Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

1

HYATT REGENCY
HOTEL COLLAPSE
114 DEAD
EXCESS OF 200 INJURED

Background

Owner:

Crown Center Redevelopment Corporation


Designers:
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 Company

Important Dates

Early 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.

Original Design

Characteristics

The load was passing through the hanging over Rod, connected
to the Ceiling

This was the original design that submitted to Heaven Steel


Company

Actual Design

Characteristics

Load was acting on the beam and Hanging over rod

The lower rod was hanged with the beam by an extra hole

Fabricator modified the design

BUT THE CHANGING WAS APPROVED BY THE DESIGN ENGINEERS


(GILLUM COLACO INS.)

Reason of Modification

In original design, it was necessary to thread the whole 30 feet


long hanging over rod which was difficult and costly

One Rod to two rod system to simplify fabrication

Result of the modification

After disaster

Deformed fourth
floor beam

10

Three major technical factors

Design modification

Lack of consideration for every force acting on particular


connections

Failure to take motion and rotation into account in the design

11

Communication Failures

Heaven 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 GCE

Havens also claimed that on February 26, 1979, GCE returned the
set of drawings to Havens, along with Gillums engineering
review seal, authorizing construction

12

Result of Communication Failure

Confusion about engineering design responsibility


between the GCE and Havens Steel

Which resulted a design plan and materials


inadequate for supporting the loads

And Structure Failed!!!

13

Another Important aspect

On October 14, 1979 , During construction the 2700square feet


roof collapsed only due to one roof connection failure

On October 20, 1979, G.C.E.'s Gillum asked to investigate the


collapse and thorough design checking to the owner

management called in an independent engineering firm, SeidenPage for investigation but not for the complete structure to save
money

14

Continued

GCE also stated that they requested three times to owner for onsite inspection, but he ignored due to extra cost

First 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.

15

Responsibilities of Designer

They didnt consider

Call for reanalysis

Data changed when design changed

Effects of the changing

Only considered still load, not considered that the people will
use the walkway to dance

They didnt considered that fabricator will change the design

They were reliable on fabricator as design responsibilities

16

Where Ethics Involved throughout


the accident

A complete violation of ASCE Code of Ethics

Engineers 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
stage

Engineers 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

17

18

Engineers 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

Вам также может понравиться