week 3: discussion group activityjrchee0/ce 401/powerpoint... · hyatt regency, kansas city. hyatt...

CE 401 Civil Engineering Seminar General Questions:

CE 401 Civil Engineering Seminar Essay Teams

•SECTION 1 ESSAY TEAMSESSAY TEAMS - SECTION 1

Last Update9/4/2020 7:21

Unassigned Students AMBERStudent Formed Teams BLACKAssigned Teams RED

Fryman, Bryce 101Hurd, Stuart 101Price, Spencer 101Edelen, Michael 102Mattingly, Jacob 102Asher Jr, Dustin 103White, Alexa 103Ferrell, Tyler 104Neal, Jessica 104Griffith, Adam 105Mcdowell, Preston 105

CE 401 Civil Engineering Seminar Failures-Hyatt

•WEEK 3: DISCUSSION GROUP ACTIVITYLast Update 4-Sep-20 7:21 AM

Section 1 Week 3 Discussion Question Activity ReportQuestion Group Leader 1 2 3 4 5

1 A Price Fryman Hurd Mcdowell Price1 B White Asher Ferrell Griffith White1 C Neal Edelen Mattingly Neal1 D1 E1 F2 A Fryman-Hurd Fryman Hurd Mcdowell Price2 C Mattingly Edelen Mattingly Neal2 E3 B Asher Asher Ferrell Griffith White3 D3 F

Font Legendnon-bold No post made, time for posting remains non-bold Late Post before consensus, 20% lossBold Post made within Time Bold Post is made after consensus, 60% lossNon-Bold Leader-No Consensus Posted, -5 Points Ital. non-bold No Post Made, 100% loss


Quiz 2Range: 4-10; Average 9

Historic 6-10; Average 8.2


De George ReviewFrom an ethics perspective, which of the following situations would be ethical?

1a. Not acting without moral authority to act? YES1b. Blowing the whistle without moral authority? NO2a. Not acting despite moral authority? YES2b. Blowing the whistle with moral authority? YES3a. Not acting despite a moral duty? NO3b. Blowing the whistle with a moral duty? YES


De George ReviewFrom an ethics perspective, whistle blowing decisions are unethical when a person:

1b. Blows the whistle without moral authority, or3a. Does not blow the whistle when there is a moral duty?

All other whistle blowing decisions would be ethical, DESPITE THE CONSEQUENCES TO THE WHISTLE BLOWER!!!

The decision-making process for a potential whistle blowing action must FIRST determine whether there is either moral authority or moral duty to blow the whistle.


De George ReviewThe decision-making process for a potential whistle blowing action must FIRST determine whether there is either moral authority or moral duty to blow the whistle.De George provides one framework to identify the thresholds for these moral categories• Another set of criteria could also provide guidance to

a decision maker similar to the De George criteria, but

• James’ idea that there is no middle range calling for the exercise of discretion by the decision maker seems inappropriate to me.

We will apply the De George criteria in our analyses

CE 401 Civil Engineering Seminar De George Review Questions:


Discussion Question #1In the video about the Korean shopping center collapse, we learned about a multi-story shopping center collapse that caused great loss of life and personal injury. Over the course of construction and operation, a litany of decisions ultimately produced this failure. Please note the absence of the design engineers from the construction and operation activities.After watching the video about this failure, and reading the summary of this failure, please respond to the following:1. Identify the two actions (or failures to act) during either design, construction, or post construction

that you believe contributed most to cause this collapse.2. What, if anything, the design engineer should or could have done to prevent this failure.

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONSENSUS REPORTING:For the consensus on this topic, reduce or condense all of the individual actions (inactions) identified by the various group members to the single MOST IMPORTANT ACTION (INACTION) that caused the Korean Shopping Center collapse.Specifically: Identify the most important action (inaction), and Discuss whether and why the design engineer's absence during the construction and post construction decision making was appropriate,and if the engineer's absence was inappropriate, explain what the design engineer should or could have done to correct this.

A PriceB WhiteC NealDEF


Discussion Question #1-Changing from Office to Mall use- 60%

Column size reduction-Weak slab/column connections-Owner ignoring designer advice-Thinning support beams

-Adding lots of weight at top (5th floor, roof equipment, kitchen)- 37%

Adding the 5th Floor-Adding AC Units to roof-Not redesigning for escalator, 5th floor, heavier loading -

-Dragging AC units over roof slab when moved- 2%-Not closing building when distress seen- 1%

Not cause of failure Clearly, expansion of number of injuries and deaths


Discussion Question #11. What role should the design team play during

construction?2. Can design professionals fulfill their duty simply

by always giving a client what the client wants?3. What role did the members of the design team

play on the Korean shopping center during construction? Were they not involved during construction, or were they AWOL in fulfillment of their professional duties?

CE 401 Civil Engineering Seminar Introduction & Incident At Morales

Discussion Question #2The Missouri Court of Appeals concluded its affirmation of the finding that Dan Duncan and Jack Gillum were grossly negligent by citing that while custom may shift the practical responsibility for the box connection design, custom cannot shift the legal responsibility for that design. As a legal matter, the “buck stops” at the engineer of record.Is this decision by the Court of Appeals consistent with the social contract between the public and the engineering profession? Please explain your conclusion in 2 or 3 sentences.

A Fryman-HurdC MattinglyE


Discussion Question #21. Is the “punishment” imposed by the

Profession against engineers like Mr. Gillum and Mr. Duncan the full punishment they receive for their GROSS NEGLIGENCE?

2. How do victims gain compensation for their losses?

3. Are engineers like Mr. Duncan and Mr. Gillum ever subject to criminal enforcement and prison time for their conduct?


Discussion Question #3The technical explanation for the Hyatt collapse has been widely published that a “Critical Design Change Responsible for Collapse at Hyatt.” However, the facts are clear that the inadequacy of the double rod connection is not a result of an error in the analysis of that connection because, despite having a professional duty to perform that analysis, the structural engineers of record did not analyze the double rod connection prior to approving its use. The engineers SHOULD have performed that analysis, and had they done so, the inadequacy of the double rod connection would have been evident.Please explain in 2 or 3 sentences why Gillum's and Duncan’s failure to perform this analysis is a failure of ethics more so than a technical error. B Asher

DF


Discussion Question #31. Did the engineers, Gillum and Duncan, lose their

engineering licenses as punishment for a finding of legal liability or ethical violations? Ethical Liability-Not doing what they SHOULD have done per Ethical Standards for the Profession, and a finding of GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

2. How were they held accountable for their legal civil liability, if at all? Civil Lawsuits Settled out of court using a pool of insurance money after the Board’s finding of GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

3. How were they held accountable for their legal criminal liability, if at all? There was no criminal prosecution for wrongful death


Discussion Question #31. Did the engineers, Gillum and Duncan, lose their

engineering licenses as punishment for a finding of legal liability or ethical violations? Ethical Liability-Not doing what they SHOULD have done per Ethical Standards for the Profession BASED ON GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

2. How were they held accountable for their legal civil liability, if at all? Civil Lawsuits Settled out of court using a pool of insurance money after the Board’s finding of GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

3. How were they held accountable for their legal criminal liability, if at all? There was no criminal prosecution for wrongful death

CE 401 Civil Engineering Seminar Hyatt Regency, Kansas City

•Negligence Law Overview:(To Put Case in Context)•Four Elements, all must be proven for negligence

•Duty Owed (to injured party)•Duty Breached (by the defendant party)•Real Damages•Causal Link Between Breach and Damages

•Negligence occurs with “Absence of Reasonable Care”•What would a reasonably prudent person have done?•Is a Reasonable Person Standard for conduct


•Negligence vs Gross Negligence:•All Elements of Negligence plus conduct so egregious that a Jury finds

•Reckless disregard for the well being of others, or•Extreme Carelessness, or•A Failure To Use Even Slight Care

•Professionals seldom lose licenses due to negligence•Engineers in Hyatt Case Lost License based on findings of Gross Negligence


•Slides provided by the Kansas City Star •An informant appeared to a KC Star reporter at the scene on the night of the collapse with information about the cause of the collapse•This informant told the reporter that an approved shop drawing would explain the cause of the collapse


•Slide Presentation:•Kansas City Star who won a Pulitzer prize for their coverage of this failure.•One reason they won the Pulitzer Prize is information the paper received from a whistle blower the night of the failure.


As you watch the slides, think about this informant:•What did this person know?•When did this person first know this?•How would anyone acquire this knowledge?•Who would be in position to acquire this knowledge?•What training/expertise is necessary to understand the significance of the shop drawing?•What level of moral obligation to blow the whistle before the failure would De George assign to this person?•Is this informant a hero or a villain? •Why does this person remain anonymous?

CE 401 Civil Engineering Seminar Hyatt Regency Questions:

week 3: discussion group activityjrchee0/ce 401/powerpoint... · hyatt regency, kansas city. hyatt...

Documents