Defects often arise because the designer focuses on the finished product to the exclusion how it is made

It is fundamental to good building practice that the design takes into account the process of construction.  Concrete, for example, is unlikely to be built as a monolithic mass.  Each part of a concrete structure will be limited to that which can be built in a single working day.  If the inevitability of day joints is considered in the design, their effects on strength can be controlled.  It is less certain that their effect on the watertightness of the concrete can be controlled, but good design – which takes into account construction techniques – can greatly reduce the risk of impaired performance.

Good communication between designers and building workers helps to resolve problems.  Some designers’ lack of practical knowledge is all too apparent to site staff when they are asked to work from ill-conceived drawn details.  This encourages building workers to pay scant regard to detailed designs and to implement their own ideas of how to build, working round what they see as bad designs rather than discussing them with the designers.  This is particularly common in design-and-build contracts where the builder stands to gain no contractual advantage from drawing attention to design defects.

During an investigation of a dispute between a Dutch contractor and manufacturer over a new partly built factory, the project engineer’s drawings were studied.

Trying the Expert

As many practitioners know, disputes rarely go the distance limiting opportunities for expert witnesses to speak before a tribunal. For over 2 decades it has been my experience that well presented evidence helps to bring disputes to a close without the need for a hearing. But recently I found myself presenting evidence under cross-examination in the Technology and Construction Court twice in quick succession.

The first dispute arose out of deficiencies in underpinning and other works carried out in breach of a party wall award. The second was a dispute over the quality of built work - mostly various pavements.

In each case, I, an architect, was ranged against engineers. In both trials the opposing barristers sought to dismiss my evidence not on its merit but on the presumption that an architect is no expert in building technology. Some may suppose architects do no more than visualise concepts (or ‘colouring-in’ as some colleagues put it) but I was more than happy to be put to the test and demonstrate that we know whereof we speak.

Piling into brown fields

the drainage connected to the buildings stays in place as the ground settles exposing once flush gulleys

Building and ground part company as voids form between ground and undersides of ground floors

  Horizontal fissures forming over d.p.c.'s as brickwork bows and arches

Brickwork over d.p.c. sliding out at external corners with stepped cracking below

Fissures running between window and door openings in brickwork

 

Near vertical cracking close to corners

Dry lining being torn apart as the masonry fractures

Building over deep landfill can be perilous.

If the piles work, the buildings stay up as the roads paths and gardens settle.

Long piles can settle and deflect unevenly causing enough differential movements to crack rigid superstructures, jamb doors and windows and tear internal wall linings.

Adding to this site's troubles, brickwork without any movement control joints adds another cause of cracking.

extensions on conventional concrete rafts float away with the sinking ground tearing themselves off the piled buildings

Defect free building is as much a matter of understanding client goals as it is of achieving competent detailing and construction

The Brief
A successful project starts in good co-ordination and the development of an effective brief.  Briefs evolve with

ArchiFACT Ltd Celebrates 2010 - 2011

At ArchiFACT we are celebrating the completion of our first year of trading and we would like to offer our best wishes to all of our clients and those who have worked with us, helping to make this year a success

Third Party/Section 20 Actions

Often, in connection with building defects, reliance on information conveyed by manufacturers is cited as a cause. For example, a material or product may be specified because of the representations made by the manufacturer or supplier about its qualities. The product once bought may be found to be unsuitable and the sales literature to misstate the product’s qualities.

Building owners making the claim may have no contract with the product manufacturer. They may nevertheless, either directly or through their design team, have placed reliance on the representations made by the manufacturer.

‘State-of-the-Art’ defence

‘State-of-the-art’ may be defined as the current stage of development of practice or technology, involving the use of the latest techniques or equipment. It often involves the first or early use of materials or techniques before they have been proven by long practice. There is inevitably a risk in being one of the first to use something new. This risk may reduce in time as use reveals the weaknesses inherent in each development. Thus, with practice, the flaws in that which was innovative are discovered. Growing familiarity with each state-of-the-art development provides the knowledge base to improve reliability and avoid error.