Engineering Ethics Course Assignment: Risk, Safety, and Accidents Read the Colla

Question

Engineering Ethics Course

Assignment: Risk, Safety, and Accidents

Read the Collapse of the Hyatt Regency Kansas City Walkways case (Case below) and answer the following questions:

a. Using the Fundamental Canons from the ASME Code of Ethics, identify the canon(s) that were violated by Gillum and Associates. Support any selection of a canon with an explanation.

b. Would you classify the accident described in this case as procedural, engineered or systemic? Support your selection with an explanation.

ASME Code of Ethics
The Fundamental Principles
Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by:
I. using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare;
II. being honest and impartial, and serving with fidelity their clients (including their employers) and the public; and
III. striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession.
The Fundamental Canons
1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties.
2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence; they shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.
3. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers and shall provide opportunities for the professional and ethical development of those engineers under their supervision.
4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest.
5. Engineers shall respect the proprietary information and intellectual property rights of others, including charitable organizations and professional societies in the engineering field.
6. Engineers shall associate only with reputable persons or organizations.
7. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner and shall avoid any conduct which brings discredit upon the profession.
8. Engineers shall consider environmental impact and sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.
9. Engineers shall not seek ethical sanction against another engineer unless there is good reason to do so under the relevant codes, policies and procedures governing that engineer’s ethical conduct.
10. Engineers who are members of the Society shall endeavor to abide by the Constitution, By-Laws and Policies of the Society, and they shall disclose knowledge of any matter involving another member’s alleged violation of this Code of Ethics or the Society’s Conflicts of Interest Policy in a prompt, complete and truthful manner to the chair of the Ethics Committee.

The Collapse of the Hyatt Regency Kansas City Walkways In the 1970s, it became popular to design upscale hotels with large atriums, some extending the entire height of the hotel, a design element still in use today. This feature helps create very dramatic architectural spaces in hotel lobbies. Many of these designs also include walkways suspended over the atrium. One hotel using this design was the Hyatt Regency Kansas City. Development of this hotel began in 1976, and construction was completed in the summer of 1980. One year later, in July 1981, during a dance party in the atrium lobby, some of the walkways on which people were dancing collapsed onto the crowded atrium floor, leaving 114 people dead and 185 people injured The development of the Hyatt Regency Kansas City was initiated in 1976 by Crown Center Redevelopment Corporation, which hired Gillum-Colaco, Inc. of Texas as the consulting structural engineers. Gillum-Colaco worked closely with Crown Center Redevelopment and the project architects to develop the plans and create the structural drawings and specifications. Construction on the hotel began in 1978. Gillum-Colaco didn't actually perform the structural engineering for this project, but rather subcontracted this work to its subsidiary, Jack D. Gillum and Associates, Ltd The general contractor for the project was Eldridge Construction Company, which hired Havens Steel Company as the subcontractor for fabrication and erection of the atrium steel. The original design called for the walkways to be hung from rods connected to the atrium ceiling. There would be two walkways connected to each rod by separate nuts (see Figure 5.1). Implementation of this design required that the rods be threaded for most of their length, which would greatly increase the cost of the rods. Havens suggested a change in the design that would avoid the requirement for threading long pieces of rod. It is not uncommon for a subcontractor to suggest changes in a structure, especially if the changes can lead to cost savings or easier fabrication. The changed design, shown in Figure 5.2, required that only a shorter section near the ends of the rods be threaded. In the original design, each of the nuts supported the weight of only one floor of the walkway. Unfortunately, in the revised design, some of the nuts supported the weight of both walkways, effectively doubling the load on the nuts. Gillum and Associates later claimed never to have seen any documents related to this change. Nor, they claimed, did anyone from Havens or Eldridge contact them about this change. However, drawings indicating these changes were stamped with Gillum's seal in February of 1979

Explanation / Answer

The following Canons of ASME Code of Ethics were violated by Gillum and Associates:

Canon 1: Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties.

Canon 4: Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest.

Canon 1 was violated as the safety, health and welfare of the public was not given adequate importance and an intervention that could have costed some additional money was avoided although in brought much more integrity to the structure. Also not enough diligence was done in the project, as is evident from the fact that Gillum and Associates could not identify that a change was made in the structural plans, while the document was sealed in their name.

This was the case of an engineered accident as it arose from design flaws. The design of the structure was changed to save costs while the structural integrity of the system was being compromised. It was

also a case of neglect where the design flaws were reinforced due to lack of diligence on part of Gillum and Associates.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse E
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.