Discussion Questions

1. a) This clearly shows that the engineer did not learn from the past disaster occurrence.
Previously, Titanic has created chaos disaster because the engineers are fully confident of
their own greatest invention and did not provide enough lifeboats for the passenger and
crew of the ship. As for the Teton Dam, the designers are very confident in the basic
design that there will be no significant water seepage would occur. Therefore, sufficient
instrument to detect water erosion was not installed. The main reason of these disasters
might be because of the engineers are fear of the embarrassment at failure or fear of
litigation. To be a good engineer, safety is the main priority because she or he is dealing
with the life of people.
b) Lack of communication tools should be overcome in engineering field. As the Teton
Dam disaster, significant information regarding the possibility on water seepage is
already acquired six days before the disaster occur. Six days are a very long period to
think of alternatives method to overcome the water erosion. Unfortunately, the designer
only received the information one day after the disaster happen. Instead of
communication tools are lacking, politician among the cliques in the organization might
be the occurrence of the disaster. Jealousy among one another is a norm in the workplace.
It might be that the information is purposely hiding from the designer to let him/her pride
down.
c) As for this case, engineer itself does not play the role of a good leader as he/she did not
put someone on duty to observe any uncertainty. It is clearly shown that the engineer put
a similarity to standard experiment. It might be because the engineer is lacking of the
experience and critical thinking. He/she did not think of the uncertainties in the scope of
precision of material purchased, nature of stresses the finish product will encounter and
etc.
d) As for this type of case, the designers do not learning from the past disaster such as
what had happen to the Bureaus Fontenelle Dam. They are very confident and highly
persuade on their own design and forget about the protection and backup. Asking for
ideas, critics and experience of others is a good ethics as an engineer to preserve the
disaster from occur.
2.
One of the causes of the catastrophic event is the flaws in the design. The flaw in the
design by Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. is apparent when the load capacity of the
bridge was insufficient. The insufficient load capacity was becoming worse after the bridge
modification which increases the weight of the bridge. Other than that, the heavy traffic and
concentrated bridge loads on the day of collapse exert the tension of the bridge to the maximum.
The design flaw was because of the failure of Sverdrup & Parcels quality control
procedures to ensure that the appropriate measurements and calculations were performed and

also the inadequate design review and inspections by Federal and State transportation officials.
Also the technologies was inadequate to assess the condition of many parts of the bridge.
This incident could be prevented if the Federal and State transportation officials give
adequate review on the bridge plan and design. They also should inspect the bridge while it was
under construction. There should be informed consent between the constructors and the
manufacturer regarding on the responsibility for safety of the product materials. This will ensure
that the manufacturer will produce a high quality product or at least willing to be responsible for
any catastrophe caused by the improper materials produced.