Big Dig - One of Engineering's Greatest Mistakes? 379
Enggirl1 writes "Design News discusses Boston's Big Dig and begs the question - is it one of engineering's greatest failures? The article reveals that forums and blogs are popping up all over the Internet as vehicles for engineers and contractors to discuss, under the guise of anonymity, their skepticism, thoughts and reactions to one of the biggest infrastructure failures in the news today." From the article: "One blogger, whose profile notes that he is an ICC Reinforced Concrete Special Inspector and an ICC Pre-stressed Concrete Special Inspector, among other specialties, says he has nearly 20 years of experience performing both placement and post-placement inspections of rebar, post-tensioning systems, concrete, masonry, etc. He says if structural engineers who specify epoxy for dowels and the like believe that the work is being done correctly then they live in a world unfamiliar to him."
Maybe not engineering's failures... (Score:5, Interesting)
From the sound of things, I'd guess it's not an engineering failure so much as a management failure. The things I know about public construction are scary. Like when an engineer can't finish a design under the schedule that management wants, management steps in after hours, "throws in numbers" and tosses together a design, then sends it out with the engineer's seal on it. Or when an engineer refuses to sign off on an incomplete or incorrect design, the manager brings in a new graduate because they're more "cooperative" (read: will sign anything to get a paycheck) and they go ahead and build it that way.
The cost and political pressure in public engineering projects often leads to engineers being the least powerful people that have input in the design (i.e. ass backward).
Corruption is the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Maybe not engineering's failures... (Score:5, Interesting)
problem was contractors, materials and timeframe (Score:5, Interesting)
It wasn't just a bad estimate - it was that they gradually expanded the scope of the project and added new goals once the project was underway. As a result it took longer and cost more money. Then came the double-whammy - because it took so much time, and occurred at a time when people were moving back into the city making overall traffic worse, they had to revise the project again to make it even more ambitious. Otherwise, when it was done the traffic would still be bad and people would wonder why they spent so much time on a project that didn't solve the problem. So the Big Dig has always been in a race with time, which paradoxically has caused them to take more time than they otherwise would.
Most of the problems that have happened with the Big Dig have been due not to poor engineering, but use of the wrong materials and deliberate corner-cutting by the contractors. The woman who was killed a couple of weeks ago when the ceiling fell on her car died not because of poor engineering, but because the ceiling part was held up with substandard materials. They actually realized that this was a problem and changed the materials, but not before that part was built, and they never went back and fixed it.
So the contractors cut corners to make more money than they otherwise would, sometimes illegally. But my theory is that the underlying reason why they were able to get away with it is that the ballooning costs (remember it expanded by a cost of something like 900% in money and 400% in time) made accounting that much more difficult.
More management than engineering (Score:1, Interesting)
However, something needed to be done - as anyone who lives in or around Boston can attest. Taking the entire debacle that ensued during its construction, and the issues they've had since into account, I still think it's a pretty impressive project, and once they (if they) can iron out the kinks, I think time will prove favorable to project.
Of course, it could completely crumble over the next couple decades, and that outcome wouldn't surprise me much either.
Re:Maybe not engineering's failures... (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't people who go by the title "engineer" have legal requirements? As in if the thing they design explodes and kills people, they're liable? At least that's the case in some places, according to the completely unreliable rumors I've heard. So I hope these kids aren't actually signing things they know to be dangerous.
Maybe not "graduate" failures... (Score:1, Interesting)
Falsifying records? When you accuse, you accuse big.
"Or when an engineer refuses to sign off on an incomplete or incorrect design, the manager brings in a new graduate because they're more "cooperative" (read: will sign anything to get a paycheck) and they go ahead and build it that way."
Sounds like your "graduate" will have the shortest career then. Or were you under the impression that engineers aren't held accountable to what they sign off on?
"The cost and political pressure in public engineering projects often leads to engineers being the least powerful people that have input in the design (i.e. ass backward)."
Sometimes the most powerful person is the one who says no. Not by changing the world, but by not being a participent in it.
Re:Maybe not engineering's failures... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's years of experience in a particular area of civil engineering, working under more experienced professionals, that often gives an engineer the body of solutions and tools from which to work.
New kids come out of degree programs and have lots of theory about what works under ideal conditions for a broad range of construction types, but reality is never full of ideal situations, and without experience a lot of important potential problems or details are overlooked. Unfortunately, often young engineers that are freshly licensed are overconfident and happy to simply run the software, put in the most obvious data based on sample and research data and what management is asking for, and sign off on whatever the computer spits out because it looks more or less okay.
Yeah, a young engineer should know better, but if it's your first job out of the degree program and you've landed a position ahead of more senior engineers for some reason and get to work closely with management, while getting paid pretty well, it can probably all go directly to your head.
Re:problem was contractors, materials and timefram (Score:5, Interesting)
The one major improvement to traffic that the Big Dig accomplished was diverting traffic going to the Airport through a separate tunnel (the one that just had part of the roof collapse). That reduced traffic in the Central Artery by something like 50%. Ironically, that was also the least expensive part of the Big Dig.
Re:problem was contractors, materials and timefram (Score:2, Interesting)
So it sounds like massive cost overruns leading to low cost components being chosen, failure to install properly where epoxy wasn't a good idea in the first place, recognition of the problem, and then the problem being left in place to avoid further expenses.
It may be the biggest but it is not alone. (Score:5, Interesting)
The exact story is still being discovered but it seems that the original builder was replaced by someone cheaper who cut corners.
In itself bad enough but stories are starting to emerge that this kind of stuff has been going on all over. Not a real suprise, we have had a couple of incidents of collapsing balconies because of shoddy building but because this scandale is so public the stories off other scandals also gets more attention.
Then again it is nothing new. Every time there is a disaster like an earth quake anywhere in the world you will learn that some building collapsed because the builder did not follow regulations or even the blueprint.
Cost cutting is almost everytime the reason and who is to blame for that? Well us. We want our buildings build as cheaply and as fast as possible so we hire the guy with the lowest contract and then expect to get quality.
Nobody on the world would expect a ten dollar watch to have the same quality as a ten thousand dollar watch so why do we expect the guy who can do the job for a million to be as good as the one who wants two million?
The fact that a live was lost in this Boston incident is tragic. That it involved such a god awfull amount of money makes it however fortuanlly headline worthy. If we a truly upset about this we will demand more and better inspection of every building project and demand very stiff penalties for those who ignore regulations. Oh and we won't mind paying extra for it.
Did you hear just hear that massive sound of everyone taking a step back? Yup, we want the best but at the least cost. That is how it is supposed to work in a free market. Sadly it doesn't.
Shoddy building by the lowest bidder is nothing new. Just because this one involves a costly project that has already been controversial does not make it new. Shoddy building will go on as long as contracts are awarded to the lowest bidder.
But why doesn't it work to go for the lowest bid? Because it is an ongoing race. There is always another party who wants the contract who is just going to have to find some way to lower costs. At a given point there is no more fat to trim and you have to start cutting in essentials. Think of it as anorexia. When all the fat is gone you can only loose weight by reducing vital organs and tissues until finally you die. In losing weight you need to know the limit, the point were you simply cannot loose weight anymore. In lowering cost you also need to know that limit. Were any further cost savings are coming from critical areas like following the blueprint to the letter, proper inspection and using the right materials. It can be as simple a something as continueing work on days to hot/cold/humid for some materials to properly set. A great cost saving but a gigantic risk.
This woman paid the price for our penny pinching and the great joke? Now the costs are going to be much higher to us all then if the job had been done right by the non-lowest bidder in the first place. Yet how much do you want to bet that in a few years time the next boston city goverment contract will again go to the lowest bidder?
The biggest mistake ever (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Inspecting your own work (Score:3, Interesting)
Hate to burst your bubble, but that's exactly what the FDA does with pharmaceuticals. Both government and business will go out of their way to ignore safety issues [commondreams.org] when there's money involved.
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, popularity is a great guide to correctness (*windows vs linux*).
I overheard half of a phone conversation this morning:
In some parts, that language is popular. Does it take an English snob to call that incorrect?
Anyone heard of the Hyatt Regency hotel skywalk? (Score:3, Interesting)
haha... who didn't know this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"paper" engineering and cool graphics (Score:1, Interesting)
Obviously you aren't, otherwise you'd know that epoxied bolts are incredibly common and can easily cope with the loads in question.
The problem is that the epoxy wasn't hardened correctly (and possibly the holes were drilled too deeply) and the inspection process failed to detect the poor installation.
There's nothing wrong with using epoxied bolts to hold up concrete. Your disbelief is hardly credible. The engineers who you sneeringly suggest are "confused" and have never "got their hands dirty" know a darn sight more about this than you do. Leave your ego at the door. Just because you know a bit about IT doesn't mean you know squat about other professions.
Re:Cheap, Illegal Labor != Good Quality (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone have any info on this?
Re:Ethics (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:How's That Work? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bzzt (Score:3, Interesting)
But the Big Dig used almost 100% union labor. Good luck trying to join a union if you are in the US illegally.
If you make it fool proof... (Score:3, Interesting)
What was more interesting was the ensuing conversation. What was brought up was that if everyone knew that this project was going to be given to contractors who were likely to cut corners, would this have been the best design? Judging from the results of cut corners (the local boston news has been covering that some holes have no epoxy in them and other blatant implementation failures), this design was not "fool-proof" enough given who was implementing the project.
We then brought up our own personal experiences in our respective fields where the best design was not the cleanest design, but the design in which if some one implemented it wrong, there'd be no unforseen consequences (such as making a routing change in one branch office, only to black hole traffic destined for another office). I wonder how many people here have been faced with projects where one of the bigger criteria was to make the implementation "fool-proof".
Re:Maybe not engineering's failures... (Score:3, Interesting)
The guy who designs high frequency vibration stuff (such as me) would not attempt to seal a bridge design.
Because, by signing, it makes you PERSONALLY and LEGALLY responsible for that design. You become the focal point for all legal actions from then on.
The Tunnel to the Airport (Score:2, Interesting)
So now Boston has a tunnel that is collapsing on itself, and even if fixed will be inadequate to carry the traffic load, to get to an airport that can't build any more runways, so it won't be able to handle the capacity needs either.
Now that sounds like a great plan.
Re:If you make it fool proof... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Details on the failure (Score:3, Interesting)
So perhaps they had no other option but to use this epoxy system. But I think it more likely that the other options were just less expedient to the firms involved, for political or managerial or monetary reasons.
Inherent Skills (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cheap, Illegal Labor != Good Quality (Score:3, Interesting)
Not quite true.
Most of the big highway projects of the 50's and 60's were based on the work of Robert Moses on the Parkway & Expressway systems in New York City. Limited access highways represented "progress" and anyone opposed to them was an idiot. At that point, highway planners refused to acknowledge that highways actually generate traffic -- and adding a lane or a bypass will only add more capacity and more traffic.
People are starting to realize that highways are a one part of a transportation system... unfortunately the US has invested trillions in a highway system that has caused all sorts of social problems and will leave our children with billions of dollars of future costs. (The first wave of interstate overpasses are reaching the end of their service life)
As a non-Bostonion... (Score:3, Interesting)