Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017)000–000
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017)000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Engineering 206 (2017) 800–806

International Conference on Industrial Engineering, ICIE 2017

International Conference on Industrial Engineering, ICIE 2017
Civil Engineering Quality Assessment in Terms of Construction
Civil Engineering QualitySafety
Assessment
Index in Terms of Construction
Safety Index
A.Kh. Baiburin*
A.Kh. Baiburin*
South Ural State University, 76, Lenin Avenue, Chelyabinsk 454080, The Russian Federation
South Ural State University, 76, Lenin Avenue, Chelyabinsk 454080, The Russian Federation

Abstract
Abstract
A comprehensive quality assessment method for civil engineering is described. The comprehensive assessment includes the
indicators of the quality
A comprehensive qualitysystem level, method
assessment absence for of defects, stability ofis engineering
civil engineering procedures,
described. The and construction
comprehensive assessment safety indexes.
includes the
The quality system is considered broadly in terms of the project organization potential, suppliers of building
indicators of the quality system level, absence of defects, stability of engineering procedures, and construction safety indexes. materials and the
construction company.
The quality system Calculationbroadly
is considered formulas for statistical
in terms valuesorganization
of the project considering potential,
the parameters distribution
suppliers type
of building are given.
materials andThe
the
estimated values
construction of the indexes
company. for two
Calculation stages for
formulas of control (with
statistical and without
values the use
considering theofparameters
process technology accuracy
distribution regulation)
type are are
given. The
proposed. values
estimated The analysis of construction
of the indexes quality
for two stages by the (with
of control exampleand of solid the
without buildings construction
use of process is carried
technology out. The
accuracy impactare
regulation) of
different defects on construction safety index is studied. The defects root causes are revealed.
proposed. The analysis of construction quality by the example of solid buildings construction is carried out. The impact of
© 2017 The
different Authors.
defects Published by
on construction Elsevier
safety B.V.
indexLtd.
is studied. The defects root causes are revealed.
© 2017 The
Peer-review Authors. Published by
under responsibility of Elsevier
the scientific committee of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering.
© 2017 The
Peer-review Authors.
under Published
responsibility by Elsevier
ofrisk;
thedegree B.V.
scientific committee of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering
Keywords: civil engineering, accident of quality;
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee building; defects;
of the structural safety.
International Conference on Industrial Engineering.
Keywords: civil engineering, accident risk; degree of quality; building; defects; structural safety.

1. Introduction
1. Introduction
Implementation of quality and safety regulation mechanisms in civil engineering (technical regulation,
certification, insurance,
Implementation quality system
of quality implementation)
and safety regulation requires establishment
mechanisms in civil of science-based
engineering criteria regulation,
(technical for quality
assessment
certification,ofinsurance,
construction works
quality and implementation)
system safety of structures. Analysis
requires shows that
establishment of critical defects criteria
science-based committed in the
for quality
construction
assessment ofprocess are theworks
construction reasonand
forsafety
aboutof60% of building
structures. and construction
Analysis accidents.
shows that critical Zerocommitted
defects defects level of
in the
engineering
construction procedures
process areis the
onereason
of the lowest
for aboutamong
60%allofthe economy
building andsectors and amounts
construction to 0,6...0,85,
accidents. that indicates
Zero defects level of
the inefficiency
engineering of building
procedures inspection
is one in the among
of the lowest changedalleconomic conditions.
the economy sectors and amounts to 0,6...0,85, that indicates
the inefficiency of building inspection in the changed economic conditions.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +7-922-231-3827; fax: +7-351-267-91-83.

E-mail address:author.
* Corresponding baiburinak@susu.ac.ru
Tel.: +7-922-231-3827; fax: +7-351-267-91-83.
E-mail address: baiburinak@susu.ac.ru
1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review
1877-7058 ©under
2017responsibility
The Authors. of the scientific
Published committee
by Elsevier B.V.of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering .
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering .

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering.
10.1016/j.proeng.2017.10.554
 A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 206 (2017) 800–806 801
2 A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

A system approach to building quality assessment is conditioned by analysis of the quality system potential,
assessment of the building procedures and performance results in the form of erected buildings and constructions.
For this purpose, metric, computational, registration and expert quality assessment methods are used. The
assessment is based on differentiated, integrated or combined indexes.

2. Quality system assessment

Quality and safety maintenance and technical regulation of construction projects is hardly possible without the
establishment of an effective quality management system, which would include all the resources, necessary for
construction and investment project implementation (organizational, material and technical, methodological
resources etc.). The level of construction quality system is proposed to be evaluated according to the formula:

KCK  
n  K1  K 2  K3  (1)

where n is the coefficient the effectiveness of legal framework, system of technical regulation and supervision
implementation; K1, K2, K3 correspondingly are quantitative assessments of project organization’s quality system,
building materials suppliers, and the building organization. The values of the weighting ratios  = 0.15,  = 0.25 and
 = 0.6 are determined by integrated data on error probabilities of the construction participants and the causes of
accidents.
Quality system assessment of the construction participant is carried out in an expert way with the use of methods
introduced in the Fuzzy Sets Theory [1-4]. The proposed method is evaluated while erecting civic buildings by
different building organizations. The resulting quality system assessments for 16 organizations vary from 0.60 to
0.74 with the average value of 0.68. The set estimated values of the quality system level (the lower is 0.50 and the
upper is 0.75) are corresponding with the recommendations on consumer risk [5]. And in the case of the quality
system assessment certified according to ISО 9000, these values are increased to 0.75 and 0.90 correspondingly.
The weakest elements in the quality systems of contractors are revealed; they are: personnel development, high
quality work promotion, the use of high quality materials and products, statistic methods implementation.
Significant correlation between quality system assessment K3 and zero defects level р is discovered. This correlation
allows to make predictions on performance quality based on the preliminary estimate of the fabricator’s capacity:
 p 1.368 K 3  0.314.

3. Quality indicators calculation

The calculation of statistical quality indicators is performed on the basis of measurement data, as-fitted geodesic
drawings of constructions’ position, laboratory control of material properties. The following characteristics of each
controlled parameter are calculated [6]: sample average; systematic deviation, sample standard deviation;
confidence intervals for the sample average and the sample standard deviation; coefficient of concordance; zero
defects level; process accuracy and control indicators; process stability coefficients in relation with systematic and
random errors.
For alternative quality characters, the coefficient of norms (projects) compliance is calculated. This coefficient KС
is the ratio of the number of observations corresponding with regulations to the total number of observations. For
quantitative quality parameters, zero defects level р (which is a fraction of Х parameter’s random distribution in the
[a, b] tolerance interval) along with the process accuracy rate (process performance index) are calculated by the
improved formulas (Table 1).
The values of quantile t and credibility level  are proposed to be taken depending on the importance class of a
building and seriousness of defect [6]. For example, for buildings of the first-class responsibility and quality
parameters which affect safety and whose deviations are considered critical defects, calculated parameters are
 = 0.99 and t = 2.58.
For integral assessment of parameters deviations, the integrated zero defect index KD, which also takes into
account significance of the defects, is proposed. Control accuracy index KТК is calculated as a ratio of the marginal
802 A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 206 (2017) 800–806
A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 3

error of control measurements, determined according to the certificate for admission to the means for measuring a
parameter. Engineering procedure stability ratios relative to random KS or systematic KХ errors are proposed to
calculate as a ratio of the stable processes number to the total amount of processes, tested for stability of each type.
Conclusion of the process stability is drawn according to statistical criteria of Student and Fisher [1,6].

Table 1. Calculating formulas of parameters for different types of distribution.

Distribution type Calculating formulas
accuracy rate zero defects level
Normal X  X a b X 
KТ  p     1
2  t S x  Sx   Sx 
Lognormal
 ln b     ln b   
p  
KТ  
t    
Any X b
KТ  p   f ( x)dx
U P  LP a

Annotation: Х – specified limit; t – inverse distribution of  level; Sх – standard deviation of the parameter; Ф – function of the normal law of
distribution;  and  – parameters of the lognormal law of distribution; UP, LP – corresponding percentiles of distribution, for example, 95- and
0.05-percentiles; f(x) – distribution density.
Based on scientific research results, analysis of standards, considering the modern level of building technology,
indicators assessment criteria are proposed and proved (Table 2).
Table 2. Estimated values for quality indicators.
Indicator name Estimated values
upper value lower value
stage 1 stage 2 stage 1 stage 2
Zero defect level р when the defects are:
– critical 0.985 0.998 0.96 0.985
– major 0.96 0.985 0.90 0.96
– minor 0.90 0.96 0.75 0.90
– average-weighted 0.97 0.99 0.92 0.97
Composite index of zero defects KD 0.96 0.98 0.91 0.96
Process accuracy index KТ 1.00 1.33 0.67 1.00
Control accuracy index KТК 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2
Process stability indexes KХ and KS 0.75 1.00 0.50 0.75

Annotations: Upper estimated values of the indexes correspond with the satisfactory quality category, lower values – with the unsatisfactory
category. Stage 1 – before implementing statistical processes regulation; stage 2 – after implementing the statistical regulation.
Acceptable defect level q for critical defects is determined out of statutory reserves considering design resistance
of R material:

   znVR 1   m   1 
1  Ф  zn  m
q  (2)
  mVR 

where Ф is the function of standard normal distribution; zn – quantile of characteristic strength reserve; m –
regulatory safety factor for materials; VR – variation of R coefficient.
 A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 206 (2017) 800–806 803
4 A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

Average defect rate found using the formula (2) for critical defects equals 0.25%. Reduced rates for major and
minor defects are assigned from the series assumed in statistical control (1.5, 4.0 and 10.0%) considering accuracy
standards for geometrical parameters. Justification of estimated values of other indicators is provided: KС –
according to acceptance number and rejection number of acceptance sampling plans based on alternative criterion;
KТ – according to calculated dependency between the accuracy index and zero defects level; KТК – according to
standard requirements for the control. The values of stability indexes KХ and KS are proposed considering actual
possibilities of the construction and erection work processes, studied in the process of erecting more than 50
buildings of different structural systems.

4. Safety performance indicators calculation

For safety assessment of bearing structures in quality management, it is advisable to use approximate methods
(the method of moments, linearization method, and the method of statistical testing). In this case, the error value
does not usually exceed 5%. Errors of the approximate methods of safety performance calculations will not be
significant while using relative indexes:
of design safety reduction:

K P  P P0 (3)

where Р, Р0 are the actual value and design value of safety correspondingly;
of the increase of design failure probability Q:

Q 1 P
K
Q  (4)
Q0 1  P0

of the decrease in safety characteristic:

K Z  z z0 (5)

where z, z0 are correspondingly the actual value and design value of the safety characteristic according to A.R.
Rzhanitsyn [5-8].
Safety characteristic of constructions with committed defects:

K R k0  1
z (6)
V  ( K R k0 )2 VR2
2
N

wherek0 is the average value of design safety margin; VR, VN are reliability and load variations correspondingly;KR
is the average value of reliability decrease in the result of committed defects.
If we set a limit value for one of the relative safety indexes (3)–(5), we can determine the other indexes in
accordance with relations connecting these indexes.
Estimated values validation of the bearing capacity and safety decrease is carried out by design analysis of the
resources, laid in the norms of base and structural design, because in the process of indexes calculation (3)–(5) we
use the actual average values and standard parameter deviations determined during statistic control, instead of their
regulatory value. Analysis of different researches allows taking half-interval between 1 и 1/m as the limit value of
strength reduction, where m is the regulatory reliability coefficient of the material. When this value is reached, the
quality of work can’t be considered satisfactory, it is necessary to carry out instrumental examination and prove the
possibility of using the defective design according to the purpose intended.
On the basis of limit values of strength reduction calculated by this method, relative safety indexes for specific
constructions can be determined. For this purpose, the average safety margin based on design data is calculated.
804 A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 206 (2017) 800–806
A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 5

After that, the decreased value of safety characteristic and coefficient of reduction are determined using formulas (6)
and (5); then we determine the corresponding values of indexes (3) and (4) plotted as KZ. As a result, upper and
lower estimated values of safety indexes for specific constructions are determined. For example, the values from
0.85 to 0.92 in decrease of brick wall bearing capacity correspond to the increase of failure probability values from 3
to 7, and also to the design safety reduction values from 0.994 to 0.998.
For standard constructions of domestic buildings, acceptable risk of the increase of design failure probability
usually lies in the range from 2 to 10, which corresponds to research data [9-14]. Naturally, the safe use period of
defective designs is shortened, and the reduced safety level can become insufficient in beyond-design-basis events
connected to incidents and alarm situations [15-17]. Resource prediction of defect designs in the process of their use
should be implemented considering the background of their manufacturing and loading, their initial defectiveness,
damage accumulation, ageing aggression, along with loading conditions and the change of deflected mode.
With the constant failure rate in the period of normal operation, the maintenance-free design usage period t can
be calculated with the use of the exponential law of safety decrease adjusted for initial defects.

Pt K P P0 exp(d  t ) (7)

where Рt, Р0 are safety rates in a time moment, with the time t and t = 0 correspondingly; KР is the index of design
safety reduction as a result of defects; d is the magnification factor of failure rate  considering initial defects.

5. Comprehensive quality assessment

Comprehensive quality assessment of the construction and erection works is proposed using the mixed method
based on three indicators:

  K D KT    K X K S    K R K P  , K P   K P  , KR   KR 
a b c d
KCMP 
KCK (8)

where KСМР is the complex indicator of construction quality; KСК is the construction quality system level; KD, KТ are
indicators of zero defects and engineering procedures accuracy; KХ, KS are process stability indicators considering
systematic inaccuracy and accidental errors correspondingly; KR, KP are coefficients of the bearing capability
decrease and the structural safety of foundation and erected constructions; [KR], [KP] are corresponding limit values.
Weighting ratios in formula (8) can be calculated in several ways. The easiest way is based on the method of
paired comparisons, which determines: а = 0.19, b = 0.12, с = 0.025 and d = 0.26. The advantages of quality index
KСМР are conditioned by its highest response to the design’s integral property in the form of safety. At the estimated
values of partial indicator errors, the calculation error KСМР amounts to 6–10%.
When we insert corresponding estimated values in formula (8), it is possible to calculate estimated values KСМР.
For example, when constructing brick buildings, the quality for average weighted defects (on their seriousness) is
considered satisfactory when KСМР = 0.77 to 0.91. At the same time, bearing capacity decrease index and safety
index should not be less than the limit values determined out of the limit state conditions.

6. Industrial quality research

Industrial quality and safety research is conducted during construction process of 30 brick, bearing-wall and
monolithic reinforced concrete civic buildings of different structural systems; their height varying from 3 to 23
floors. The main results of statistical control of monolithic reinforced concrete buildings’ construction quality are
given in Table 3. As concluded from Table 3 data, zero defect level is high according to the concrete strength index,
satisfactory or unsatisfactory according to geometrical indicators. Reinforcement defects are classified as major
defects; other deviations are classified as minor defects. As for the buildings, the average zero defect level KD upon
material indications equals 0.99, upon geometrical indications – 0.61, upon geometrical indications which do not
affect structural strength – 0.78. Calculated values of KD demonstrate high quality conformance to the norms and the
project upon the material indicators, and low quality conformance upon the geometrical indicators.
 A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 206 (2017) 800–806 805
6 A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

Table 3. The results of statistical control of monolithic reinforced concrete buildings’ quality
Х Sx
Controlled parameters Xn n KС KD KТ
() ()
The strength of concrete slabs, mPas – 173 7.40 3.76 0.96 0.975 0.84
The strength of concrete walls, mPas – 213 7.14 2.54 1.00 0.998 1.20
The strength of concrete columns, mPas – 348 10.46 3.98 1.00 0.996 1.13
Walls reinforcement spacing , mm 10 89 –7.76 22.91 0.40 0.32 0.26
Columns reinforcement spacing, mm 10 132 –0.30 8.89 0.83 0.74 0.68
Floor reinforcement spacing, mm 10 131 0.34 15.62 0.57 0.48 0.39
The depth of concrete floor cover, mm +8–3 134 –0.75 6.16 0.63 0.51 0.44
The depth of concrete walls cover, mm +8–3 89 0.29 15.33 0.32 0.28 0.22
The depth of concrete columns cover, mm +8–3 126 0.21 7.97 0.54 0.49 0.42
Wall thickness deviation, mm +6–3 258 9.40 6.41 0.39 0.27 0.43
Column section deviation, mm +6–3 188 3.85 6.15 0.67 0.50 0.44
Floor slabs thickness deviation, mm +6–3 173 5.60 6.09 0.54 0.45 0.45
Walls verticality deviation*, mm 15 253 1.917 0.524 0.92 0.93 1.51
Columns verticality deviation*, mm 15 121 1.521 1.117 0.88 0.86 1.06
Deviation of floor marks, mm 10 787 4.88 8.18 0.83 0.70 0.74
Deviation of column form from its axis, mm 7 885 –0.16 4.38 0.92 0.89 0.97
Deviation of wall form from its axis, mm 7 359 0.23 5.43 0.84 0.80 0.78
Wall surface irregularities*, mm 5 128 1.131 0.628 0.83 0.78 0.76
Column surface irregularities*, mm 5 143 0.961 0.386 0.91 0.95 1.68
Difference in surface grades*, mm 3 81 1.299 0.736 0.47 0.39 –0.27
Slabs levelness*, mm 20 311 1.477 0.685 0.98 0.99 2.22
Span floor deviation, mm 20 70 1.46 12.66 0.96 0.88 0.95

Annotations: Xn – regulatory allowance;Х – average value; Sx – standard parameter deviation; KС – coefficient of concordance; KD – zero
defect level; KТ – accuracy rate of engineering procedure; CD – defect criticality index. For the parameters marked with * sign, statistics are
calculated at the lognormal distribution Logn(; ).
The results of comprehensive quality assessment for monolithic reinforced concrete buildings are given in Table
4. As we can see, the defects do not cause decrease in bearing capacity of the erected constructions. There is a
decrease in structural safety index of some objects as a result of high variability of parameters affecting the bearing
capability. For buildings №1, 3, 6 and 7, safety decrease exceeds the lowest estimated value. Therefore, despite the
fact that the complex indicator is in the limits of average level, construction quality of the named buildings can’t be
considered satisfactory.

7. Conclusions

The committed defects do not significantly affect the safety indicators of monolithic reinforced concrete
buildings. At the same time, for other types of buildings (brick or bearing-wall constructions), determined influence
can be significant [1,6,18,19].
The lowest values of complex indicator of the work quality KСМР are relevant to the objects with the average
quality system level of the construction organization. Maximum values of KСМР are registered by the contractor
which possesses comparatively high KСМР level of quality system, equal to 0.79.
According to analysis results of the reasons for quality decrease on the basis of supervised buildings, it is found
that 55% of defects result from unsatisfactory quality control and breaches in maintenance procedures. About 24%
of defects are connected to the poor quality of construction materials and products along with the shortage of
806 A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 206 (2017) 800–806
A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 7

technique. Imperfections of engineering procedures, off-design materials usage and low proficiency of contractors –
are the reasons for 21% of defects. Therefore, the efforts should be mainly focused on perfecting the quality control,
providing technology compliance of works performance and increasing the level of quality management system.

Table 4. The values of quality indicators for monolithic reinforced concrete buildings

№ of the The values of quality indicators for the supervised buildings

building KСК KD KТ KX KS KR KP KСМР
1 0.66 0.66 1.00 0.50 0.07 1.00 0.975 0.803
2 0.79 0.82 1.00 0.60 0.60 1.06 1.004 0.910
3 0.79 0.76 0.59 0.86 0.79 1.03 0.986 0.857
4 0.79 0.81 0.96 0.64 0.73 1.02 0.992 0.908
5 0.65 0.66 0.60 0.90 0.90 1.02 1.114 0.820
6 0.69 0.70 0.96 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.962 0.867
7 0.79 0.77 1.00 0.25 0.38 1.03 0.971 0.867
8 0.79 0.80 1.00 0.64 0.60 1.01 1.037 0.909
Average 0.74 0.75 0.89 0.64 0.60 1.00 0.986 0.876
Upper 0.75 0.97 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.95 0.998 0.917
Lower 0.50 0.92 0.67 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.994 0.776

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by Act 211 Government of the Russian Federation, contract № 02.A03.21.0011

References

[1] A.Kh. Baiburin, Comprehensive quality assessment of civic buildings construction considering the factors affecting their safety, Doctor of
Tech.Sc. dissertation, Saint Petersburg, 2012.
[2] A.Kh. Baiburin, Ensuring the quality and safety of constructed civic buildings: a scientific publication, ASV Publ., Moscow, 2015.
[3] A.Kh. Baiburin, S.G. Golovnev, Quality and safety of constructional technologies: Monograph, SUSU, Chelyabinsk, 2006.
[4] S.G. Golovnev, Modern construction technologies: monograph, South Ural State University Publishing Center, Chelyabinsk, 2010.
[5] A.R. Rzhanitsyn, Strength calculation theory of building structures, Stroyizdat, Moscow, 1978.
[6] A.Kh. Baiburin, Construction quality of concrete panel buildings, Housing Construction, 10 (2002) 10–11.
[7] V. Raizer, Theory reliability of structures, АВS Publ., Moscow, 2010.
[8] V. Raizer, Reliability of structures subjected to corrosive wear, J. Technical Mechanics, Berlin. 11 (1990).
[9] G. Augusti, A. Baratta, F. Casciati, Probabilistic Methods in Structural Engineering, Chapman & Hall, London, 1984.
[10] N.A. Makhutov, O.I. Lobov, K.I. Eremin, Safety of Russia. Safety of construction engineering complex, Znaniye Publ., Moscow, 2012.
[11] N. Lind, Optimization, cost benefit analysis, specifications, Prob. 3rd Int. Conf. on Applications of statistics in Soil and Structural
Engineering. 3 (1979) 373–384.
[12] A.V. Perel'muter, Specific issues of reliability and safety of building structures, АВS Publ., Moscow, 2007.
[13] G. Spaete, Die Sicherheid tragender Baukonsruktionen, VEB Verlag fur Bauwesen, Berlin, 1987.
[14] G.N. Smith, Probability and Statistics in Civil Engineering, Collins, London, 1986.
[15] A.P. Melchakov, D.A. Bayburin, E.A. Kazakova, Structural safety of construction object: evaluation and ensuring: guide, South Ural State
University Publ., Chelyabinsk, 2013.
[16] A.G. Tamrazyan, S.N. Bulgakov, I.A. Rakhman, A.Yu. Stepanov, Risks reducing in construction engineering due natural and technogenic
hazards: scientific publication, ASV Publ., Moscow, 2012.
[17] A.P. Melchakov, D.A. Bayburin, E.V. Shukutina, About urban territories safety, Bulletin of the South Ural State University, Construction
engineering and architecture. 14(1) (2014) 14–18.
[18] SP 70.13330.2012, Revised Edition SNiP 3.03.01-87, Bearing and enclosing structures.
[19] A.G. Roytman, Deformation and damage to buildings, Stroyizdat, Moscow, 1987.
[20] Safety assessment of existing buildings and structures: monograph, Open company WELD, Magnitogorsk, 2014.