Engineering Ethics

Individual Case Study

5/5/10


Lotus
Riverside
Table of Contents


Details2
The Ethical Problem..4
Possible Options..4
Solution5
Illustration of Events6
Photographs11


I. Details
A newly constructed building in Shanghai, China toppled over, killing one worker. The 13
story apartment building fell over with just enough room to escape what would have been a
far more destructive domino effect involving other structures in the 11-building complex.
The apartment community, known as Lotus Riverside, has a total of 629 units, 489 of
which have already been sold. Now buyers want to get their money back, and authorities
are trying to prove that the remaining buildings are structurally sound.
An official investigation was conducted and found the accident was due to the construction
company's "ignorance", rather than flaws in the design or building materials. However, the
report stopped short of apportioning blame, and has been criticized for failing to address
key issues.
The report said the collapse was caused by dirt, excavated to make a 15 foot deep pit for an
underground parking garage next to the building, being piled to depths of up to 32 feet on
the other side of the apartment building. The weight of the pile created a "pressure
differential" which moved the soil underneath the structure toward the pit dug on the other
side of it. This shift in the soil weakened the foundation, causing the hollow concrete pilings
to fail. These ease of the soil shifting may have been related to several days of heavy rain to
soften the soil. Investigators would not say whether this was a crucial factor. The report said
the construction company, Shanghai Zhongxin Construction, did not consider clearly" that
the dirt pile could have such a devastating effect.
Huang Rong, director of the Shanghai Urban Construction and Communications Council, said
inspections had shown that none of the remaining 10 apartment buildings are in immediate
danger. "The surrounding buildings are now stable," he said. "The safety inspection of these
homes will be the second phase of our professional team's work."
Jiang Huancheng, an architect and a lead investigator for the report, said it had been an
"enormous shock" to see the site for the first time. "In my 46 years in the industry, I have
never seen or heard of this," he said. "To put it simply this was ignorance leading to
rashness. We need to take this accident as an important lesson ... and ensure that it does
not happen again."
Several days before the release of the report, Wu Hang , Mr. Jiang's assistant, accused the
construction company of incompetence and lacking "common sense". Mr. Wu said the
investigation had found there had been no structures to support the walls of the hole dug
for the parking garage, and this had been a key factor contributing to the accident.

II. The Ethical Problems

There are a couple of ethical problems in this case. First, it would appear that corners
were cut when construction was being done, as well as the design of the building. It could
be seen that the supports for the building were hollow. These supports are critical and
should have been solid. They should have also contained rebar for structural support. When
the ground shifted underneath the building, the supports snapped. This is because they
were hollow and contained no rebar. These things were probably in the design of the
building, but were not implemented to save cost. The builder saw the opportunity to build
the structure cheaper than budgeted and did so, allowing the extra money to be pocketed.
This definitely led to the buildings demise. Now the question has arisen, are the rest of the
buildings safe? Investigators say yes. Logic would say no. It does not seem that the
remaining buildings were built any differently. The building that fell was the first one that
had an underground garage constructed. If the remaining buildings had the same
excavation done in the same manor, logic would say they would fall also. The design of the
building probably did not originally support an underground garage. This was probably an
afterthought. If this was the case, whoever said it was ok to continue with the garage, could
not have known the previous shortcuts taken.
Second, tenants of the new buildings are concerned with the structural integrity of the
remaining 10 buildings. Investigators say the remaining buildings are sound, but future
tenants do not believe that is the case. Tenants that have already purchased apartments in
the building that toppled over want their money back and it is not clear yet if they will get it.
It shows the character of the construction company. Not only does the company take short
cuts and build substandard buildings, they do not stand behind their mistakes.

III. Possible Options
There are a few possible options that may be taken. The company can demolish the
fallen building, refund the money to those tenants and complete the remaining buildings.
This does not show that the remaining buildings are safe. This is the easiest, cheapest way.
The company can demolish the fallen building, rebuild the building, and complete the
remaining buildings. They can tell all future tenants that the buildings are safe. This will
cost more because the building will have to be rebuilt. This is also simple because there is
no more effort required. The building just has to be rebuilt.
The company can demolish the fallen building, redesign the building to incorporate the
underground garage, and ensure it is built correctly. This can be done by periodically
inspecting the construction process. This will cost more money because the building will
have to go back to the drawing board. Also, it will involve hiring inspectors to ensure the
project is going according to specifications.
The company can demolish the fallen building; redesign the building to incorporate the
underground garage, to ensure it is built correctly, and inspect the remaining buildings to
find out the condition of the remaining buildings. If the buildings are found to be subpar,
the company must repair the buildings to bring them up to the correct level of safety. This
will cost even more money than the previous option.
The company can demolish the fallen building, redesign the building to incorporate the
underground garage, to ensure it is built correctly, and inspect the remaining buildings to
find out the condition of the remaining buildings. If the buildings are found to be
substandard, the company must repair the building to bring it up to the correct level of
safety and allow tenants to back out of their contracts signed, due to their concerns of the
buildings safety. This would cost just as much as the previous option, but would cause the
owner of the buildings to lose money because of prospective tenants pulling their money
from the project. This may limit the amount of money that could be spent to repair the
remaining buildings or reconstruct the toppled building.
IV. The Solution

The best solution would be for the company to demolish the fallen building, redesign
the building to incorporate the underground garage, inspect the remaining buildings to find
out the condition of the remaining buildings. If the buildings are found to be substandard,
they must repair the buildings to bring them up to the correct level of safety. This will
ensure that the buildings are safe. These findings should be shared with the tenants that
have already purchased apartments to show them the buildings are safe. If the company
does not inspect the buildings, the possibility for more tenants to purchase apartments
becomes very small. People know the buildings are dangerous and will not want to
purchase space where they do not feel safe. If the company lets the tenants that have
already purchased space to pull out of their contracts, it will lose money and may not be
able to fund the entire project.

This problem shows that errors can occur. There is a reason buildings are designed a
certain way. These plans should not be deviated from. Implementing changes to plans
should be carefully considered and gone over numerous times by many qualified people to
ensure problems do not arise. Circumstances like rain should be accounted for. If this
problem were to arise again in another area, the safety of both the workers and the tenants
must be paramount.




First, the apartment building was constructed.

















Then, the plan called for an underground garage to
be dug out. The excavated soil was piled up on the other
side of the building.


















Heavy rains resulted in water seeping into the ground




















The building began to shift and the concrete pilings
were snapped due to the uneven lateral pressures.
The building began to tilt.




The building eventually fell.