IABSE Symposium, Weimar 2007

Adding confidence and reducing risk - the role of independent design checking
in major projects

Ian FIRTH Ian Firth graduated from the

Partner University of Bristol and joined
Flint & Neill in 1979 becoming
Flint & Neill a Partner in 1990. He obtained
London, UK a Master’s Degree in Structural
Steel Design from London’s
Imperial College in 1982, and
has recently been elected a
Fellow of the Royal Academy
of Engineering. He is mostly
engaged in bridge projects and
is known for his work both as
designer and as checker.
Summary
Responsible clients and designers commission an independent check of their designs, particularly
when the scale or complexity of the project requires it. This paper explores the culture of
independent checking that exists in the UK, especially in connection with major bridges, and
examines the benefits to be gained from such an approach. The cost of adding confidence and
reducing risk through such a check is very small compared to the enormous benefits gained,
particularly on major projects.
The author draws on his own experience as well as published information to illustrate the
importance of establishing such a culture of independent checking everywhere.
Keywords: Independent design check. Design verification. Independent certification. Category 3
checking. Design review. Risk reduction.

1. Introduction
Following the collapse of the steel box girders bridges in Milford Haven (Fig.1) and Melbourne in
1970 and the very significant work carried out by the Merrison Committee of Inquiry in preparing
new design and workmanship rules for such structures, there has been a culture of independent
design checking for major bridges in the UK. [1] Similar practices previously existed for checking
dams and nuclear installations, but none as rigorous as was now proposed for major bridges.
What started as a need for checking of steel box girders soon
spread to encompass all major bridges and those of unusual or
complex behaviour. No major bridge is now constructed in the
UK without such an independent check being carried out first,
and the same is true of any strengthening or major repairs to
such bridges. In the case of so-called Category 3 structures, the
check is carried out by consultants acting independently of the
designers using completely independent analysis modelling and
methodology but working to a common set of design criteria.
At the end, both the designer and the checker have to certify
that the design meets those criteria.
There is no doubt that such a check adds considerable value and
security for a client for a tiny fraction of the construction cost.
As a result, this culture of checking which is already routine for
bridges in the UK is now increasingly being applied to major
public buildings and other structures as well. However, it is
still not universal, even in major public assembly buildings
where the consequences of failure would be unthinkable.
Fig. 1 Milford Haven Bridge, Wales, following the collapse
 IABSE Symposium, Weimar 2007

This paper addresses the essential need to develop a natural culture of design checking in all parts
of the world, not just for major bridges but also other significant structures, particularly in the light
of the increasingly litigious society in which engineers and designers now have to operate.

2. The need for a checker

Engineers are only human - we all make mistakes! History sadly shows how easily mistakes can
and do happen and we would be very foolish if we assumed that our work was always correct and
never needed checking. Civil and structural engineers carry a substantial responsibility for public
safety, so we have a professional duty to do whatever we reasonably can to ensure that public safety
is not compromised by anything we do. Responsible and appropriate levels of checking are
therefore to be expected of us.
Safety may be our main concern but it is not the only one. We also have a duty to our clients to
ensure as far as reasonably practicable that mistakes do not occur which could cost them extra time
or money or which might cause some other kind of nuisance. An independent check is the most
effective way of finding and correcting such mistakes.
Different levels and types of checking will be appropriate for different circumstances, but all start
from the premise that two minds are always better than one. At one end of the scale there is the full
numerical check, carried out by an expert engineer acting independently of the designer, to analyse
the structural behaviour, check the design against detailed design criteria, and reach an independent
professional opinion as to the adequacy of the design. At the other end of the scale, the check can
simply involve a colleague, not involved in the design process, who discusses the project with the
designer, reviews what is being done and asks some probing questions in a spirit of helpful
collaboration. This latter process of design review should be part of the normal activity of any
design office, whether or not rigorous independent checking is required, and should be designed to
initiate lines of investigation which can reveal errors and/or identify better ways of achieving the
designer’s intent.
Such design reviews are enormously valuable but not strictly the subject of this paper. Nevertheless
it is worth reflecting briefly that they have served society well for many centuries. In the UK, a law
was passed following the great fire of London in 1666 (Fig.2) introducing new design rules which
ultimately evolved into the modern Building Regulations. Those rules defined the need to build the
external walls out of stone or masonry rather than timber, for example, in order to restrict the spread
of fire. But the most important aspect of the rules was the introduction of the need for checks on the
design and the building process. The rules
empowered the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and
Common Council of London to appoint “one
or more discreet and intelligent person or
persons in the art of building to be the
surveyors or supervisors to see the said rules
and scantlings well and truly observed,” and
the surveyors or supervisors were required to
“take the oath upon the Holy Scriptures for the
true and impartial execution of their office.”
[2] Thus was born the culture and practice of
checking new building construction which is
still in use today.
Fig. 2 The great fire of London in 1666 was the trigger for rigorous building controls in England
However, full independent design checking is different from a design review or audit in that it
requires independent analysis using independently derived methodologies, not merely a review of
the designer’s methods and calculations.
The process of independent checking can also be extremely positive in terms of education and
training, which derives from sharing first hand experiences and opinions with other expert
engineers. The best kind of designer-checker relationship is one where the designer does not need to
feel defensive that the checker might find an error and the checker is not seeking to score points by
looking for errors, and both parties are seeking to learn from each other to mutual benefit. When a
 IABSE Symposium, Weimar 2007

client sees two professionals working together in this way he will feel re-assured that his best
interests are being well served. This is particularly true when the project involves some innovation
or complex aspect. A second opinion always adds confidence, both to the client and the designer,
and the design risks and uncertainties are reduced in the process.
Finally, it is worth touching on the unfortunate fact that we operate in an increasingly litigious
society in which everyone seems to be looking for someone else to blame if something goes wrong.
An independent design check provides an extra layer of protection to both the client and the
designer by increasing the chances of finding mistakes before they can lead to expensive and
distressing legal claims. It also spreads the liability for such mistakes a little – an important subject
to which I will return later.

3. The steel box girder story and the British system

On 2nd June 1970, the Milford Haven Bridge in South Wales collapsed during cantilever
construction of the south approach spans. This and the collapse in Melbourne on 15th October 1970
triggered the appointment of the Merrison Committee of Inquiry who immediately set about
investigating the causes of collapse. A further steel box girder collapse occurred in Koblenz in
November 1971 adding further fuel to the urgent need for the investigation to reach a speedy
conclusion. The Committee’s report and conclusions [1] are as important today as they were then,
and should be essential reading for all bridge engineers. They cover not only the design rules and
methods of analysis for such structures but also the contractual procedures and programmes under
which they are procured. The consequences and ramifications of these tragic bridge collapses have
been far reaching, and the extremely intense period of research into the behaviour of steel plated
structures carried out in the ensuing years led quickly to the adoption of new design codes and
methods of analysis for such structures. The lessons fundamentally influenced the way engineers
have conducted their bridge designs and assessments ever since, although sadly some of these
lessons are in danger of being forgotten by a new generation of engineers caught up in the rush to
save money and time in the modern bridge procurement process.
Among the most important recommendations of the Committee were several relating to procedural
matters, as distinct from technical design issues. Just over a year after the Milford Haven collapse,
the Committee issued their interim report, the first recommendation of which was as follows:
“The Engineer’s permanent design should be checked by an independent engineer both for the
design concept and the method of analysis of stresses and a certificate furnished to this effect and
for compliance with the criteria set out in Appendix A [the Interim Design and Workmanship Rules].
The independent engineer should have experience and qualifications commensurate with the
magnitude and complexity of the design in question.” [1]
The importance of the Committee’s recommendations was immediately appreciated by the British
Government of the time, and on 31st August 1971, the Department of the Environment issued
instructions to all local authorities implementing the principal recommendations with immediate
effect. It is a matter of concern that the low level of technical appreciation in some government and
civil service circles today, and the sometimes tortuous bureaucratic procedures they are obliged to
follow, may mean that the modern response to such a situation would not be so decisive.
The principle of independent checking was immediately adopted for all steel box girder bridges all
over the UK and was quickly extended to apply also to all major or complex bridge structures. Such
bridges are classed as Category 3 structures under the now widely adopted UK classification
system:
• Category 0 structures are only small minor constructions and do not require formal technical
approval but should nevertheless be independently checked within the design team.
• Category 1 structures include bridges with spans less than 20m and other relatively small
constructions. These require formal technical approval and an independent check of the design
by an engineer who may be part of the design team.
• Category 2 covers are all structures which do not fall into any of the other categories. Their
design shall be checked by an engineer or team of engineers who must be independent of the
design team but may be from within the designer’s own organisation.
 IABSE Symposium, Weimar 2007

• Category 3 covers complex structures requiring relatively sophisticated analysis or those with
spans greater than 50m, high skew angles, high redundancy, suspension systems, steel
orthotropic decks, moving bridges etc. These require an independent design check by an
engineer or team of engineers who are independent of the designer’s organisation. It is
particularly important in this case that the checker possess the necessary expertise and
experience suited to the type of structure in question.
The 20m and 50m span lengths are taken directly from the Merrison Committee’s recommendations
but are only intended as guidelines. Each case needs to be considered on its merits and these span
limits are not to be considered as absolute.
The requirements for independent design checking are set down in the Highways Agency’s Design
Manual for Roads and Bridges and are contained in standard BD2/05. [2] The procedures defined
therein are now common practice and have been adopted in several other parts of the world, not just
in the UK. The checker’s scope includes the all-important check of the effects of the proposed
erection sequence, and often also a review of the durability and maintenance issues.
It is important to note that the independent checker is responsible for checking the design and not
the structure, and check certificates and reports should be carefully worded to this effect. Unless
the checker is given an extended brief to include full time supervision of the construction works he
cannot be in a position to certify the as-built structure. This does sometimes happen when a client
wishes to procure independent certification that the structure has been built in accordance with the
checked design, but otherwise the certification can only be in relation to compliance of the design
with an agreed set of design criteria.
In addition to proposing the independent check of the permanent works design, the Merrison
Committee also recommended an independent check of the Contractor’s method of erection and the
design of the temporary works, and these recommendations are generally now adopted in the
contract conditions for most contracts. However, some of the other procedural recommendations
intended to promote good and safe practice have been either forgotten or diluted in some modern
construction projects. These include, for example, the proper supervision of the works by the
designer. Too often it seems that modern clients or contractors are unwilling to pay for adequate
resident supervision staff on site, thus increasing the risks of serious incidents during construction.
The culture of independent checking has become well established in many parts of the world,
although local practices differ, but in other countries the principle of checking is less well
established. In some cases a check seems to involve little more than a quick glance at the designer’s
calculations by someone in the designer’s office, even for very substantial structures, and sadly
failures continue to occur.
Other speakers in this conference are addressing some other international practices so I will not
attempt to cover the same ground here. In some countries it is common for a design review to be
required by a suitably qualified or registered engineer. However, there is a limit to what can be
achieved and what extra confidence can be provided through merely undertaking a cursory
examination of a designer’s calculations. The value of such a process as a safety check, without the
rigour of a fully independent analysis and evaluation, is sometimes called into question. Examples
of failed structures which were supposedly subject to independent design review demonstrate the
need for a more thorough and rigorous checking system than is applied in some cases.

4. The importance of independence

It is important to emphasise the independence of the checker and to recognise the essential value
that this adds to the process. The author has come across a wide variety of models for so called
independent checking, but sadly not all of them can be considered to be truly independent and as a
result some have little if any value.
4.1 Technical independence
This requires two suitably experienced engineers to come independently to a professional opinion
through a technical process of calculation, analysis or investigation.
Not all checking is valid checking. If one engineer sets up a spreadsheet to perform a calculation
 IABSE Symposium, Weimar 2007

and another is asked to check it by entering a new set of data, this clearly does not constitute a
suitable check. If there is an error in the spreadsheet it will simply be repeated with the new data.
If a checker looks closely at the content of every cell in the spreadsheet and reviews every step of
the calculation (a time consuming process in the case of large complex calculations) then an error
might be detected. But then again it might not.
The best way to check if the answer given by the calculation is correct is to independently start from
scratch. The checker sets up his own spreadsheet, without reference to the original, and at the end
the results of the two are compared. If the answers are significantly different, experienced
engineering judgement is needed to determine whether the difference is sufficient to require both
parties to check their calculations for errors or repeat the process from scratch. Only by this kind of
true independence can all parties have confidence that the calculations are correct, or at least
sufficiently accurate to allow work to proceed.
Thankfully, most design errors do not lead to collapse, but the fact that errors escape detection in
the checking process is still a cause for concern. An example serves to illustrate this point. A guyed
mast is under construction. A systematic error in the designer’s spreadsheet results in all the guys
being delivered to site exactly 3 metres too long – not disastrous but expensive! The design had
been subject to review by an independent checker, but the check was not required to be fully
independent. All the checker did was to examine the spreadsheet to see if the process looked
correct, but sadly the systematic error was not found. Had the checker set up his own independent
spreadsheet to independently calculate the guy lengths it is very unlikely that the same systematic
error would be made. One of the advantages of the true independent check is that the chances of
both the designer and the checker making the same mistake are very small.
It is worthwhile pausing to reflect on the application of professional judgement which is always
necessary in engineering processes. Engineering is not an exact science, and almost everything we
do is associated with some kind of approximation, estimation or assumption. Thus the chances of
two independent processes delivering exactly the same numeric answers are very small. This is to
be expected. A checker is not trying to replicate exactly the same answers but to come to an
independent professional judgment. The two independent answers to a particular calculation may
only be within 10 or 15% of each other, but what matters is that the two engineers should reach the
same conclusion regarding aspects such as “Is it acceptable or not?”; “Does it comply with the code
or not?”; “Does it need strengthening or not?”
This principle lies behind the fundamental basis and benefit of independent checking and must not
in any way be diluted if the value of the check is to be maintained. Thus, in the case of a fully
independent check, it is vital that the checker carries out his own independent structural analysis,
preferably using different analysis software. The approach to modelling the structure should be
independent too, based only on the checker’s interpretation and examination of the design drawings.
This may result in two very different models but this should not matter. The important thing is the
engineering judgement and interpretation of the results, not the exact replication of the designer’s
computer model.
The author knows of situations where a client has required the checker to use the same computer
software and the same structural analysis model as the designer, and to check that their input data
was exactly the same before running their supposedly “independent” analyses. The value of this
exercise is questionable as it is merely a check on the ability of two people to enter data correctly
into two separate computers.
It is helpful to be able to compare certain key results from two genuinely independent analyses,
such as overall and individual foundation loads, maximum deflections under a given live load
pattern, fundamental natural frequencies of vibration etc., but this can be done without the two
models being exactly the same in every respect.
All of this pre-supposes that both the designer and the checker are suitably qualified and skilled
individuals, supported as necessary by expert teams, and able to reach a professional engineering
judgement confident in an opinion based on experience. In presenting the findings of the Merrison
Committee and introducing the new Interim Design and Workmanship Rules in 1973, Sir Alec
Merrison said that “no amount of writing of design codes and writing of contracts can in the end be
guaranteed to prevent the results of stupidity, carelessness or incompetence. But one can do a great
 IABSE Symposium, Weimar 2007

deal to discourage these vices and that must be done.” [6] The need for ensuring proper competence
in the designer and the checker and a suitable procedural framework under which they can be free
to apply that competence is far more important than the application of mere design codes and
standards. This places a significant duty on the client to ensure that he appoints a suitably qualified
checker. A poorly experienced checker can de-rail the process and lead to costly errors or delays.

4.2 Commercial independence

The checker must also be reasonably free from undue commercial constraints and conflicts of
interest if he is to be able to freely use his own expertise and engineering judgement to perform
whatever independent technical checks are required. Otherwise, such constraints and conflicts can
prevent him from reaching an independent professional opinion.
Fundamentally, the checker should be independent of the designer. Ideally this means that he should
not be appointed directly by the designer but preferably by the client. (Fig.3) If the designer
appoints the checker, he may try to influence the outcome of the check because under the terms of
the sub-consultant appointment he will have powers to do so if he chooses.

Client
Client

Designer
Designer Checker

Checker

Fig. 3 Possible designer-checker arrangements.

Checkers can be put under enormous pressure in some circumstances to reach a conclusion which
may be at odds with his professional opinion. This can happen, for example, when a contractor is
already building part of the structure which is still being subject to independent design check
because of inadequate time in the programme. There may be pressure on both the designer and the
checker to accept the design without modification because it has already been built! This may
require extra, more detailed checks or a review of the design criteria to see whether an alternative
method might give better results or whether reduced safety margins could be acceptable. In such
circumstances the independence of the checker from the designer becomes vitally important.
Financial pressures can apply if a checker’s fees only paid once he signs a check certificate,
possibly leading to a temptation to cut corners in the check because of such commercial constraints.
Under design and build contracts there are several possible checker appointment models, as
discussed further below. These need to be arranged to ensure the independence of the checker.

5. Contractual arrangements
The arrangement of the design and check appointments will depend upon the procurement process
for the bridge or structure in question.

5.1 Traditional procurement

Traditionally, and still in many cases today, the client or owner will commission an engineer to
prepare a fully detailed design prior to inviting tenders from contractors for the construction. The
client also appoints an independent design checker. If the work is properly programmed, this
enables the check to be completed and the design to be certified prior to the invitation of tenders.
Any uncertainties in the design can to be minimised prior to awarding the contract and the client is
able to influence the design and control the design risks.
This process is recommended for a complex or strategically critical project, where there is no
 IABSE Symposium, Weimar 2007

escape from the need to spend sufficient time and effort in the design stage to reduce design
uncertainties prior to embarking on construction.
The Tsing Ma suspension bridge in Hong Kong serves to illustrate this process. (Fig.4) This was a
traditional full Engineer’s detailed design, carried out by Mott MacDonald and independently
checked by Flint & Neill prior to inviting tenders for construction. The normal checker’s role was
extended to include the derivation of certain design criteria corresponding to particular areas of
F&N’s expertise such as wind loading, aerodynamic response, traffic loading and temperature
effects. These criteria were agreed with the Client, Hong Kong Highways Department, prior to
completing the design and the independent check. F&N’s role was also extended to include an
economic review of the design and certain other aspects. Detailed reports summarising the
procedures and findings of the check were produced, and the client remained fully engaged in the
process throughout, satisfying himself through the independence and rigour of the design and check
processes, that his best interests were being served and design risks were satisfactorily controlled.
When the tenders for construction were
received and reviewed, the successful
contractor proposed a change from pre-
formed parallel wire strands to aerial
spinning for the construction of the main
cables. This required F&N to re-check the
erection procedure to check the suitability
and acceptability of the necessary design
changes. F&N was also retained during
the construction period to provide
independent advice and expertise in
connection with certain inspections, tests
and specification issues.
Fig. 4 Tsing Ma Bridge, Hong Kong
The main lessons from this example are that a well-informed client recognised the importance of a
full and thorough independent design check and the need to allow enough time to do it properly in
advance of construction, and also made full use of the expertise and experience available to him
through both designer and checker working together in a spirit of helpful co-operation throughout.
5.2 Design and Build
Today, more and more public sector projects are procured through design and build contracts, but
there are several models for the appointment of the independent checker. If the structure is not
Category 3 then the check can be carried out by the designer’s organisation. But if a Category 3
check is required the checker must be independent and may be appointed either by the Employer or
the Contractor, but preferably not by the designer for the reasons outlined above.
It is common for the Contractor to appoint both the designer and the checker, and this allows him to
control both the design and check activities to suit his overall construction programme. (Fig.5a) At
least with this model the Contractor cannot use delays by the Employer’s checker in certifying the
design as a possible excuse for a claim. However, there are two possible problems with this
approach. Firstly, there is an argument that the check may not be considered to be truly independent
of the design if both are strongly influenced by the Contractor’s design preferences, and secondly
the Contractor may apply undue pressure on the checker to conclude his check favourably without
being given sufficient time to properly consider and evaluate the issues.
When the Contractor appoints both the designer and the checker, the Employer will often retain his
own consultant, at least on large projects, to ensure that the correct procedures are followed and to
verify that the necessary certification is provided prior to construction. Occasionally, the
Employer’s consultant in such a situation will query the opinion of the designer and/or the checker
and seek extra assurances that the design is adequate before allowing construction to proceed.
From the point of view of the check, a better arrangement is sometimes for the Employer to appoint
the checker directly to check the Contractor’s design proposals. (Fig 5b) In this way, the checker is
able to advise the Employer independently of the Contractor and the designer, and can also
 IABSE Symposium, Weimar 2007

participate in the construction supervision. The Employer has direct access to the checker’s
expertise and experience throughout, and he has no need to appoint his own separate consultant to
advise him, thereby saving on the overall cost of the project. This model was used on the Ting Kau
Bridge in Hong Kong, for example.

Employer D&B Contractor Employer D&B Contractor

Checker Designer Checker Designer

Figs. 5a and 5b Alternative Design & Build contract arrangements

However, sufficient time must be allowed in the contract programme for the submission and
checking of the design, usually in a series of design packages, and the Contractor is not fully in
control of this programme. In this instance, the Employer is responsible, through his checker, for
certifying the design independently of the certification provided by the Contractor through his
designer. The contract needs to allow for the possibility of problems being encountered and some
aspects of the design having to be modified, re-submitted and re-checked without causing delays
which can lead to subsequent claims.
5.3 Checks by investors and others
The delivery of major infrastructure projects usually involves insurance companies, banks and other
financial organisations, in addition to the client or owner and local or national authorities. This is
particularly true when there is an element of private sector investment in a project, as is increasingly
the case for major projects. Each of these organisations commonly needs some kind of check to
safeguard their interests, in addition to the normal Category 3 check carried out by the Contractor or
the Employer. Such additional checks may take the form of a due diligence check or a more
thorough independent evaluation of the design, and it is common to find several different types and
levels of design check being carried out on major projects.

5.4 Programme constraints

Perhaps the greatest pressure tending to prevent a thorough and detailed design check is lack of
time. This is particularly true in design and build contract situations where the checker will be under
pressure not to hold up the construction programme, and in extreme cases this can compromise his
ability to make independent judgements. The designer is probably working under even tighter time
pressures and may be unable to apply the necessary care to check that design submissions are
complete and free from basic errors. The checker is not supposed to be there to find such errors – he
is there to check the design – but sometimes it appears that the designer is having to rely on the
checker to find the kinds of mistakes that basic quality control would detect. The fault for such
situations rests mainly with modern procurement procedures which add ever greater time
constraints on all parties in the process.
Sufficient time must be allowed in the project programme, regardless of what type of contract
procurement route is being followed. Difficulties arise when a client who does not appreciate the
essential added value of a proper check, reluctantly appoints a checker because he is obliged to and
does not allow a realistic time for the check activities in the programme at the planning stages.
A typical design and build contract programme prepared by a project manager with no experience
of design checking may show a series of design submissions arranged to suit the construction
programme, allowing only about two weeks for the checker to check and certify each package. This
may be enough for a design review, or even a full check of some elements or some parts of the
works but not for all. For a start, there needs to be an initial design submission at the start with all
geometry material grades, principal section sizes etc defined to enable the checker to set up and
analyse his independent structural model before he can be in a position to check the detailed design
packages later. This tends to take much more than two weeks and is often overlooked. It is not
 IABSE Symposium, Weimar 2007

realistic to expect a checker to sign a certificate for the design for a multi-million pound project, for
which he will share some of the liability, if he only permitted a few weeks to review it.

6. Some other case studies

By way of further illustration the following case studies serve to highlight some of the possible
checking arrangements adopted in a variety of very different circumstances.
6.1 The Millennium Dome, London
As in most developed countries, any building in the UK must be subject to a design review by the
local authority Building Control department prior to construction. In this case, in recognition of the
special nature the Millennium Dome design, the local authority required a more extensive review
than usually carried out by Building Control and appointed their own consultant for this task.
However, this was still not considered
sufficient for the client and the designer who
wanted a full and thorough independent check
carried out in a manner similar to the Category
3 check used for major bridges in the UK, in
recognition of the considerable added value
and re-assurance that such a check provides.
Accordingly, the client separately appointed
Flint & Neill as independent checker to
confirm the suitability of the design criteria and
to carry out a fully independent structural
analysis and check of the design. This work
included checking the geometry of the pre-
stressed structure using form-finding software
independent of that used by the designer.
Fig. 6 The London Millennium Dome under construction showing the Blackwall Tunnel vent shaft
The Dome is constructed around the southern ventilation shaft to the Blackwall Tunnel which
carries a major highway under the River Thames. (Fig.6) Part of F&N’s role was to independently
check the influence of the Dome on the effectiveness of the ventilation shaft. Reassurance was
needed that the risks of increasing pollutant levels inside the tunnel were acceptably small.
Consequently, our scope included a detailed study of the effect of wind passing over the Dome and
the ventilation shafts in a range of speeds and directions, drawing on our experience of the
behaviour of wind passing over hills in connection with tall mast and tower analysis.
6.2 Northbank Footbridge, Stockton-on-Tees
In this case, the design emerged through a design competition held by the client in 2002. The
bridge has an unusually slender arch structure and as checker we were required to work with the
designer to establish suitable critical arch buckling criteria and agree the non-linear analytical
techniques required to determine its behaviour.
In addition, the aerodynamic stability of the structure was recognised as of particular concern, and
the designer acknowledged his lack of experience in this area. We were able to apply our
considerable expertise in this field to assist the designer and verify adequacy through a series of
desk studies and wind tunnel tests.
This illustrates another valuable aspect of the independent check, since there will be times,
frequently in our experience, when a designer may not have sufficient knowledge and experience of
some specific complex aspect of behaviour such as aerodynamics and dynamic response for
example. A suitably selected checker can help to ensure that appropriate design criteria are adopted
and can add this missing expertise, reassuring both designer and client that the design process being
followed is suitable. We are frequently asked to advise specifically on such specialist aspects and to
perform independent dynamic response analysis, since this is not necessarily in the daily diet of
most practicing engineers.
 IABSE Symposium, Weimar 2007

6.3 Structural Assessment of Erskine Bridge, Scotland

Independent checking applies also to the assessment of existing structures, not just the design of
new ones. In this case, Flint & Neill performed the structural assessment of this steel box girder
structure and identified the need to develop special assessment criteria since the application of
normal design criteria would have been far too conservative and would have resulted in excessive
apparent strengthening requirements. [4] The checker, WS Atkins, needed to satisfy themselves that
these special criteria were safe and appropriate before either party could proceed with the detailed
assessment. Both firms had detailed experience of deriving codified steel box girder design and
assessment rules and in the application of reliability theory to determine suitable safety margins, so
it was with confidence that we were able to advise our client not to adopt the standard design rules
but to use our alternative instead and thus reduce the cost of strengthening from about £20 million
to £2 million, as attested by the client at the time. [5]
6.4 Heathrow Terminal 5
Both the client and the designer for Terminal 5 acknowledged that the enormous scale and
importance of the roof structure required
experience beyond that of most building
structures engineers and justifed an
independent design check. Indeed it was felt
that the family of 196m long steel box roof
girders fell more under the scope of the steel
box girder bridge rules than any normal
building design rules. (Fig.7) Accordingly,
F&N was appointed to carry out an
independent structural analysis, check the
design and advise on aspects associated with
the roof erection. Our role was subsequently
extended to other aspects of this enormous
project, including checking the design and
erection of the new control tower.
Fig. 7 Terminal 5, Heathrow Airport, London
There is no doubt that the project benefited from the extra comfort and confidence that such an
independent check provided, and in the context of such a major project the cost of the check was
insignificant. Such independent design checking for major public building structures is now
becoming more and more common in the UK and elsewhere.

7. A small price to pay

In the context of the overall project cost, the fee for a full independent check is very small. If valued
against the substantial possible costs of rectifying any design problems which may be discovered
later, the checker’s fee is even more insignificant. It is therefore hard to find a reason not to do it.
For a very low additional cost the client can obtain several added benefits including:
• risk reduction
• extra peace of mind
• confidence that the design criteria are appropriate, especially if the structure or problem is
innovative or unusual
• confidence that the design has been properly undertaken in accordance with the agreed criteria
• reassurance that the finished structure, if properly built in accordance with the design, is likely
to perform as intended
• another consultant who may share some of the liability in the event that problems arise later
Figure 9 illustrates the typical level of independent design check fees against construction cost
taken from real data for a number of real projects. This can be used as a rough guide to Category 3
 IABSE Symposium, Weimar 2007

check fees for bridges of average complexity. The message is clear; for a bridge of value greater
than about £10 million a full independent check costs less than half a percent of the cost of
construction. When you consider the added value that such a check provides, this is certainly a price
worth paying.

4.5
4.0

3.5
Check Fee Percentage

3.0

2.5
2.0

1.5
1.0

0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Construction Cost (£ million)

Fig.9 Typical independent check fees as percentage of bridge construction cost

For footbridges less than about £2 million, the percentage fee gets high, but the actual cost of the
check tends to be reasonably constant, depending on the complexity of the structure. It costs about
the same to check the design of a £0.5 million footbridge as a £1 million footbridge as each
involves about the same amount of work.
In addition, the checker’s role can be extended to include more than merely checking that the design
meets the design criteria; for a small extra fee the check could include an economic design review.
Thus, instead of just checking that component stress levels are below limiting values he could be
asked to comment if they are excessively low. Or to put it another way, the checker’s role could be
extended to identify over-design as well as any overstress. This is not normally part of the checker’s
scope, but if included it keeps the designer on his toes to ensure that the design remains economic.
If this approach is adopted, it is very important not to dilute the designer’s design responsibility.
The designer must be able to ignore the checker’s opinion if he wishes to adopt a particularly
conservative design approach and keep stresses low in a particularly component for example. The
checker’s comments should therefore be restricted to reporting where he considers that material
could be saved or cost savings could otherwise be achieved without any detriment to the design.
This usually means that the checker should merely report where he considers stress utilisation
factors are unnecessarily low and leave the designer to decide with the client whether or not a
design change to achieve cost savings is appropriate. This approach is only possible if the design
and check programmes allow sufficient time for the necessary design review, modification and re-
checking to take place. It is also important to recognise that the designer is likely to be working
under tight constraints and may not be willing to consider making any design changes.
If the design can be made more economic by this approach, the money saved in construction cost
can go a long way towards paying for the checker’s fee, even several times over. However, it is
probably only worthwhile extending the checker’s scope in this way for the relatively large projects.
It is unlikely that such an approach would result in significant savings on smaller projects.

8. Certification and shared liability

The independent checker is normally required to certify compliance of the design with the agreed
design criteria. This certification carries with it a potential legal liability and is in addition to similar
certification provided by the designer. The wording of such certificates is of vital importance and
needs to be appropriate to the contractual arrangements and responsibilities for the project.
Certification may take the form of a single final check certificate for the whole design which has
 IABSE Symposium, Weimar 2007

been checked, often accompanied by a report describing the main issues and conclusions arising
from the check. Alternatively, and commonly in design and build contracts, independent
certification may be given in stages for a series of design packages. Either way the checker
assumes a degree of responsibility for the adequacy of the checked design.
This is where the true independent design check differs markedly from the design review. Full
independent certification of the design requires the checker to carry out a thorough independent
check. The legal liabilities of a local authority building control surveyor, for example, who has
merely reviewed the drawings and calculations to see that they have been prepared in accordance
with appropriate standards, are nothing like so severe. In some parts of the world, a checker is
required to stamp the designer’s drawings to indicate that they have been checked and in so doing
accepts a share of the liability for the design. In order to be qualified to certify drawings in this way
a checker must generally be a “Registered Engineer” which requires him to have professional
indemnity insurance cover.
In the event of a subsequent failure, clients are theoretically able to pursue an action against both
the designer and the checker. In the case of a Category 3 check there will generally be two separate
professional indemnity policies each potentially targeted by such an action. However, the share of
liability between the designer and checker is a matter for the individuals and the lawyers to decide. I
know of very few cases which have been taken to court where a checker has been found liable, so
there is little publicly available data available to indicate what shares of liability have been agreed.
This in itself is probably a good indication of the value of an independent check. Usually any claims
are settled out of court in a commercial settlement. Although there is no hard data on this subject, it
is generally considered that the designer-checker liability shares tend to settle in the region of 70:30
or 60:40 respectively depending on the particulars of each case.
It is clear that both parties do not necessarily have equal opportunity to influence the design. The
checker is not party to many of the key design decisions and his scope of work may also not extend
to a check of all aspects. For example, the checker is not always commissioned to check the
materials and workmanship specifications, and if a failure occurs due to some deficiency in these
then he cannot be held liable.
However, there is a potential sting in the tail in the UK, since if for whatever reason the designer
has gone out of business or is unable to pay, the law allows the checker to be stung for 100% of the
claim. It also works the other way of course, and I believe that this “last man standing” arrangement
is unique to the UK
In the case of the Ramsgate ferry ramp disaster in 1994, the constructors, designers, checkers and
owners were all charged under the UK Health and Safety at Work Act, and the port operators were
also charged under the Docks Regulations. The fine for the checker was half the amount for the
designer/builder, and both parties were also liable for a roughly equal share of the prosecutor’s
costs. [7] As a result of this incident, the requirements for checking the design, operation and
maintenance of such structures were firmed up in a new CIRIA guide. [8] However, the biggest
share of the liability in that case was assigned to the client, and this highlights another important
factor, at least in UK law. The client cannot contract-out of his legal liability under current health
and safety legislation in the UK.
Laws differ in different countries. Most of mainland Europe works under a civil court system as
distinct from the British common law system. In the UK, consulting engineers have a duty to act
with due care and diligence and claimants have to prove negligence under the criminal law in order
to assign liability which can theoretically be unlimited. Whereas in Germany, for example,
engineers typically carry a more stringent fitness-for-purpose obligation, but the levels of liability
are somewhat lower. This huge subject is far outside the scope of this paper, but it is important to
understand the potential liability issues when accepting an appointment as independent checker (or
designer for that matter) in a country whose laws differ from your own.

9. Resolving differences and avoiding conflict

I am often asked “What happens when the checker and designer arrive at different answers?” On
several occasions I have come across clients not used to a culture of independent checking who
have used this as an argument to avoid doing it at all! They refuse the extra confidence and comfort
 IABSE Symposium, Weimar 2007

provided by an independent certification of the design because of worries that they might be drawn
into an argument between the designer and the checker.
Designers and checkers are first and foremost professionals and they are used to having and
resolving differences of opinion. No-one expects the checker to arrive at precisely the same
answers as the designer. What matters in the end is their independent professional opinion on the
following questions:
• does the design comply with the defined design criteria?
• are the design criteria (including any special departures from normal standards) appropriate?
• is the design properly and clearly defined on the design drawings?
Small differences in analysis results or in calculated utilisation ratios for example are usually
neglected as long as they don’t affect those opinions.
On the second point above, it is common for the checker to be told the design criteria and not to be
asked to check them or offer an opinion as to whether they are appropriate. However, the expert
checker may be asked to comment on whether the criteria seem appropriate or whether additional
studies are required to develop project-specific criteria. If special criteria are to be developed then it
is reasonable that the checker should be asked (and paid!) to review them.
If significant differences arise during the design and check process, the two parties need to
exchange opinions, and if necessary the results of their analysis, in order to identify whether one or
other has made an error in assumption or calculation. In the vast majority of cases that is as far as it
goes. One party makes a correction and that is the end of it. Most often the correction has
negligible influence on the cost or programme of the work, but sometimes the result can be
significant, depending largely on when it happens. This where it is much easier to resolve any
differences under a traditional procurement route where the design and the check are completed
prior to inviting tenders for construction. In a design and build situation the cost or programme
consequences of late design changes arising as a result of the check can be more significant.
Considering the shared liability issues above, it is clearly in the designer’s interest that there should
be an independent checker. But more than that, a check provides the opportunity for the designer to
gain from the checker’s experience to the betterment of the design and perhaps learn new aspects of
the engineer’s art from his fellow professional. I always relish such opportunities when they arise.

10. Recommendations
I strongly recommend revisiting the recommendations of the Merrison Committee of Inquiry from
the early 1970’s since the issues they address regarding design and check procedures and the
contractual obligations under design and construction contracts apply as much today as they did
then. [1] Any aspiring or practicing bridge engineer would do well to read them and also the Report
of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Failure of West Gate Bridge in Melbourne. [9] These
both demonstrate the essential importance of proper design checking.
Where not already established, a culture of independent design checking for bridges should be
instigated. Some different models already exist, and the British system represents a good workable
model which has been adopted widely and has the benefit of being applied for over 30 years.
However, the system may need to be adapted to suit the legal and contractual climate of the country
in which it is to be applied.
When undertaking a fully independent design check, the checker should carry out his structural
analysis completely independently from the designer, preferably using different modelling and
analysis software, and without reference to the designer’s calculations.
For large projects, such as major bridges of value greater than £100 million, the scope of work for
the independent checker could be extended to include an economic review of the design to identify
any areas where cost savings could be made without changing the design intent. However, in such
cases the final design decisions must remain with the designer to decide with his client whether any
design changes should be made to achieve such cost savings.
The independence of the checker must be ensured. The checker must be free to reach his own
 IABSE Symposium, Weimar 2007

independent professional opinion without undue pressure forcing him to certify the design without
proper opportunity for rigorous analysis and consideration.
It is vital that design and check programmes allow sufficient time for thorough and rational analysis
and consideration to take place. Unrealistic programmes add unwanted pressures on the design and
check activities and increase the risk of mistakes being made or errors being missed.
The designer and checker should work in a spirit of mutual respect and co-operation, recognising
that they both share the common goal of ensuring a satisfactory outcome for the project, without
trying to score points off each other. Both parties have an opportunity to learn from each other and,
in the case of innovative solutions, to further the art and practice of engineering technology.

11. Conclusion
It is clear that independent design checking adds considerable value to a project for a very small
additional cost. Not only does it add confidence in the design and reduce the risk of failure, it also
enables the skills, expertise and experience of the checker to be available to the client and designer
for mutual benefit.
The cost of an independent check is typically less than 0.5% of the construction cost for projects
greater than about £6 million sterling. A good checker if appointed to undertake an economic design
review at the same time as the design check can easily save more than his fee several times over in
the case of major projects.
It is very rare for designs which have been independently checked to cause serious problems.
Statistically, there are many more cases of structural failures or inadequacies arising due to poor
design when there has been no independent check than when an independent checker has been
appointed. Even if problems do occur with a checked design, the presence of the checker means a
sharing of the liability which is in both the client’s and the designer’s interest.
Rigorous design checking procedures introduced a generation ago in an attempt to reduce the
incidence of structural failures arose as a result of painful lessons learnt from history. If future
failures are to be prevented then those lessons need to be re-learnt, and if necessary the checking
procedures instigated then may need to be modified to suit current and future practices taking into
account new and developing legal and commercial constraints.

12. References
[1] “Inquiry into the Basis of Design and Method of Erection of Steel-Box Girder Bridges” Report
of the Merrison Committee of Inquiry, HMSO, London 1973.
[2] WOODS C.ROLAND, “Building Regulations (London)”, The Structural Engineer, April 1934
[3] BD2/05: “Technical Approval of Highway Structures”, The Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges Vol.1, the Highways Agency, August 2005
[4] FIRTH I.P.T., ADAMSON R.N., and HUBAND M.V., “The Refurbishment of Erskine Bridge,
Scotland”, IABSE Symposium, Melbourne, September 2002
[5] BRODIE A., “The Bridge Assessment and Strengthening Programme in Scotland”, Bridge
Rehabilitation in the UK, The Institution of Civil Engineers, October 2000
[6] “Steel Box Girder Bridges”, pp.3-5, Proceeding of the International Conference at the
Institution of Civil Engineers, 13-14 February 1973.
[7] “Learning from Construction Failures” (Chapter by J. Chapman) Whittles Publishing 2001
[8] “Safety in Ports – Ship to Shore Linkspans and Walkways” CIRIA Report C518, 1999
[9] “Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Failure of West Gate Bridge,” published
by the Government of the State of Victoria, Australia, 1971.