How does a construction site work?

I work for a subcontractor. (I hate contract work.*) Sometimes a General Contractor will call and ask if we would like to make a bid on a project. Usually one you’ve worked with before. Sometimes you find offers to bid online. And I think there is still a requirement to to post certain jobs in the paper. Once I find out about a job I request a scope of work from the GC. These are trade specific.I read the scope and decide if it is something we can or want to do. If so I request a set of the plans specific to my trade and work up a quote. There is usually a deadline to submit a quote by. If they like our quote they offer us a contract. It will cover everything from what we are expected to do, how much insurance we are required to carry, to what we can wear on the jobsite. Terms are negotiated till everyone agrees. This is done with several subs at once till one agrees and signs. Before our part in a job starts we will go to the jobsite meet with the Super and various Engineers and Managers. I will get to know the Super very well over the course of the job. Lots of scheduling meetings, safety briefings and progress reports. Phone tag is played at a professional level. Meanwhile we order materials, pre-fab what we can, go over the job with our installers and lead men (my current position) and schedule deliveries form our vendors to the jobsite through the Super’s office. Finally it’s time to do our part. We show up and do what we’ve spent the past few weeks talking about. Sometimes we finish in a few hours sometimes in a few months. On longer jobs we have performance goals to meet in order to get paid as we meet them. Other times we don’t get paid till we’re done and have passed all required inspections. We’ll have several jobs going on at once in various states of completion. As well as the bread and butter residential jobs that keep us going. Where I’m at now we do very little contract work. We do mostly residential A lot of government jobs Fed and City but not State. Small construction and remodel work. As well as retail walk-in work. And auto glass which I have nothing to do with.

*[silver lining] A life of which cancer saved me from.[/silver lining]

To amplify on this one, someone in my job should have seen it and contacted the engineer. However, if no one scheduled us to be there when it was built, the only indication that we weren’t there would be a lack of an inspection report on it. If no one notices that there is no inspection report on it, it isn’t going to get inspected, and bad shit can happen. That’s why inspectors are important.

Grew up in construction here.
What no one has mentioned yet is that once you are out of the hole (above ground) you are many times building the same story over and over again.
As a teenager I worked on a large hospital.
Once out of the hole each floor was divided into thirds. The first third would be being poured with concrete while the second was getting the horizontal decking and steel put in and the final third having the walls and columns formed and poured.
It took just about a month to go from floor to floor this way.

You asked who makes sure things work. There are many different levels of responsibility here.

The Architect designs the building, but generally there is a structural engineering firm that will design the structure. That is that the concrete foundations will support the weight of the entire building, the steel columns and beams will support the structure etc.

It is a long, long process. Generally when you are seeing a building going up someone two years ago, or more, was thinking of these types of issues. For example to insure that the soil will support the concrete foundations “Borings” were done to test the capability of the soil in the area. A Soils Engineer then wrote a report to the structural engineer certifying the capability of the soil to support so much weight, based upon the borings. There are many different types of foundations so the proper foundation for the soil type was chosen by the structural engineer based on the soils report.

Ultimately the structural engineer “stamps” the structural plans which will certify that the building meets modern building codes. Engineers who design structures like this are required to have a PE license, which is very much like a medical license. It allows them to practice engineering in the state.

Also standard organizations take part in this process, but indirectly.

For example in your structure most likely the concrete was 3000 psi concrete. Everyone in the construction business knows what that is, but for your project the company that supplied the concrete had to “submit” a mix design that the engineer approved. These mix designs are ultimately traced back to a concrete standard organization that says exactly what the capability of 3000 psi concrete. This is used by the engineer in his calculations.

The steel is most likely “A36” steel which is very common building steel. The capability of A36 steel is well documented and the AISC people publish a book that says exactly how this steel can be used and the standard practices they recommend. The engineer followed these recommendations in his design for your specific building.

This submittable process is long and time consuming for all parties. Basically nothing will be used on that job site unless it is approved with a submittable sent up the line which will be approved.

Design firms are actually called Architectural and Engineering (A&E) companies. They either have an on-board staff of licensed architects and engineers or they sub the work out to same. Architects are designers. Anything that has to do with structural strength or other functional aspects is determined by the engineers (structural, mechanical, electrical) after appropriate calculations. In the case of your light fixtures, if the change was for a significantly heavier fixture, the structural engineer would recalculate the structural load to make sure the supporting members could handle it before approving the change. Then the electrical engineer would recalculate the electrical load to make sure any additional draw could be handled by specified wiring.

Discretionary changes normally cannot be made by the builder. If the contractor discovers a glitch between the drawings and reality (and it happens all the time), there is a change order process that takes place, wherein the contractor submits the proposed change and cost to the project manager, who in turn sends it through the A&E people (and whatever other entity is involved in issuing the contract) for review and recommendation. In addition, the contractor must show the impact to the construction schedule. Contractors love change orders, because there is no bidding process and they can charge maximum profit on the rework.

I see that davida03801 answered some of this already.

Most of what has been posted is from fairly high in the chain of command, so I’ll give a “Grunt in the Trenches” perspective. As others have said, a good General Contractor makes a job go smoothly, and heads off problems before they become problems onsite. However, no Contractor can anticipate EVERY potential problem, so they do crop up. One common problem that was mentioned, is that sometimes trade-specific drawings are often done by different people, who don’t always refer to each others’ drawings. That’s when you get electrical, plumbing, and ductwork (my part) running through the same space, and you get conflict on the jobsite. A couple of examples come to mind: Once, I worked on a small one-story bungalow that was being upgraded with a second floor and a finished attic living space. The furnace was in the basement, with a supply riser (vertical main ductwork) running up through a “chase” (enclosed passageway) to the attic, where the ductwork branched out to supply the upper rooms. (the lower rooms were served by ductwork in the basement ceiling) The attic ductwork design was pretty much the same as it had been in the original attic, and so that was straightforward, but the Architect, in designing the second floor Master Suite, had not allowed for the chase, but had instead located the Master vanity in that space. This meant that if we all had built “per design”, the furnace would have blown air up into the riser, which would have abruptly ended at ceiling height on the first floor. The top end of the riser, in the attic, would have simply been a metal box with duct branching off of it, but no actual air being supplied TO it. The result would have been that the first floor would have gotten great airflow for heating and cooling, but the entire duct system for the second floor and attic would have been COMPLETELY non-functional. At this point, we had to approach the Super. and show him the drawings, he had to take it to the General Contractor, who in turn had to show the drawings to the Architect who had originally done the drawings. Of course the fault wasn’t the Architects, (How could it have been? He was only the guy who designed and drew the second floor without a chase; it’s not HIS fault that what he drew made the HVAC system physically impossible! :wink: ) The Architect had to change the plans, leaving to the Contractor or even the Super the job of explaining to the homeowner why he couldn’t have the fancy his/hers vanity he had been promised.
On another job, a commercial building, we were running ductwork in the area above what was to be a dropped ceiling. The first problem we ran into, was that we had been scheduled AFTER the guys who put in the ceiling grid. (the white metal framework you see holding up the white ceiling tiles in many commercial and public buildings) This meant that we couldn’t use scaffolding or regular construction lifts, because everything we brought up had to fit through 2’x4’ openings. We had to use a “catpole” lift, which is large enough to hold only one man, and which has to be lowered to the floor everytime you want to move it to the next opening. Had we gotten there BEFORE the ceiling guys, we could have used a large, rolling motor-driven lift which would have allowed us to bring up two or three guys and large runs of duct, and roll around as needed to reach each hanger or connection. This meant more “manhours” on our part, which got the Contractor on our case, and we (or rather, our boss) had to show that we were forced into the longer manhours by poor scheduling. The electricians and plumbers had to do pretty much the same thing. Another problem we, the electricians, and plumbers, ran into, was that we’d find that out various fixtures didn’t seem to end up in the right places. We checked and double-checked our measurements, and we couldn’t find where we’d gone wrong. We all had to adapt, and do what was necessary to put the fixtures where they needed ot be, which meant that sometimes, we got in each others’ way. However, since we were all experiencing the same problems, we quickly learned to work together to try to avoid causing each other problems. Again, more manhours for all of us. Finally once we had all gotten all our ductwork, wiring, pipe, and fixtures in place we found out what the problem was: The actual building was two feet longer than the drawings, and when the carpenters built the room walls, they started from one end of the building, only finding that things were off when they got to the other end, while we Ductmen, Plumbers, and Electricians started at the end where power and water came into the building. This mix-up was likely the fault of the Surveyors, but on a concrete ‘tilt-up’ building, once it’s up, it’s up, and it’s what we have to work with. This is why, as someone mentioned earlier, there’s a difference between “as drawn” and “as built”. Between the person who draws the plan, and the person who swings the hammer, there are many layers of potential error, and so each level has to be able to adapt to the unexpected, and communication both between levels and between trades can make a HUGE difference in how smoothly a job goes. Hats off to everybody in the chain of command, from Architect to Carpenter’s Bi…um, helper! :wink:

A good post, and I note that you’re new to the boards. We really encourage paragraphs, as most of us have the attention span of a gnat and can’t wade through a wall of text without wandering off to do something else. Just a friendly suggestion.

I’ve done a lot of work on the Hyatt Wikipedia article. A good friend of mine was the doctor who lead the rescue effort and performed the triage, applying battlefield techniques to the scene. He loaned me his Hyatt print and video archives.

Information that has not yet made its way into the article (because the full Kansas City Star archives are not yet available on-line).

The change from one continuous rod to two was made by the steel contractor. But they made one other, terrible change. The original design for the box beams had it fabricated from two U-shaped pieces, top and bottom joined together on the sides. They didn’t have those pieces in stock, so they took it upon themselves to change it to two shallower pieces welded side by side, with the seams running down the middle of the top and bottom - with the hole for the threaded rod right through the weld. Looking at the picture on the article, you can see how the nut ripped through the seam.

Also, the morons installing it, left off several of the U-shaped reenforcing washers that were applied as a Band-Aid for the hole going through the weld.

Everybody involved made a bad design worse.

Where the hell was the QA team? That should have been a stop-work order as soon as it was seen.

No idea. Remember, the skybridge collapse was the second major structural collapse at the same work site. The whole atrium ceiling structure collapsed earlier.

The disaster caused a lot of changes in how buildings are built. It is quite possible that there were no “QA teams” other than the city inspectors up until that time.

The warehouse just down from the construction site I mentioned earlier also collapsed: miscalculation on the load and stress for the steel. Luckily, it hadn’t been completed, so was unoccupied. Our steel problem was bad measurement from the drawings. Hard to believe, I know, but there was a three foot bust. At least it was caught prior to manufacture.

A “smaller” project (smaller than putting up a building) occurred nearby, in which a railroad track and bridge overpass were changed out and replaced by new track and a new bridge - all on a long weekend(!). I watched a lot of the work and asked some of the same questions - how do they know what to do and who decides, etc.? I spoke to one of the supervisors who showed me what I guess I’d call a daily milestone chart. It was similar to the one linked in Dag Otto’s post, except the time frame was 24 hours. It was color coded, too, but the fascinating thing was that a lot of the work was scheduled to the minute. X has to finish at 3:15 because Y begins then and Z depends on Y being started at that time, etc. The thing apparently went off like clockwork so that the trains could resume their schedules by 4 am Monday morning, and they did. But it was fascinating to see the fine detail that somebody had worked out and which was followed by the entire work site.

Programs like Primavera or even Microsoft Project can provide the most detailed of schedules, completely resource-loaded with crews, equipment, materials and costs.

By the way, anybody casting about for a college degree with a future, check out Project Management Professional curricula. More and more construction companies are requiring that degree for project management positions.

Just a few years ago the Atlanta Botanical Gardens had a Flying walkway through the tree tops collapse during construction. Seems the steel was rated to hold the weight of the concrete when dry. But was not enough to hold the wet mix. Failed during the pour. The same GC had a parking structure they had previously built fail that same year.

I really need to get around to that. I’ve been doing this 15 years and I just never seem to find the time :frowning:

Cripes. Even the lamest journeyman knows that you have to provide additional bracing during a concrete pour. Sounds like the contractor was trying to save some money on labor.

Yeah, too many designers try to push the edge of the envelope. One of the things I have in my Hyatt archive is an unpublished manuscript. The author recounts how the Hyatt executive wanted something that would “make people gasp” upon entering the lobby.

A true story of how changes in the design can effect the project during construction.

New York state had designed a maximum security prison. One of the aspects of building a prison is bars. They’re more high-tech than you’d think. They’re solid units of high-grade steel and they’re not constructed on site. They’re build by specialized companies and delivered as completed units for installation. So before the construction of the prison had begun, three hundred and sixty bar units had been ordered a year before they would be needed so they’d be ready when the construction reached the point of installing them.

But at some point during the construction, somebody made some changes in the design of the prison - they changed the sizes of the windows. And at the appropriate point all these truckloads of three hundred and sixty bar units arrived and the contractors realized nobody had changed the order - the delivered bar units were the original size and they wouldn’t fit in the designated spaces.

The bar company had delivered what had been ordered so they had to be paid. All three hundred and sixty of these unusable bar units were then put in a warehouse and a new set of bar units had to be built to fit the actual construction. Obviously a large amount of time and money were lost.

Crime marches on and a year or so later, New York needed another new prison. They called in the architects and told them what kind of prison they wanted; the location, the size, the security features, the administrative features, etc. And then they said, “Oh, yes, there’s one more thing and this is important. When you design this prison, we want it to have three hundred and sixty windows of exactly these dimensions.”

This doesn’t seem right. I thought wet concrete and cured concrete weighed nearly the same amount. That is, concrete doesn’t ‘‘dry’’ from water evaporating. Rather, the water reacts chemically with the cement to become a permanent part of the mix as it ‘‘cures’’.

And this doesn’t even begin to take into account the safety factor that should have been built into the design and for that matter the expected live load of a walkway - that is the weight of the people who would be using it once constructed.

For a walkway to collapse during the pour suggests to me a much bigger problem in design or construction than simply neglecting to consider any difference between wet and cured concrete.

Hopefully an expert in such things will ‘‘weigh’’ in here and set me straight if I’m off the mark. Here’s a quote from a previous thread concerning the weight of wet vs. cured concrete:

in this thread: weight of cement; cured vs dry - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board

ETA: I see Chesire Human has posted in this thread - do I have a correct understanding of your post from the linked thread?

Heh. Way back in my early twenties, I gave some thought to going into construction. The local community college offers courses. But then I started noticing that every single person I knew who worked in construction (at the labor level) was unemployed half the year. I met most of them in my actual profession: cooking. I lost count of how many construction workers I’d find cooking alongside me for a couple months at a time. They’d get hired to cook, and then be gone again as soon as there was construction work available.