Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
There seems to have been a major risk oversight, or acceptance of it. Why have traffic passing underneath while it's being adjusted? I'm not an engineer, but my first observation as a non-engineer is: "Why not have a middle beam?"
I am not an engineer, but i looked at the "Truss" design on the ENR site and saw that as a truss the first panel point web was pointed in the wrong direction, I believe this would double/ triple the design load in this floor panel---later while waiting for an appointment I watched the Dash Cam Video of the collapse....you guessed it- the failure occurred at the mis-designed web member.......this structure was not designed to be self supporting. In my opinion, anyone familiar with truss design would have noticed the flaw.
As PM's we have to be strong enough to stand up to the Designer......
I wonder if the PM had enough construction knowledge to realize something was amiss. We sometimes say that a PM can work in any industry, but if the PM lacked engineering knowledge he or she wouldn't have recognized a risk someone with engineering knowledge would have immediately seen. PMs who lack industry knowledge must rely completely on vendors to do their jobs well, which seems far too risky for my liking.
I am not a big believer of "peer" review. I have never received anything constructive when i have conducted or issued plans or schedules for 'PEER" review, In my opinion, the designers do not like to critique each other. A 3rd party constructability review works better.
On this occasion, Louis Berger was the peer review firm.....no comment- but I see they are already named in the first (of many) lawsuit..........
My view is if "Peer Review" process don't work, you either get rid of it, or improve it to ensure greater accountability. Maybe the way forward is to always use a 3rd party, to reduce any possibility of conflict of interest, and greater accountabiltiy with the third party conducting the reviews.
It is a good point about review and my understanding is that most localities would require design drawings signed by a licensed engineer even for the construction framing. The bridge design itself would also require approval by licensed engineers. Both would need to be submitted to local building authority to obtain permits and adherence to codes.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
In fact, the plan page I examined in the ENR article was signed by the Engineer of Record- the same guy that found the crack in the concrete support and reported it as non-structural.............
Those are the types of things that give me nightmares!
Please login or join to reply