Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse & the TV Antenna Collapse Group 1: Rebecca Yaffe, Codi-Lee Hayes and Samantha Mearns

Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse - Background July 17, 1981 Hyatt Regency Hotel in Kansas City, Missouri Tea- dance party in the Atrium lobby Ceiling rod connections failed holding the 2nd and 4th walkways Most devastating structural failure 114 dead, 200 injured Millions of dollars in costs

Key Players Crown Center Redevelopment Corporation, Owner G.C.E. International, Inc. Professional Consulting Firm of Structural Engineers Jack D. Gillum, P.E. - structural engineering state licensed since February 26, 1968 Daniel M. Duncan, P.E. - structural engineering state licensed since February 27, 1979 PBNDML Architects, Planners, Inc., architect. Architect, basic design Eldridge Construction Company, the general contractor on the Hyatt project Havens Steel Company, Professional Fabricator

Circumstances Disputed communications between fabricator and G.C.E international Jan-Feb 1979 Changed rod design to simplify the assembly- doubled load on the connector Havens claimed to have asked for approval, but G.C.E denies such approval Roof failed during construction due to failed connections Failure wasn’t fully investigated by the owner due to additional costs Original walkway design was barely capable of holding appropriate load. G.C.E tells the owner that the entire atrium has a safe design- Nov 1979 July 1981 walkways collapse

Events following the collapse Architects file complaint against G.C.E for gross negligence in connection with their engineering services and designing and constructing the Hyatt Regency Hotel Found guilty and lost their licenses to practice engineering in Missouri ASCE adopts a report that states structural engineers have full responsibility for design projects. Daniel M Duncan and Jack Gillum are still practicing in states other than Missouri

Ethics Violations IEEE NSPE 1. Accepting Responsibility -> Denied approving the change in the rod designs and not fully investigating all connections in the atrium NSPE 1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. -> Approving the change without being fully aware of the effects of changing the rod designs and not investigating the cause of the collapse, they put the safety of the public in danger. 1. Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honesty and integrity -> G.C.E wasn’t honest about the change approval

Avoiding the Disaster This could have been avoided if there was proper communication between the owners, the steel company and the engineers Proper investigation of the roof collapsing and the design change Before the construction, Jack Gillum and Daniel Duncan could have stopped construction until a proper design was agreed upon that could withstand the heavy load. Architects could have been more involved in the design and construction process If we were involved, we would have looked at the design and brought it to the attention of all companies involved.

TV Antenna Collapse 1982 in Texas Antenna was designed and manufactured by Antenna Engineering Rigger inc. was contracted to assemble and raise the antenna During the hoisting of the final piece of the antenna, the microwave baskets interfered with the lifting lugs and caused the antenna to fall Several riggers fell 1000 ft to their deaths

Circumstances The final section was different from the other sections due to the microwave baskets The baskets interfered with the lifting cable when the antenna was rotated to a vertical position. The riggers created a makeshift extension to the lifting lug after the Antenna Engineering Comp. refused to allow the riggers to remove the baskets While the antenna was being lifted, the bolts on the makeshift lifting lug extension failed Incident was filmed by a T.V station crew, so investigators discovered why the accident occurred.

Players Involved William Harris, President of the Antenna Engineering – recommended to Engineering Division to not get involved with the Riggers problems regarding lifting the Antenna due to liability issues. Harry Jordan, Head of the Engineering Division – Told the riggers not to remove the baskets and informed the riggers that they had responsibility because they approved the designs Riggers, inc – told their problems to Antenna Engineering

Ethics Violations Social Responsibility versus legal liability -> The Antenna Engineering Company were responsible for their designs even though the Riggers approved the design because the design was dangerous for the people involved. IEEE 1. Accepting responsibility and failed innovation -> The riggers didn’t make decisions consistent with safety when designing the makeshift lifting lug.

Avoiding the Disaster Antenna Engineering could have made their designs more applicable for construction purposes The Rigger company could look more into the designs to check for any issues that could arise during construction before they approved it. Antenna Engineering could have accepted responsibility for their dangerous designs instead of just pushing the responsibility onto the riggers. The riggers shouldn’t have made a makeshift lug without proper consideration We could have made sure the design was good for construction and recommended not to make a makeshift lug.

Our Own Ethical Issues The safety of our volunteers If a volunteer has a medical problem Not specified in our research findings Accurate research Want to properly diagnose people in the future

Steps to Avoid Disasters Make sure all of our volunteers are anonymous Make sure our volunteers are aware of the procedure and what our data will be used for in the future Making sure our collection is safe Making sure that our data is accurate by testing and analyzing our algorithm.

Disaster Links https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C3yalGGkVo (0-:30) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqygUApfnZg (2:25-2:55)