Ethics of Engineering Presentation

Kansas City Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse

Luis Soriano - 1379551 Francisco Diaz - 1399253

Aayan Ahmed -1964835

Abstract: On July 17, 1981 there was a tragic incident with an engineering design at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Kansas City. There were several problems that were related to unethical practice and misconduct by the engineers behind the walkway that collapsed. Due to poor miscommunication, ignorance of the problem design and lack of safety tests and changing the method of the walkway caused 114 people to lose their lives and 200 others injured. This walkway collapse was one of the most devastating failures where lots of people lost their lives and had been injured. Many legal cases were involved with G.C.E International Inc. after the incident, who were the structural engineers that designed the walkway in the hotel.

Brief Summary: On July 17, 1981, the hotel in Kansas City, Missouri, held a tea-dance party in the lobby of the hotel. There were walkways above the lobby on the second and fourth floor. The walkways were held by hanger rods where the second floor walkway was attached to the fourth floor walkway. That was when the fourth floor walkway collapsed onto the second floor walkway, where then both walkways collapsed onto the first floor atrium causing the death of 114 people and injuring almost 200 people. Not only did it affect the people in the hotel, but the engineers lives were affected and there were millions of dollars that were lost due to the collapse.

Ignorance of Walkway Design: The design of the walkway that was made by the engineers and structurers/architects, was done almost 1 year before the collapse happened. One of the main reasons that the collapse happened is the unethical behavior of ignorance. The fact that the engineers ignored the testing of the rods that were used for the walkways to be installed caused a safety issue. But not only were the engineers at fault but the owner of the hotel was the one that did follow through with on-site demonstration due to the additional cost that wanted to be avoided. Based on the contractors that made the bolts, it was an unsafe design and there were changes made from a one-rod to a two-rod to make it easier to assemble.

Ethical Engineering Problems: There were a couple of Ethics of Engineering conducts that the workers ignored. If they were followed then this disaster could have been prevented. One of the reasons for the collapse was that they were irresponsible when it came to safety. The fabricators' job was to take safety measures and present a drawing to the architecture. He failed to do so and so the architecture failed to test if the bridge would be able to handle the weight. In the end, the workers were required to check every corner of the building to make sure it was well connected. They did not check them at all. Another huge mistake the engineers had was poor communication. When interviewed, all the workers blamed the other person expecting they had done their job. The miscommunication and laziness caused incomplete work to be published.

Causes of Disaster: According to the first plan; a steel rod stretching from the second and fourth floor bridge to the ceiling was needed. The fabricator spoke to Dan Duncan and explained it's an easier way if they split the rod and connect the second floor bridge to the fourth floor bridge directly above it, while the fourth is connected to the ceiling. Dan Duncan approved of it without taking any safety measures. Both Dan and the fabricator assumed the calculations were done by the other. Due to their miscommunication the top bridge collapsed and fell onto the bottom. Unable to handle the weight, both of them collapsed and crashed onto the ground floor at the tea party, killing 114 attendees.

Poor safety checks: One of the major errors that could have prevented the bridge collapsing was to perform safety checks. It was the fabricators job to make the calculations and provide a final draft of the desired project. It was also Dan Duncan's job to approve of the calculations, however he never even looked at it, he just assumed everything was accurate. When it came to inspecting the building, the team was required to check metal to metal to make sure there were no errors. The workers did not perform any checks because they were not getting paid for it. In their eyes, it looked fine. Due to their irresponsibility the safety checks were not performed, thus causing the collapse.

Ethical course of action: If the engineers followed the code of conduct and took safety measures. They could have avoided this tragedy. The fabricator should have done the calculations beforehand and present to Dan Duncan. If Dan Duncan would have noticed the flaw in the drawing then they could have prevented the load capacity from exceeding. The workers should have communicated properly with Dan and explained the issue with the drawing presented. If such actions were taken then an incident like this would not have occured.

Lack of Communication: One of the biggest factors leading to the eventual disaster at the Hyatt Regency was the lack of communication between G.C.E and the contractors and companies working on the construction of the hotel. There wasn't a clear back and forth between all parties and everyone involved was working off the assumptions that this design and the revision that was approved had already had calculations run on it and was thoroughly examined prior to landing on their desks. Those who looked further into this alteration from the design, such as technicians from G.C.E and lead architect Herb Duncan noticed the clear design flaw and expressed their worries to Daniel Duncan were then told either that he personally had run calculations and made sure there were no issues or that they shouldn’t worry and that everything was completely safe.

Changes made: A new emphasis was placed on responsibility and safety within the engineering curriculum. There was now a focus on the students understanding the unimaginable responsibility they hold as engineers, having the blind trust of the public put into them. The ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) had to make some sort of change so something like this never happens again, and decided to implement policies that stated that structural engineers are ultimately and finally responsible for reviewing the shop drawings they receive from fabricators. Following this the ASCE also revised trade manuals, improving professional standards as well as improving the peer review process that wouldn't allow such glaring design flaws to make it to the final design.

Conclusion: Jack Gillum and Daniel Duncan failed to abide by several ethical guidelines, and were completely okay with approving of a design that was destined to fail. G.C.E’s lack of promoting reasonable conduct and Daniel Duncans lack of effective communication were the lead contributors to the ticking time bomb that was the Hyatt Regency. Had they seen the writing on the wall after the first incident in 1979 and actively tried to understand what caused the atrium roof to collapse the first time, 114 people would still be alive and Kansas City, Missouri would have one less memorial .