ASSIGNMENT – TEKNIK FORENSIK (FORENSIC ENGINEERING)

Please upload your assignment to email : priyo_1954@gmail.com

Do not forget to write the file name to follow “S2_ADSL_2022_(name of student) “

Your assignment should differ from what I have exposed in the previous lectures and answer the
questions below !!!. I do not expect that there will be among of you have the same topics

1. Find out a problem from website that relate to the forensic engineering subject. If
you have found please refer and quote the link at the reference of your report
In this assignment, I will discuss one of the New Orleans hotels that collapsed while it
was still under construction. There hasn't been a research or official assessment report from
the United State government about this failure. However, in this writing, I will try to deliver
my perspective based on the data I have acquired from the following sources :
 WWL-TV investigations about the hard rock hotel collapse from website articles and
videos (https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/investigations/david-hammer/hard-
rock-smoking-gun-thin-beams-taller-building/289-cc434910-e2e3-4634-9375-
5f06d7001a4e)
 Information and statements released by Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) of the United States that has conducted an assessment to
determine the cause of failure of this facility
(https://www.osha.gov/news/newsreleases/region6/04032020)

2. Please entitle the topic of your assignment ?

The topic of my assignment will discuss about “The New Orleans Hard Rock Hotel's
collapse”, shown in figure 1. I will talk about the potential causes of the failure, the data
required for the assessment, and any insights or opinions I may have on this case. My
statement in this writing is based on the information I learned in forensics class.

Figure 1. The hard rock hotel after fatal partial collapse in New Orleans
(Resource : AP Photo / Gerald Herbert)
3. Please explain what it was, where it happened, what cause the problem to occur or why
the accident happened ? this can be from someone opinions or your own
This incident take place on Saturday, October 12, 2019, at approximately 9:12 a.m.
During construction, a partial collapse of the hard rock hotel structure occurred on the side
facing North Rampart Street, New Orleans[1]. Three workers suffered fatal injuries and 18
other workers suffered serious injuries in a building collapse. The structure was designed and
built by the Kailas family, Heaslip Engineering LLC, the project’s developers, and Citadel
Builders, the project’s lead contractor[2].
Some workers and a contractor said they had complained about unsafe practices before
the collapse, and one posted a video of what he said was the construction site showing
insufficient support for the structure. Investigators said they would evaluate the
information. On several occasions workers had expressed concerns about the structure to
supervisors, telling them that the laser leveler was showing that the building was not level. It
was off by 2–3 inches[3]. However, from every complaint submitted, there is no further
action from the supervisor engineer.
OSHA’s investigation determined that Heaslip Engineering LLC failed to adequately
design, review or approve steel bolt connections affecting the structural integrity of the
building, and issued one willful violation for the failure [2]. At least 12 legal actions for
damages have been filed in civil court against Citadel Builders and other parties involved
with the Hard Rock Hotel New Orleans project[4], including claims such as :
 The design could not bear the full load of the hotel structure.
 The number and type of structural supports holding up concrete slabs on the hotel’s
upper floors prior to the collapse were inadequate.
 Pile load tests results submitted to the city were for a different project in a different
location and not for the Hard Rock project.
 In order to meet the schedule, concrete was not allowed to cure for an appropriate
amount of time.
 Unskilled workers were used on the project in order to save money [4].  

4. What sort of data shall be provided in such a case

Some of the data that should be provided in this case are:
1. Field observation data and visual observations [6]. It can also be in the form of
documentation of when the incident took place and pictures of the structure after the
failure occurred.
2. Gathering secondary data [6]. The secondary data required in this case are:
a. Information from reliable sources, such as people involved in the project such as
planners, developers, and supervisory consultants as well as information from on-
site witnesses such as workers
b. Building technical data such as Preliminary drawings and as-built drawings are very
crucial evidence
c. Documentations of all construction activities before the collapse
3. Primary data collection[6]. Primary data is data obtained from the results of direct
testing in the field. Since only a half of the building is damaged, the primary data
can be collected from the unharmed part of the building. In this case, they are:
 • Checking the quality of concrete by core drill or UPV test
• Checking the homogeneity of concrete with a hammer test
• checking reinforcement quality with conduct hardness test

5. How to analyze the data and what is the output?

Based on the data I have mentioned above, with this data we can obtain :
1. By making visual observations in the field, we can identify structural failures that occur.
For instance, the appropriate amount and the type of reinforcement used can be seen
from fractures or cracks in the structure. Visual observations might give outcomes in
terms of temporary hypotheses; further research is required to validate these
hypotheses. In this case, one of the documentations shows that the substructure of the
building with a concrete beam design was not damaged. As seen in Figure 2, the
damage happened on the upper floor that using a steel beam framework. As a result,
there is indications that the steel structure on the higher floor has a design flaw.

Figure 2. The below structure remain sturdy meanwhile all the floor above it with the
structural steel and metal deck-slab collapsing (Resource : www.eng-tips.com)
The building's condition right before the failure was documented in other sources.
Figure 3 portrays the immediate collapse of the 16th, 17th, and 18th floors start from
the building's cantilever, while the 15th level and the floor below failed due to falling
materials from the floor above. This may be a strong clue that there is a problem that
leads to structural failure on floors 16 and above.

The 16th, 17th and 18th

floors have all pancaked
together

The 15th floor starting to

fall as all three floors
above it collapse

Figure 3. Video of the hard rock hotel collapse

(Resource : Video by Michael Dalle-Molle)

In other documentation, it can be seen that the shoring pole supports the load from the
cantilever, unlike the underlying structure where the cantilever load is supported by the
 column. Based on the investigation, OSHA stated that the cantilever design on the 17th and
18th floors exceeded the requirements in the manufacturer's guidance, namely:
-concrete density of 145pcf for engineering
-not to exceed the maximum cantilever deck spans of 5-feet 5-inches
-dead load of 74psf for engineering calculations

Figure 4. Poor support to cantilever and the span of cantilever exceed the maximum
standar of manufacturer’s guidance (Resource : www.eng-tips.com)

2. The secondary data obtained can be processed as follows:

a. The outcomes of the interviews must be verified towards the on-scene reality. A
timeline of events can be written by compiling the results of interviews. The timeline
[3]
of the structural failure in this case is as follows :
 On 05 October 2019, the last heavy concrete was poured on the 18th floor
 On 10 October 2019, temporary shoring poles start to buckle under those
last heavy concrete. This shows that there has been an overload on the
building structure below.
 Two days later, on 12 October 2019, the building collapsed.
According to the observations of supplier interviews, this structure uses metal
decking that is too thin for the load of the existing concrete. Additionally, they
should add more shoring poles. However, the contractor did not follow the
[3]
instruction .
b. One of the most crucial aspects of an investigation is the blueprint, which can support
data from the investigator's visual investigation by comparing the initial design
drawings, revised drawings, and field implementation. The outcomes of this data can
help reach final conclusions or indicate whether additional investigation is required.
Based on examination, OSHA’s investigators in this case contrasted the original concept
drawing with the actual construction, where there have been some significant changes,
in fact.
Changes in the thickness of the beams from the initial design caused the structure to be
unable to withstand the loads above it. Where the owner asks for a design change on
the 16th floor, the owner wants the apartment on the 16th floor to have a higher
ceiling. The request resulted in a design change where the initial height of the building
should be 190 feet to 205 feet. The change was not approved by the city council of New
Orleans. Therefore, the engineer changed the steel beams to be thinner so that the
apartment's ceiling was higher but the building height remained 190 feet. With these
changes, the engineer also increased the number of columns. However, it can be seen
in the as-built drawing, the engineer only added 1 extra column so that the initial
column amounted to 11 to 12, while based on the calculation of the investigator at least
[8]
by changing the beams it takes 24 columns to withstand the load on it .
Based on the design drawing, we can see that right at the interface between the
remaining structure and the collapsed structure is a long corridor made up only of the
deck-slab shown in figure 5. This deck slab is rotated 90 degrees from all the other deck
slabs in the building. There are no structural steel beams crossing this long corridor at
[8]
all. This is the main reason why the damage done is only Partial .

Figure 5. The blueprint of hard rock hotel, New Orleans

(Resource : www.eng-tips.com)
c. The output of the investigation of the documentation when the work was carried
out was to find out whether the construction implementation in the field was in
accordance with the plan drawings. In this case, in Figure 6, the documentation
shows that the steel beam connections on the 16th floor are not connected to the
columns on the floor below. Many bolt holes were found that were not empty.
Structural steel connections were inadequately designed. The beams on the 16th
floor were not properly connected to the columns on the 15th floor, where some of
the bolt holes connecting beams to column didn't match up and were welded
together.

Figure 6. The beams and column did not connected using L shape metal
(Resource : WWLTV Youtube Video)
 3. From the results of my research, I did not find a source who said that this incident was
checked using instruments such as the UPV or hammer test. However, I believe that
these checks should still be carried out considering that one of the causes of failure is
that the structure is unable to bear the load. So it is necessary to investigate the quality
of concrete and reinforcement. Where the results of this test are expected to support
the conclusions obtained from secondary data and visual observations. The use of the
instrument in this case, for example, is as follows:
 Checking the compressive strength of concrete which can be done by taking
samples with a core drill to ensure that the concrete used is following the planned
quality
 Checking concrete reinforcement to ensure whether it has used reinforcement
following design specifications with a hardness test tool
 Knowing the homogeneity of the concrete mixture with a hammer test

6. Discuss the problems and the solutions by your own opinions

If we take attention to the video documentation of the collapse of this hotel, it can be
seen that the first structural failure occurred on the 16th floor of the cantilever section.
Based on the results of interviews with workers, irregularities in this project began to be
identified on the 16th floor. In that section, there were significant design changes. Based on
all the information that I have attached above, I think that the main cause of this failure was
due to a design change that was not planned carefully and carefully. With a very significant
change in plate thickness, the addition of columns should be taken into account considering
that the 16th floor bears a greater load than before. The changing thickness of the metal
decking and the lack of support beams have no good reason other than cost efficiency. This
should have been avoided if the contractor could add support beams or stick to the initial
thickness of the decking metal.
The difference between the design and the field implementation contributed to the
collapse as well. The weak connection between the columns and steel beams is what I draw
attention to the most.
I also notice the implementation of work in the field that does not prioritize safety and
security. The safety manager on that job should have been able to recognize that the
building has the potential to collapse from numerous worker concerns and the obvious
visual evidence of several support beams experiencing significant deflections. The manager
should prioritize repairs over continuing construction activities in order to prevent fatalities.
Possible Solution
Repairing this building will be very difficult because considering the fatal damage to
most of the buildings and there are also two cranes still attached to this building, where the
crane is expected to collapse and cause more fatal damage. The best solution I can write is
that the building must be demolished. This solution was also implemented by the New
Orleans government where the hotel has been completely demolished in 2021.
7. Conclude the discussions
Changes in design in the construction work itself are a common thing. However, every
change requires precise calculations so that the building can still function as expected. This
failure occurred as a result of the engineer's negligence in failing to verify the calculations of
design changes and paying insufficient attention to the safety aspect of this construction.
The advice I can give is that in future developments the engineers and all related elements
need to increase their attention to any changes in building design and tighten supervision of
ongoing construction by continuing to prioritize the safety factor. To ensure the accuracy of
the calculation data, engineers can hire a third party to verify the building design.

8. Quote your references

[1] “1031 Canal”. Wikipedia. 31 August 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1031_Canal
[2] U.S. Department of Labor Cites Engineering Firm, General Contractor, Steel Erector,
Other Subcontractors After New Orleans Construction Collapse | Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, https://www.osha.gov/news/newsreleases/region6/04032020
[3] Hammer, David. 2021. “Hard Rock collapse 'was waiting to happen,' OSHA engineer
says’”, https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/investigations/david-hammer/hard-rock-
smoking-gun-thin-beams-taller-building/289-cc434910-e2e3-4634-9375-5f06d7001a4e
[4] Guest Author. 2022. “The Collapse on Hard Rock Hotel”. The Agenda Publisher,
https://magazine.tablethotels.com/en/2022/07/rubble-dust/
[5] Engineering Forums. “Hard Rock Hotel Under construction in New Orleans Collapses”,
https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=459166
[6] Bahan Ajar Mata Kuliah Forensic Engineering by Prof. Ir. HENRICUS PRIYOSULISTYO,
M.Sc., Ph.D. Program Studi Magister Teknik Sipil FT-UGM
[8] Hmmer, David. 2021. “300% overstressed' beams under 16th floor caused Hard Rock
collapse, engineer says”, https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/investigations/david-
hammer/300-overstressed-beams-under-16th-floor-caused-hard-rock-collapse-engineer-
says/289-beb109c6-9df6-43e5-bc7b-24952d99da42
[9] Adelson, Jeff. 2020. “Read OSHA’s full report on New Orleans Hard Rock Hotel collapse;
engineering problems highlighted”, https://www.nola.com/news/politics/article_4719bdc2-
754f-11ea-b55a-a797e9dc9971.html
[10] Hammer, David (August 4, 2021). "Investigators suggest felony charges for Hard Rock
inspector". www.wwltv.com. Retrieved January 30, 2022.