evaluation of the complete technical documentation, including manufacturing drawings, a bill of materials, and equipment specifications. At this stage, computational analyses of the asset are performed to identify mechanical and structural nonconformities, resulting in suggestions for design optimization.

A recent study conducted by Kot involved verifying the detailed design of railway bridges consisting of steel spans ranging from 25 to 35 meters, for subsequent fabrication in China. After performing calculations to verify safety criteria—including pseudo-static analysis of the steel structure, panel buckling analysis, and fatigue analysis due to train traffic—design changes were recommended, resulting in modifications to the geometry of the stiffeners. As a result, the safety factors recommended by the standard were maintained, and the bridge’s weight was reduced by approximately 50% for the 35-meter span, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Optimization of a Railroad Bridge Design [3]. 

 

However, in general, the most common issue observed during the design verification phase involves cases of undersizing—that is, when components lack the strength or capacity to perform the function for which they were designed. In such cases, therefore, reinforcements are added or modifications are made to the design with a view to ensuring Structural Integrity mechanical performance of the asset. For example, Figure 4 shows the area of the trailer where reinforcement was proposed to reduce the structure’s utilization ratio, which exceeded the code limit in the static analysis.

 

Figure 4: Reinforcement proposed by Kot for a forklift trailer [3].

5 - Checking installed reinforcements

Finally, at the conclusion of the design review session, the proposed improvement recommendations may be validated on-site by properly trained structural engineers. In addition, it is common to find incorrect practices associated with the installation of reinforcements, which compromise the previous stages, even if those stages were carried out in accordance with the applicable technical criteria.

If any discrepancies are found during the on-site inspection, solutions will be proposed to resolve the nonconformities. On the other hand, if no discrepancies are identified, the asset will be deemed to meet the customer’s requirements.

Conclusion

It is clear that numerous benefits are generated by carrying out a design audit of structures and equipment and, when compared to the costs of a hypothetical accident, the cost is considerably lower. In addition to the financial issue, non-conformities in projects can generate even greater damage, involving lives, environmental problems, as well as intangible aspects related to branding.

In summary, the audit should ideally be conducted with the broadest possible scope to minimize the risks involved in the project. Thus, carrying out the five steps outlined above provides the client with a higher degree of protection against the occurrence of undesirable events. However, the limitations inherent in each project may make it impossible to fully validate all steps, and it is possible to commission only a partial audit. Contact our team for more information!

Follow our pages on LinkedIn, Facebook e Instagram to keep up with our content.

References

 [1] American Society of Safety Engineers (2010). Reducing/Ignoring Workplace Safety Programs During Economic Downturn a Wrong Move for Business.

[MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM TECHNICAL STAFF (Colorado) (org.) Accidents - The Total Cost: a guide for estimating the total cost of accidents. Golden: Colorado School Of Mines, 2011. 29 p. Available at: https://www.mines.edu/emcis/wp-content/uploads/sites/185/2018/07/total-cost-of-accidents.pdf. Accessed on: 22 Apr. 2021

[3] Kot Engenharia Collection.