This report goes into detail the collapse of the Westgate Bridge, located in Melbourne, Australia. What was meant to be a bridge that joined two sides of the city of Melbourne, lead to Australia’s worst workplace disaster in history, with a death toll of 35. Included in this report is a history of the planning of the bridge, the events that lead to the collapse, as well as the collapse itself and how it happened. Also covered are the ethical issues portrayed by the companies working on the construction of the Westgate Bridge.
I. INTRODUCTION
On the 15th October, 1970, during its third year of construction, the Westgate Bridge collapsed killing 35 men. The section of the bridge that collapsed was a 128 meter span that was being worked on at the time. A royal commission was held to find what caused this disaster. It was found to be a critical engineering decision which was not handled correctly. This was due to poor communication between joint engineering companies contractors. If their indifferences and lack of communication was handled more professionally and ethically, Australia’s most devastating workplace disaster may have never of occurred.
II. HISTORY
The first time that a bridge was considered to cross the Yarra River was as early as 1957 to replace the Williamstown ferry service. Between then and 1961, there was lots of discussion, up until the Lower Yarra Crossing Company was founded. Discussions with the government about a new bridge across the Yarra River were held, but not much was agreed upon, until 1965, the Lower Yarra Crossing Company went bankrupt, and thus emerged the Lower Yarra Crossing Authority, whom in 1967 entered into an agreement with Melbourne based Maunsell & Partners, as well as London based Freema...
... middle of paper ...
...they were not supplying design calculations and other data when required.
VI. CONCLUSION
The disaster which occurred on the 15th of October 1970 and the tragedy of the 35 deaths was utterly unnecessary. That it should have been allowed to happen was inexcusable. There was no sudden onslaught of natural forces, or no sudden failure of new or untested material.
The reasons for the collapse are to be found in the acts and omissions of those entrusted with building a bridge of a new and highly sophisticated design.
The West Gate Bridge stands out as one the most immediately recognisable landmarks in the Melbourne skyline. For some, a symbol of economic progress linking the City with its industrial heartland, but for others it serves as a constant reminder of the avoidable, tragic sequence of events that led to the worst workplace disaster in Australian history
Stirling Bridge demonstrated strong moral principles when deciding how to best approach consumer injuries related to the Braveheart power tools line. STIRLING BRIDGE took the public interest to heart and exercised the utilitarian approach to serve the greatest good for the greatest number. Stirling Bridge exhausted substantial financial and labor resources to focus more on the well-bei...
Without a concrete reason for the bridge's failure, every suggested reason was researched until proven incorrect” (Silver). There were many reasons that were suggested, but could not be proven correct due to the collapse. Wikipedia states that “A small crack was formed through fretting wear at the bearing, and grew through internal corrosion, a problem known as stress corrosion cracking.” The failure of the bridge was caused by a defect in one of the eye-bars on the north side causing the other side to collapse as well. “Stress corrosion cracking is the formation of brittle cracks in a normally sound material through the simultaneous action of a tensile stress and a corrosive environment.
The engineer breached the duty of care through failing his/her duty to warn by providing insufficient warning on the limitation of the application. His/her software application caused the structural firm to designed a defective bridge and was the direct cause of many deaths. The junior engineer should be held liable for his/her product due to the principle known as product liability. This is evident in the case study because deaths and injuries due to defective product as a result of the software were foreseeable. Looking at the 1971 case of Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals Co. Limited et al., the manufacturers must not only instruct the user how to properly use the products but also warn the user the consequences of misuse []. This precedent case proves that the engineer failed to warn the structural firm of the limitation of the application as well as failed to warn the consequences of using the application beyond its capabilities. However, the information technology firm may be held vicariously liable for the mistake of the junior engineer as he/she developed the software application during his/her employment. The reason being the employer generally has deeper pocket than the employee [] and the collapse was a result of the junior engineer developing the application under the authority of the employer. Thus, the junior engineer is one of the tortfeasor to which the information firm maybe vicariously liable for his/her
On Sunday April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant ambushed the Tasmanian tourist destination Port Arthur and heightened the Australian death toll for a single person massacre to a ravaging 35 people. The day had good, calm weather, attracting numerous abundances of tourists to the small Broad Arrow Cafe of Port Arthur in the early morning. By 1.00 pm, an estimate of over 500 visitors were at Port Arthur, although the number died down to about 60 people remaining just before Bryant’s initiation of attack. In his first few seconds, Bryant had managed to claim three young victims, an asian couple and the girlfriend of Mick Sargent, who escaped death with a grazed scalp. Using an AR15 semi-automatic rifle, Martin Bryant’s shots were clean, fast, and unanticipated - causing people to run and hide for their lives. Many males were killed in heroic attempts to shelter their wives and children from the gunfire, with some killed instantly and many left to bleed to death at a slower, more painful ra...
This tragic accident was preventable by not only the flight crew, but maintenance and air traffic control personnel as well. On December 29, 1972, ninety-nine of the one hundred and seventy-six people onboard lost their lives needlessly. As is the case with most accidents, this one was certainly preventable. This accident is unique because of the different people that could have prevented it from happening. The NTSB determined that “the probable cause of this accident was the failure of the flightcrew.” This is true; the flight crew did fail, however, others share the responsibility for this accident. Equally responsible where maintenance personnel, an Air Traffic Controllers, the system, and a twenty cent light bulb. What continues is a discussion on, what happened, why it happened, what to do about it and what was done about it.
The first and most challenging problem associated with building the Mackinac Bridge arrived long before the bridge was even designed. Financing such an enormous project was no easy feat. In 1928, the idea of connecting the upper and lower peninsulas was proposed to Congress for the first time (Brown 4). At the time, the suspected bridge project was very much under government scrutiny and control. In fact, the initial boost in interest in pursuing the construction of a bridge came about due to the depression. The Public Works Administration (PWA) had been created under President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal economic plan which would fund certain construction projects with th...
Natural Bridge is an area and suburb in the Gold Coast hinterland in south-eastern Queensland covering approximately 43 square kilometres, with a perimeter of approximately 32 kilometres. Directly north of Natural Bridge is the Numinbah Valley, east of it is Springbrook, west of is Binna Burra, and south of it lies the Queensland/New South Wales border. Natural Bridge’s terrain is largely made up of hills and is covered with trees apart from areas which have suffered from large scale land clearing. (Figure
To clarify, the Engineering Code of Ethics is the set of rules established by the National Society of Professional Engineers that all engineers are expected to adhere to. In essence, the fundamental tenets of this code are that all engineers are expected to prioritize public safety, as well as be honest with their clients and the general public while only doing work that they are qualified to do. (“Code of Ethics,” n.d.). The reason this code is crucial in this case is because it offers guiding principles for the men and women who are in charge of so many of the various structures and buildings that are used by everyone in society. If the engineering population were to fail to adhere to this code, many people’s lives would be put in jeopardy; buildings might crumble, planes may crash, and bridges could collapse. This means that this code serves to keep engineers in check so that the world maintains stability, therefore its importance cannot be emphasized enough. Furthermore, since this code is nationally recognized, if a company’s engineers were to violate any aspect of it, it would be seen nation-wide as a misuse of power for the sake
The commission issued 15 conclusions that lead to the failure of the bridge. The commission found that Theodore Cooper and Peter Szlapka were directly responsible for the collapse. Peter Szlapka was the design engineer for the Phoenix Bridge Company and designed the chords that failed. Theodore Cooper was found responsible as well because he officially examined and approved the design. The Quebec Bridge and Railroad Company was also found responsible for failure to appoint an experienced engineer as chief engineer. The main reason for the collapse was poor design. Eventually the bridge became so heavy that it couldn’t even support itself. The bending and distortion of the steel was caused by the dead load of the bridge. The collapse can also be due to stubbornness and refusal to admit a mistake was made early on and didn’t want to redo all the plans. The Phoenix Bridge Company refused to believe their steel was bending and claimed that the distortions must have already been there before the steel was used to make the bridge. Also important factors such as increasing the span of the bridge were not taken into account and no new calculations were ever computed to change the
The Tacoma Narrows Bridge is perhaps the most notorious failure in the world of engineering. It collapsed on November 7, 1940 just months after its opening on July 1, 1940. It was designed by Leon Moisseiff and at its time it was the third largest suspension bridge in the world with a center span of over half a mile long. The bridge was very narrow and sleek giving it a look of grace, but this design made it very flexible in the wind. Nicknamed the "Galloping Gertie," because of its undulating behavior, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge drew the attention of motorists seeking a cheap thrill. Drivers felt that they were driving on a roller coaster, as they would disappear from sight in the trough of the wave. On the last day of the bridge's existence it gave fair warning that its destruction was eminent. Not only did it oscillate up and down, but twisted side to side in a cork screw motion. After hours of this violent motion with wind speeds reaching forty and fifty miles per hour, the bridge collapsed. With such a catastrophic failure, many people ask why such an apparently well thought out plan could have failed so badly?(This rhetorical question clearly sets up a position of inquiry-which iniates all research.) The reason for the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge is still controversial, but three theories reveal the basis of an engineering explanation. (Jason then directly asserts what he found to be a possible answer to his question.)
In her essay,”Importance of the Golden Gate Bridge,” Stephanie Stiavetti suggest that “It maintained this point of pride for nearly 25 years until the Verrazano- Narrows Bridge was built in New York in 1964. Today, this historic San Francisco landmark holds its place as the second largest suspension bridge in the country, behind Verrazano Narrows.” Back then, experts thought that it would be impossible to build a bridge across the tides and currents in that area because strong currents and tides would make construction extremely difficult and dangerous. The water is over 500 feet deep in the center of the channel, and along with the area's strong winds and thick fog, the idea of building a bridge there seemed nearly impossible. Despite all of the problems of building a bridge across the Golden Gate, Joseph Strauss was named as lead engineer for the project. Construction began January 5, 1933, and in the end cost more than $35 million to
The Tacoma Narrows Bridge was the third longest suspension span in the world at the time. It was suppose to have been revolutionary in it design, and it was known for it’s tendency to sway windstorm. Nevertheless, on November 7, 1940, a large storm caused it to collapse.
...wind is an example of a possible disaster under such conditions. There is no bridge which can serve all purposes. For example, the arch bridge (fig.1) and the beam bridge (fig.2) may be unsuitable for very long spans but they are more appropriate for railways and short spans.
The civil engineering field is about gathering and interpreting data, being able to give technical presentations to colleagues, team work to design and build a project, projects range from the design and construction of dams, bridges, buildings, roads, and water supply systems. In most cases the works of engineers are admired and sought after. Engineers play an important role in the development and improvement of a society. Yet, like other technical and non-engineering careers the civil engineers also face issues, for example, regarding ethics, high energy building consumption, increased soil and coastal erosion, inadequate water quality, traffic congestion, and some poor infrastructures resilience to disasters. Another example is that unfortunately in the United Kingdom, the civil engineering industry is highly fragmented with 93% of companies having 14 or fewer employees which is not always a great idea, as written by John Miles in Civil Engineering Informatics. There is also a need to implement new professional and educational approaches to new challenges and new implications that are needed for the twenty-first century society. This paper will introduce and explain five different issues that civil engineers are currently facing and elaborate about how these challenges interrelate to each other.