hyatt regency collapse

18
HYATT REGENCY HOTEL COLLAPSE 114 DEAD EXCESS OF 200 INJURED 1

Upload: chabdullah

Post on 07-Nov-2015

24 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

details

TRANSCRIPT

HYATT REGENCY COLLAPSE

HYATT REGENCY HOTEL COLLAPSE114 DEADEXCESS OF 200 INJURED1BackgroundOwner:Crown Center Redevelopment CorporationDesigners:Gillum-Colaco, Inc(A professional Engineering firm)Jack D. Gillum (the supervisor of the professional engineering activities of GCE.)Daniel M. Duncan (working under the direct supervision of Gillum)Fabricator: Havens Steel Company2Important DatesEarly 1976: Crown Center Redevelopment Corporation (owner) commences project to design and build a Hyatt Regency Hotel in Kansas City, Missouri.July 1976: Gillum-Colaco, Inc. selected as the consulting structural engineer for the Hyatt project.April 4, 1978: Actual contract entered into by G.C.E. Spring 1978: Construction on hotel begins.December 1978: Subcontract with Havens Steel Company for fabrication and erection of the Structure.33Original Design

4CharacteristicsThe load was passing through the hanging over Rod, connected to the CeilingThis was the original design that submitted to Heaven Steel Company5Actual Design

6CharacteristicsLoad was acting on the beam and Hanging over rodThe lower rod was hanged with the beam by an extra holeFabricator modified the designBUT THE CHANGING WAS APPROVED BY THE DESIGN ENGINEERS (GILLUM COLACO INS.)

7Reason of ModificationIn original design, it was necessary to thread the whole 30 feet long hanging over rod which was difficult and costlyOne Rod to two rod system to simplify fabrication

8Result of the modification

PP9After disaster

Deformed fourth floor beam10Three major technical factorsDesign modificationLack of consideration for every force acting on particular connectionsFailure to take motion and rotation into account in the design

11Communication FailuresHeaven steel argued they telephoned the engineering firm (GCE) for approval change to the box-beam/hanging-rod design BUT GCE denied the argument

Havens claims that on February 16, 1979, they sent 42 shop drawings to GCEHavens also claimed that on February 26, 1979, GCE returned the set of drawings to Havens, along with Gillums engineering review seal, authorizing construction

12Result of Communication FailureConfusion about engineering design responsibility between the GCE and Havens SteelWhich resulted a design plan and materials inadequate for supporting the loads And Structure Failed!!!13Another Important aspectOn October 14, 1979 , During construction the 2700square feet roof collapsed only due to one roof connection failureOn October 20, 1979, G.C.E.'s Gillum asked to investigate the collapse and thorough design checking to the ownermanagement called in an independent engineering firm, Seiden-Page for investigation but not for the complete structure to save money

14ContinuedGCE also stated that they requested three times to owner for on-site inspection, but he ignored due to extra costFirst of all, G.C.E.s original and second design of the walkway failed to meet the requirements of the Kansas City Building Code 5 by not supporting the required 151kN.

15Responsibilities of DesignerThey didnt considerCall for reanalysisData changed when design changedEffects of the changingOnly considered still load, not considered that the people will use the walkway to danceThey didnt considered that fabricator will change the designThey were reliable on fabricator as design responsibilities

16Where Ethics Involved throughout the accidentA complete violation of ASCE Code of EthicsEngineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the pubic in the performance of their professional duties.(ASCE)Violated from the very design stage and onto the construction stageEngineers Shall Issue Public Statements Only In An Objective And Truthful Manner.(ASCE)The attempts, by GCE, to accuse others of the faulty design and claiming the design change was not approved violated this code

17Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession.(ASCE)The charge of gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct and unprofessional conduct in the practice of engineering greatly tarnished the dignity and respectability of the engineering profession

18

Original Design

Actual Design