Failure and documentation of building structures
Dr. Niels-Jørgen Aagaard1, Erik Steen Pedersen2
Abstract
In recent years, a number of structural failures have occurred in buildings in Denmark,
trigging a debate on safety and reliability in the built environment in general. In this context,
the quality of the documentation of the capacity and functionality of building structures has
been criticised and a common understanding of content and quality assurance of the
documentation of load-bearing building structures has been identified.
Based on experience from the Danish building industry as well as guidelines published by
the Danish Building Research Institute, the paper discusses the outline and control of
documentation of load-bearing building structures. The qualitative analysis includes the
content of individual parts of the documentation. A distinction between the documentation of
the physical structures and the documentation of the design process is introduced.
Furthermore, the organisation of the design process and tasks related to the individual parts
of the documentation are discussed both regarding the engineer in charge of the main
design and for the individual engineering tasks for all elements of the structure, including
drawings and structural calculations.
Finally, the paper discusses a set of information and document management issues of
critical importance for the resulting safety of the documented load-bearing structures; e.g.
how to administer, document, identify and draw up the individual parts of the documentation;
especially how to incorporate results from digital modelling and simulation of structural
behaviour into the documentation. It is concluded that an industry standard is necessary in
order to maintain the safety levels of load-bearing building structures in the future.
Keywords: Structural failure, defects, safety, quality assurance, documentation
1. Introduction
1.1 Recent incidents
In recent years, a number of structural failures have occurred in buildings in Denmark. In
1999, a storm caused severe damage for approximately 2 billion euros (Andersen & Buhelt,
2000). In 2003, a relatively light snowfall caused the roof of a Sports Arena in Ballerup,
Copenhagen, to collapse in 3 sections (Nielsen, 2004a), Figure 1. In 2007, a heavy snowfall
1
Research Director; Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University, A.C.Meyers vænge 15,
DK-2450 Copenhagen SV; [email protected].
2
Senior Researcher; Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University, A.C.Meyers vænge 15,
DK-2450 Copenhagen SV; [email protected].
in central Jutland caused damage to a large number of warehouses, stadiums and
commercial buildings (Nielsen & Pedersen, 2008).
In early 2009, a steel-concrete structure of a new skating arena in Copenhagen, collapsed
during construction (Pedersen et al. 2009), Figure 2. In February and March 2010, snow
accumulating over a period of 2 months caused damage to some 5000 buildings mainly
located in northern Jutland, around 300 of which suffered damage of structural significance;
they were mainly agricultural buildings (Hansen & Tølløse, 2010). Later the same year, the
apse of ‘Club Denmark Sports Center’ in Valby, Copenhagen, with a span of approx. 80 m.
collapsed under the weight of local snowdrifts in what was expected to have been a
harmless light snowfall (Pedersen et al. 2011), Figure 3.
Figure 1 Sports Arena, Ballerup, Figure 2 Skating Arena, Rødovre,
(Nielsen, 2004), (Pedersen et al. 2009),
Photo: Jørgen Munch Andersen Photo: Niels-Jørgen Aagaard
Figure 3 Agricultural building Figure 4 Club Denmark Sports Centre,
(Hansen & Tølløse 2010), (Pedersen et al. 2010) ),
Photo: John Dalsgaard Sørensen Photo: Erik Steen Pedersen
In most of the reported cases, failures were caused by defects or omissions in the design
phase or in the construction execution. In a small number of cases, failures where caused by
unexpected natural loads or load-combinations as prescribed in applying design codes (CEN
2002a, 2003, 2005). In none of the reported cases, failures where caused by unexpected
imposed loads on the buildings (CEN 2002b).
1.2 Causalities
Based on an analysis made in (Nielsen, de Place Hansen, & Aagaard, 2009), the following
terminology for causality of failures is used: Situation → Cause → Defect → Failure, being a
simplified version of the schematic pathway from defects to rework suggested by
(Sommerville 2007).
Failure is regarded as the physical loss of functionality; e.g. collapse or major deflection.
Defect is the physical relation(s) in the structure that might lead to a failure; e.g. an omission,
wrong dimensions or placements of structural elements or unintended modes of operation.
Cause is the underlying incident(s) leading to the defect(s); e.g. miscalculations, design
errors, gaps in rules of actions, execution errors or inappropriate maintenance. Finally, the
situation as such may imply the cause(s) in the first hand. The situation might refer to
circumstances in the project, e.g. contracts, organisational matters or staffs competences, or
circumstances in the industry in a broader sense, e.g. building regulation, strong competition
or ‘safety culture’ in general.
In a significant number of the reported instances, several circumstances in combination
leads to a set of causes that leads to one or more defects that eventually – if the structure is
tested by loads at limit level – may cause failure. Consequently, we very seldom observe
deterministic relationships between causes and failure; usually a mix of circumstances
creates causes that act together, se discussion below.
Causes of defects leading to failures in the above mentioned incidents are grouped into
Basis (e.g. regulation and requirements), Design (e.g. inconsistencies and mis-calculations),
Construction (e.g. omissions and non-compliance with design) and Maintenance (e.g.
deterioration and misuse) in Table 1 corresponding to the generic phases of almost any
construction projects. Causes are mainly rooted in design and construction activities and
initiatives should respond to this pattern.
Table 1. Causes for defects leading to failures in 6 reported incidents
Incident of failure Causes for defects
Basis Design Construction Maintenance
1. Wind storm
x X
1999
2. Sports Arena,
x
Ballerup 2003
3. Snow fall
x x x
2007
4. Skating Arena,
x
Rødovre 2009
5. Snow fall
x x x x
2010
6. Club Denmark
(x) x
Sports Centre, 2010
The reported incidents have triggered a debate on safety and reliability in the built
environment in general, and focus has turned towards the culture of quality management in
engineering design companies as well as contractors’ handling of errors, omissions and
rework. It is assumed that the incidents are only ‘the top of the iceberg’, since many defects
will only emerge and show up when loads in rare cases approach the design limit loads.
Consequently, the building stock may in general have a lower safety level than intended in
codes and regulations (Nielsen, de Place Hansen, & Aagaard, 2009).
1.3 Cost of defects
Analysis indicates that costs correlated to rework due to defects in construction are at a
magnitude of 10% of the production value for Danish conditions, not including costs due to
delays and rework during construction, (Nielsen, 2004b), (Reenberg et al., 2010), (Erhvervs-
og Byggestyrelsen 2011). Research in the English construction industry indicates a
magnitude of costs for rework during construction at 15-16% (Barber, Graves, Hall, Sheath,
& Tomkins, 2000), while similar case studies in the Swedish construction industry
(Josephson & Hammarlund, 1999) indicate some 2-6% of the production value. Reports from
Australian case studies indicate costs for rework during construction at a level of 2-3% (Love
& Heng, 2000). It is difficult, if not impossible, to compare these figures as the referred
investigations define defects in different ways and consequently may include different
magnitudes of costs. Nevertheless, it seems obvious that an effort to reduce defects and
failures may be necessary both in terms of reducing costs for rework and to ensure the
safety level in the built environment.
1.4 Causes of defects
Many causes may contribute to defects and a strict classification scheme for defects is
needed in order to analyse the underlying circumstances and causes. Defects are rooted in
an array of causes that may act interdependently. A State of the art for classification of
design errors are given in (Lopez et al. 2010).
Through seminars and network-based discussions, a handful of possible causes has
emerged as being important in a Danish context:
– New ways of organising construction projects
– Fewer competent structural engineers available in the construction industry
– Use of new and advanced structures
– Use of new and advanced materials
– Uncertain or inexperienced use of Engineering Information and Communication
Tools (EICT)
– Missing or weak control of design basis and documentation
– Missing or weak supervision of construction execution
– Loss of good workmanship
– Constant demand for productivity enhancements, i.e. reduced costs for
design and execution
Each one of these factors, or several of them in combination, may cause defects, which in
the end trigger a structural failure. Evidently, the listed causes are not independent of one
another, and it one cause might trigger one or more other causes. Obviously, it would be an
interesting and important but immense scientific task to reveal the inner causalities and
correlations of causes behind defects in general, but some causes seem particularly
important for the Danish construction industry: Project organisation, use of ICT and quality
assurance, i.e. control of design and supervision of execution.
1.5 Project organisation
For some years, the organisation in the construction industry in Denmark has been
undergoing significant changes, and new models for the organisation of a construction
project have been tried out. In many cases, structural elements are delivered and
documented by many different manufacturers, and the delivery system becomes very
complex. Consequently, the design and documentation activities as such are distributed on
many subcontractors; and manufacturers leaving the coordination task to the main
contractor or consulting engineers (Busby, 2001).
1.6 Use of ICT
The use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for static calculations has
enabled the construction of more sophisticated and complex structures and made it difficult
to ensure the correctness of calculations and documentation. It is often due to the fact that
content and formats of output from various ICT systems are defined by the system vendors,
who are rarely familiar with the building regulations in specific countries and the design
process. ICT systems are seldom fitted to suit the phases of a construction project and the
demands for documentation from building authorities.
1.7 Quality assurance
Today management systems for quality assurance or their elements are common in the
construction industry and among design companies as well as manufacturers and
contractors. In Denmark, the Danish Society of Engineers runs - on behalf of the Danish
Energy Agency - a certification scheme for structural engineers that aims to ensure the
quality of the design and execution process for load-bearing structures, and allows only
certified engineers to perform design and documentation of structures where the
consequences of failure would be severe. Unfortunately, these elements of quality
assurance differ in structure and content, and expectations to their use may be somewhat
uneven among actors in the construction industry. It has been suggested that a major cause
of defects has to do with the quality of design documentation produced by consultants and
that higher fees would result in improved quality of contract documentation. However, no
such significant relationship could be established (Love, Edwards, & Smith, 2006).
Traditionally, designers have browsed or checked each other’s calculations and drawings
and made notes on the documents directly. Only in rare circumstances do they distinguish
between ‘control’ and ‘acceptance’ and generally, separate documentation of the control and
findings has not been prepared. As the above-mentioned changes have taken place in the
construction industry’s delivering system, this means that the documentation of load-bearing
structures is distributed among many parties, and such ways of control becomes inadequate
and insufficient.
Furthermore, in the traditional way of controlling the execution and ensuring that the
construction work is in accordance with the design and intention of designers, designers
have supervised the construction work on site. The supervision has often been documented
in minutes of meeting or separate memos. Following the more fragmented design processes
as mentioned above, each manufacturer has to some extent supervised his own deliveries.
Consequently, the extent and level of supervision has faded.
1.8 Structural Documentation
The common focal point for distributed responsibility for quality assurance, uncertain or
inexperienced use of ICT and weak quality assurance is the documentation of load-bearing
structures, or ‘structural documentation’ for short. Consequently, building authorities, trade
organisations, major design companies and technical universities have joined efforts to
develop a common understanding of form and content of structural documentation.
2. Basics on Structural Documentation
It is claimed that a common understanding of form and content of documentation of load-
bearing structures may increase the level of safety in the built environment. The assumption
is that demands from building authorities concerning documentation will force designers to
more careful preparation and calculation of building structures, manufacturers of building
parts to document their product in a project-specific way and finally contractors to follow
prescriptions more carefully in the execution of the project.
The design, production and execution of building structures
may be understood as an ideally serial process; an
interpretation of this is illustrated in Figure 5. In the real world,
there will be lots of loops and feedbacks that make the picture
a lot more complicated, and the process will probably have its
unique character for each construction project.
Figure 5 Activities (left column) and documentation (right
column). From each activity in the left column, a part of
the total documentation is produced.
Internationally, an early attempt to guide the structuring of
building related documents is presented in (CIB 1972) and
(CIB 1993), while later, the guidelines has bifurcated into
separate systems for industrial systems and technical
documentation of products, e.g. (CENELEC 2001), and
principles for structuring BIM, leaving us today with no
international standard for documentation of buildings.
In several countries, national attempts have been made to enhance the project
documentation in general. In Spain, an XML-based system has been developed including a
new set of taxonomies to support the processes of elaboration, control, verification, digital
stamping and compulsory registration and storage of the project documentation by public
authorities (Mena, Lopez, Framinan, Flores, & Gallego, 2010). In the UK, benefits and
elements of a process documentation system for industrialised housing has been suggested
(Roy, Low, & Waller, 2005), and through case studies (Laryea, 2011) shows that the quality
of tender documentation is still a problem in construction in the UK despite newly developed
standards and best practices. Based on the assumption that there has been a decrease in
the level of quality of design and documentation to or from contractors in Australia (Tilley,
McFallen, & Tucker, 1999), (Tilley, Wyatt, & Mohamed, 2004) analyse the ‘Request for
Information’ (RFI) process with focus on deficiencies in the overall project performance.
In Denmark, several initiatives address the matter of structural documentation like textbooks
outlining design methodology and engineering reporting in general (Mosegaard & Broch,
2008), (Behnke, 2009) as well as methods for structural calculations (Jensen & Hansen,
2012; Jensen, 2003). Specific textbooks address structural calculations of structural
elements of specific construction materials like concrete (Jensen, 2012) or steel (Jensen,
Bonnerup, & Plum, 2009).
bips (translated from Danish: Construction, Information Technology, Productivity and
Corporation), is a non-profit trade organisation specialising in tools for productivity
improvements in the construction industry. bips has prepared several systems and best
practices on digital description of building components classification systems and BIM, but
none of them covered technical calculations and documentation.
The above mentioned works cover general aspects of information and documentation in the
construction industry. Only little research has been reported internationally on the
importance of quality of documentation for structural safety, although it seems obvious that
preparation and control will inevitably catch errors. (Kangari, 1995) reports the importance of
having updated and full documentation on arbitration. (Lopez, Love, Edwards, & Davis,
2010) find that no single strategy may handle the problem of design errors, but rather a
multitude of strategies needs to be adopted (abstract, p. 399) in construction engineering.
They distinguish between three categories of design error: (1) Skill- or performance-based
errors, e.g., the plan is acceptable, yet the actions are not performed as planned, (2) Rule-
or knowledge-based errors, e.g., the actions are performed as planned, yet the plan did not
achieve the outcome intended; and (3) Violations or non-compliances, e.g., to industry or
organisation imposed norms and standards.” (p.400).
The following proposed framework deals with all 3 types of errors, in the sense that the
framework outlines both the planning of the documentation and the preparation of the
documentation.
3. Framework
3.1 Documentation of objects and processes
In (Aagaard & Feddersen, 2009), a distinction is introduced between documenting the
physical objects/structures and documenting the design process as such. The
documentation of the physical objects/structures may be regarded as product
documentation, while documentation of the design and execution process may be regarded
as documentation of legal responsibilities of the involved parties.
The enhanced framework in Table 2a and Table 2b is proposed for the documentation of
load-bearing building structures and design and execution process respectively, and is by
the Danish Building Regulation implemented as mandatory structure for documentation of
any load-bearing building structures; except those with low consequences of failure
according to (CEN 1990).
Table 2a: Documentation of structure
Document Part Issues
A1 Design basis Building Building type and use; Type of structure and main elements;
Structural sections; Execution, descriptions, models and
drawings
Basics Codes and Standards; Safety level and factors; ICT-tools,
references
Pre- Site, soil and local conditions, geotechnical parameters,
investigations environmental parameters, environmental and climate
conditions on site
Structures Structural system and models, functional requirements,
service life, robustness, fire, execution
Materials Soil, concrete, steel …
Actions Combination of actions; Loads: permanent, imposed,
climatic, accidental, seismic
A2 Structural A2.1 Structural Main structural system; Robustness;, General structural
analysis analysis of the analysis and calculations
building
A2.2 Structural Design basis for structural sections; Main structural system
Analysis of for sections, verification of structural components
sections
A3 Drawings and A3.1 Drawings Plans, sections, elevations, details and 3D models of the
models and models for building
the building
A3.2 Drawings Plans, sections, elevations, details and 3D models of
and models for structural sections
the sections
A4 Design A4.1 Design Description and verification of design changes to the building
changes changes to the
building
A4.2 Design Description and verification of design changes to the
changes to the structural sections
sections
Table 2b: Documentation of design process
Document Part Issues
B1 Report on Building Type and use of building, situation and context; Overall
design process layout of the building, definition of structural sections
Organisation Organisational layout, parties involved, distribution and
responsibilities for tasks
Quality Plan for quality control of design documentation,
assurance, Documentation of design review
design Coordination of design review
Quality Plan for supervision
assurance, Documentation of supervision
execution Coordination of supervision
Design changes Plan for handling design changes
Content of Required list of content for the documentation
documentation
B2 Report on B2.1 Report on Plan for quality control: type, level and extent of quality
quality control review, building control, building
Results of quality control and conformity assessment,
building
B2.2 Report on Plan for quality control, type, level and extent of quality
control, sections control, sections
Results of quality control and conformity assessment,
sections
B3 Report on B2.1 Report on Plan for supervision, types and level of supervision, extent of
supervision supervision, supervision, building
building Results of supervision and conformity assessment, building
B2.2 Report on Plan for supervision, types and level of supervision, extent of
supervision, supervision, sections
sections Results of supervision and conformity assessment, sections
Four important characteristics of the framework deserve special attention: design basis,
division of the building structure into sections, report on design process and finally the
request for documenting QA.
3.2 Characteristics of the Framework
3.2.1 Sectioning of Building Structures
In modern construction industry, structures are – as many other building components -
delivered not by one single supplier but by a wide array of designers, manufacturers,
contractors and service providers. Except for rare occasions of total deliveries by one single
system supplier, the usual project calls for a massive coordination effort, to ensure that
deliveries from one manufacturer fits with requirements as well as connected structural
elements. This coordination must also cover the associated documentation. This ‘division of
deliverables’ leads to a ‘division of responsibilities’ and finally a ‘division of documentation’
that was unknown in classic previous construction projects, dominated by a strong design
team. In a dominating share of the reported incidents, issues of importance for the structural
consistency and safety remain unsolved or solutions are based on wrong prerequisites or
inadequate assumptions.
It is suggested to overcome this division of responsibilities by a strict division of
documentation corresponding to strict sectioning of the building structures each having one
and only one responsible supplier. As a consequence of the proposed sectioning, a person
responsible for coordination of the documentation should be appointed and tasks relating to
the individual parts of the documentation should be outlined both for the engineer in charge
of the main design and for the individual engineering tasks for all elements of the structure
including drawings and structural calculations.
3.2.2 Design Basis
A comprehensive design basis is necessary for all involved suppliers to relate to and it
should ensure that all contributions to the documentation are in accordance with the same
prerequisites. The design basis must comprise references to all relevant regulations and
requirements necessary to perform adequate drawings, models and calculations. It is
suggested that a design basis is constituted as a separate document - with a formal and
standardised structure - and kept updated continuously throughout the entire project period.
3.2.3 Documenting control and review
It is crucial to emphasise planning, execution and documentation of control and review
activities related to the documentation of the building structures. The framework contains
definitions for control, review and inspection, including types and levels of control, planning
and execution of control and finally inspection and alteration under construction in order to
finish with an ‘as-built-documentation’.
Finally, the framework in (Aagaard & Feddersen 2009) is supplemented with a set of check
lists and advice on document management in practice, including how to administer,
document, identify and draw up the individual parts of the documentation including principles
for handling the digital parts of the documentation and how these parts are incorporated into
the documentation.
Conclusion
Strengthening of the culture for quality assurance in the construction industry is necessary in
order to maintain the safety levels of load-bearing building structures in the future. Initiatives
must take the increased division of labour and responsibilities into consideration, and in
practice this calls – among other things - for standardisation of structure of documentation of
load-bearing structures as well as project processes; preferably on an international level.
Emphasis must be on review and control of documentation as integrated tasks in the design
and construction phases. Special attention is required on review and control of use of ICT
and modelling in structural design.
References
Aagaard, N. J., & Feddersen, B. (2009). Dokumentation af bærende konstruktioner.
Udarbejdelse og kontrol af statisk documentation, (Transl: Documentation of load-bearing
structures. Preparation and control), Hørsholm, Danish Building Research Institute.
Andersen, J. M., & Buhelt, M. (2000). Stormskader på bygninger. undersøgelse af skader
ved stormen 3. december 1999, (Transl: Storm damage on buildings. Analysis of damages
in the storm 3rd of December 1999), By og Byg Resultater 001, Hørsholm, Danish Building
Research Institute.
Barber, P., Graves, A., Hall, M., Sheath, D., & Tomkins, C. (2000). Quality failure costs in
civil engineering projects, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(4), p.
479-492.
Behnke, E. (2009). Engineer's report, (2.ed. ed.), Copenhagen.
Busby, J. S. (2001). Error and distributed cognition in design, Design Studies, 22(3), p.233-
254.
CEN, (2002a). Eurocode 0 - Basis of Structural Design, DS/EN 1990:2002, European
Committee for Standardization.
CEN, (2002b). Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-1: General actions - Densities,
self-weight, imposed loads for buildings, DS/EN 1991-1-1:2002, European Committee for
Standardization.
CEN, (2003). Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-3: General actions - Snow loads,
DS/EN 1991-1-3:2003, European Committee for Standardization.
CEN, (2005). Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-4: General actions – Wind loads,
DS/EN 1991-1-4:2005, European Committee for Standardization.
CENELEC, 2001: Document management. Part 1: Principles and methods, EN 82045-1,
European Committee for Electronical Standardization.
CIB, 1972: Master lists for structuring documents relating to buildings, building elements,
components, materials and services, Report No. 18, International Council for research and
innovation in building and construction.
CIB, 1993: Master list of headings for the Arrangement and Presentation of Information in
Technical Documents for Design and Construction, Report No. 18, International Council for
research and innovation in building and construction.
Erhvervs- og Byggestyrelsen, 2011: Omfanget af svigt, fejl, mangler og skader i dansk
byggeri 2001-2009, (Transl: The extent of defects, errors, omissions and damages in Danish
construction industry 2001-2009), Copenhagen.
Hansen,S.O., Tølløse,K. & Sørensen,J.D. (2010). Undersøgelse af årsager til tagkollaps i
forbindelse med snefald vinteren 2010 (Transl: Examination of causes for collaps of roofs
due to snowfall winter 2010), incl. annex, Danish Standards, Charlottenlund.
Jensen, B. C. (2003). Statiske beregninger – metode og documentation (Transl: Statical
Calculations – method and documentation), Copenhagen.
Jensen, B. C. (2012). Betonkonstruktioner efter DS/EN 1992-1-1 (Transl: Concrete
Structures according to DS/EN 1992-1-1), (2.ed. ed.), Copenhagen.
Jensen, B. C., Bonnerup, B., & Plum, C. M. (2009). Stålkonstruktioner efter DS/EN 1993,
(Transl: Steel Structures according to DS/EN 1993), Copenhagen
Jensen, B. C., & Hansen, S. O. (2012). Building calculations. Copenhagen:
Josephson, P. E., & Hammarlund, Y. (1999). The causes and costs of defects in
construction. A study of seven building projects. Automation in Engineering, 8(4), p.681-687.
Kangari, R. (1995). Construction documentation in arbitration. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 121(2), p. 201-208.
Laryea, S. (2011). Quality of tender documents: Case studies from the UK. Construction
Management and Economics, 29, p. 275-289.
Lopez, R., Love, P. E. D., Edwards, D. J., & Davis, P. R. (2010). Design error classification,
causation, and prevention in construction engineering. Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, 24(4), p. 399-408.
Love, P. E. D., Edwards, D. J., & Smith, J. (2006). Contract documentation and the
incidence of rework in projects. Architectual Engineering and Design Management, 1, p.247-
259.
Love, P. E. D., & Heng, L. (2000). Quantifying the causes and costs of rework in
construction. Construction Management and Economics, 18(4), p. 479-490.
Mena, A., Lopez, F., Framinan, J. M., Flores, F., & Gallego, J. M. (2010). XPDRL project:
Improving the project documentation quality in the Spanish architectural, engineering and
construction sector. Automation in Construction, 9, p. 270-282.
Mosegaard, J., & Broch, O. B. (2008). Design methodology. From a construction projects
inception, to the operation and maintenance of the building. Copenhagen:
Nielsen, J. (2004a). Svigt af Siemens Arena, (Transl: Collapse of Siemens Arena),
Hørsholm: Danish Building Research Institute.
Nielsen, J. (2004b). Svigt i byggeriet. Økonomiske konsekvenser og muligheder for
reduktion. (Transl: Defects in Buildings. Economic consequences and possibilities for
reduction) Copenhagen: Danish Authority for Trade and Construction.
Nielsen, J., de Place Hansen, E. J., & Aagaard, N. J. (2009). Buildability as tool for
optimization of building defects. CIB Joint International Symposium, Construction Facing
Worldwide Challenges, Proceedings p.1003-1012, Dubrovnik.
Nielsen, J., & Pedersen, E. S. (2008). Snelast på tage. Udredning vedrørende sneskader i
forbindelse med snestormen februar 2007 (Transl: Snow loads on roofs. Analysis of
damages caused by snow storm February 2007), Report No. SBi 2008:21, Hørsholm:
Danish Building Research Institute.
Pedersen, E. S., Aagaard, N. J., & Nielsen, J. (2009). Kollaps af Rødovre skøjtehal. (Transl:
Collapse of Rødovre Skating Arena) Hørsholm: Danish Building Research Institute.
Pedersen, E. S., Nielsen, J., & Aagaard, N. J. (2011). Kollaps af Club Danmark Hallen.
(Transl: Collapse of Club Denamrk Sports Centre), Report No. SBi 2011:10. Hørsholm:
Danish Building Research Institute.
Reenberg,L.M., Buur,K. & Westergaard-Kabelmann (2010). Måling af svigt, fejl og mangler I
Dansk byggeri, (Transl: Measurements of defects, errors and omission in Danish
construction), Rambøll, Copenhagen.
Roy, R., Low, M., & Waller, J. (2005). Documentation, standardization and improvement of
the construction process in house building. Construction Management and Economics,
23(1), p. 57-67.
Sommerville,J. (2007): Defects and rework in new build: an analysis of the phenomenon and
drivers, Structural Survey, Vol. 25 No. 5, 2007, pp. 391-407.
Tilley, P. A., McFallen, S. L., & Tucker, S. N. (1999). Design and documentation quality and
its impact on the construction process. Customer Satisfaction: A Focus for Research &
Practice, Cape Town.
Tilley, P. A., Wyatt, A., & Mohamed, S. (2004). Indicators of design and documentation
deficiency, CSIRO Building, Construction and Engineering, Brisbane, Australia.
