Engineering Disasters - Essay Example

Engineering Disasters Human error theories are best demonstrated in the behavior models and human factors whenit comes to looking for the root causes of engineering disasters. According to this model, workers in the engineering field are the main cause of accidents. Human beings have a tendency to make errors in various circumstances and environmental conditions. The blame falls on the unsafe human characteristics. Any set of actions that exceed the human limits of acceptability can be referred to as human errors. Human errors include the mistakes that occur during the process of designing. Engineers are expected to factor in the probability of the human errors. The model aims at offering better models when it comes to design tasks, workplaces and tools. The model indicates that humans are psychologically and physically limited in the engineering capabilities. This has led to the development of the human factors engineering. In addation, unsafe conditions have been blamed for major engineering disasters since 1800. They include improperly constructed scaffolds, defective equipment and unprotected explosive material (De 2009). Unsafe conditions have been mentioned in the every causation model in engineering disasters. Unsafe conditions can exist before the actual engineering project starts (Duffey 2008). Besides, the conditions can occur after the project has started (Embleton & Hamann 1997). A compelling example is when the management fails to provide proper and adequate personal and protective equipment (Shappell et al 2003). The management can also fail to safeguard tools and equipment besides requesting workers to perform tasks that exceed their professional capabilities. This results to overexertion illnesses or injuries (Shepherd & Frost 1995). In 1930, a research indicated that the interaction between man and machine is the biggest causation agent in the field of engineering. The behavior models have indicated that some of the innate characteristics of engineers and other professional personnel can lead to disasters (Kletz 2009). According to Kletz (2009), this can be a result from unsafe behaviors and professional omissions. In the engineering context, unsafe conditions imply a deliberate violation of the contemporary engineering standards (Lancaster 2000). Ferror theory suggests that engineering disasters occur from a causal chain of human errors (Lawson 2005). The theory suggests that engineering disasters can happen due to overload .Overload is the mismatch between the professional load and human capacity (Leigh 1995). The ferrel theory indicates that incorrect response to a situation in the context of engineering is vital to averting the disasters (National Career Consultants 1973). Arguably National Career Consultants (1973) suggested that, basic incompatibility in the field of operation can lead to improper activity. When naïve engineers take extreme risks in important engineering projects, it can result to disastrous occurrences (Shappell et al 2003). The public perception of risks contributes to the definition of the engineering disasters. In the year 1992, a 775 airplane disasters occurred. The same number occurred in the railway transport and bicycles. Human factor are responsible for the major engineering disasters (Duffey 2008). A study in Sweden indicated that insufficient knowledge was the biggest cause of the disasters. Over 504 people were killed and about the same number injured. According to the research, 16 percent of the causes of disasters were attributed to underestimation by the engineers. Over thirteen percent indicated that ignorance and carelessness play an important role in the occurrence of engineering disasters. Negligence was blamed for the occurrence of over 800 cases of structural failure (Embleton & Hamann 1997). Forgetfulness in major construction and other projects contributes to 13 percent of the engineering disasters (Kimoto 2009). According to Kimoto (2009), the causes of these disasters cannot be fully addressed without finding out the causes of the most common errors done by the engineers. The engineers who rely on others without sufficient control are also a major cause of disasters (Embleton & Hamann 1997). According to Nishida (1992), engineers must have efficient skills to play important leadership role in the construction projects. This would address one of the root causes of engineering disasters (Kaufman et al. 2004). Although research indicates that inaccurate definition of roles in engineering projects contributes to disasters, it is not one of the major causes of such disasters (Reese 2012). Deficiency in engineering ethics is cited as one of the root causes of engineering failures. Engineers have a role to both the clients and the employers (Evan & Manion 2003). According to Evan & Manion (2003), failure to perform engineering duties in a conscience manner leads to substandard products. Engineers are requested to act beyond the legal provisions to ensure that construction projects are performed with excellence (Harland & Lorenz 2005). Poor planning and construction of infrastructure lead to damages especially in cases of extreme occurrences like floods (Petroski 1994). Structural planning and quality control should not be left to novices. Inexperience has been identified as major cause of engineering disasters (Evan & Manion 2003). According to engineers, some of the root causes of disasters include pressure from the builders’ lobbies or political pressure. This can affect funding the level of cooperation leading to the compromise of quality (Hammond 1957). Another root of engineering disasters is having builders who are not interested in the quality of the structures or projects. This means that stakeholders and other players in the process of construction fail to participate fully. Poor tendering system and specifications is known to lead to pressure on the time limits (Harland & Lorenz 2005). When some engineers are not consulted in the planning process as well as analysis, they are likely to make immature decisions (Hammond 1957). Research shows that failure to use the appropriate technologies in the engineering projects has affected the quality of structures in a rapidly changing technologically driven world (Harland & Lorenz 2005). Harland & Lorenz (2005) argue that, there are many instances where failure to use the appropriate material in the process of construction leads to major disasters. A compelling example is when engineers construct tall buildings without installing the earthquake resistance materials in earthquake prone places. The Kansas City disaster in the United States caused the death of 114 people (History Channel 2008). It emerged that compromise in the construction was the major cause. The structure was too weak to hold its own weight besides holding the weight of the spectators standing upon it (Harland & Lorenz 2005). According to Harland & Lorenz (2005), structural engineer’s structural engineers are required to hold thorough investigations as a method of avoiding occurrence of such disasters. Engineers who have used soft storey have resulted to devastating occurrences (Hetzel et al 1993). Disastrous effects have also been caused by floating columns and structural irregularities. The root causes in the engineering profession cannot be addressed without having to consider site -specific ground response and potential liquefaction. Another major cause of engineering disasters is the complexity of these projects (History Channel 2008). Complex projects have few places of references. Extremely complex projects tend to be experimental and exploratory. The increasing complexity of the constructions calls for regular refresher causes (Shepherd & Frost 1995).according to Shepherd & Frost, the root causes of engineering disasters tend to come from human malpractices and assumptions. Technological advancement and inconsistencies have also contributed to some of the disasters witnessed over the last century (Harland & Lorenz 2005). Addressing the challenge of complexity would significantly addresses the causes of major accidents in the engineering profession. High levels of uncertainty are associated with complex projects (Embleton & Hamann 1997). Engineers must be requested to simplify engineering models as much as possible. This would have a profound effect to the levels of confidence in the structures built. Engineering disasters are have been redefined by the increasing war of terrorism (Harland & Lorenz 2005). Some of the buildings have the capacity to resist bomb attacks unlike others (Harland & Lorenz 2005). In some places, engineers are supposed develop structures that can resist any form of explosives and stand the extreme conditions. Modern understanding of complex engineering projects demands that multilevel perspectives be used. This is a break from conventional perspectives. The field of engineering has been evolving but the fundamentals remain the same largely. Some of the root causes of engineering disasters can be addressed through embracing the up to-date methods of constructing in context specific circumstances. Electrical, structural and mechanical failures are known to contribute to engineering accidents or disasters. At the same time, compromises in construction projects and miscalculations in developing space shuttles are known to cause engineering constructions. Old bridges are known to cave in especially in case of floods. The field of engineering is increasingly being viewed as one of the most sensitive when it comes to protection of life and property. In conclusion, the engineering disasters are known to be caused by simple mistakes like forgetfulness and miscalculation. Incidences of construction politics and differences among the stake holders are known to cause compromise in the quality of structures. The process of ensuring disasters are eliminated involves the use of stakeholders and high levels of alertness. Engineers can cause disasters when they fail to get enough material support or when the fail to adhere to the professional code of conduct which demands high levels of excellence and morality in construction projects. References De, A. K. 2009. Environmental engineering 1st ed. New Delhi: New Age International. Duffey, R. 2008. Managing Risk. John Wiley & Sons. Embleton, C., & Hamann, C. E. 1997. Geomorphological Hazards of Europe. Developments in Earth Surface Processes, Volume 5. Elsevier Science & Technology. Evan, W. M., & Manion, M. 2003. Minding the machines: Preventing technological disasters. Princeton, N.J: Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic. Hammond, R. 1957. Engineering structural failures: The causes and results of failure in modern structures of various types. New York: Philosophical Library. Harland, D. M., & Lorenz, R. 2005. Space systems failures: Disasters and rescues of satellites, rockets and space probes. Berlin: Springer. Hetzel, G. H., Zhao, W., & Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 1993. Identifying hazards and causes of accidents on Virginia farms. Blacksburg, Va.: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. History Channel 2008. Engineering disasters. New York: A & E Television Networks. Kaufman, C., Lau, E., Nash, B. M., Raphael, M., Robinson, B., & History Channel 2004. Engineering disasters: 11. United States: A & E Television Networks. Kimoto, S. 2009. Predication and Simulation Methods for Geohazard Mitigation: Including CD-ROM. Abingdon: CRC Press [Imprint. Kletz, T. A. 2009. What went wrong?: Case histories of process plant disasters and how they could have been avoided. Burlington, MA: Gulf Professional Pub. Lancaster, J. F. 2000. Engineering catastrophes: Causes and effects of major accidents. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Lawson, D. 2005. Engineering disasters: Lessons to be learned. New York: ASME Press. Leigh, J. P. 1995. Causes of death in the workplace. Westport, Conn: Quorum Books. National Career Consultants 1973. The Fascinating world of civil engineering. Dallas: National Career Consultants. Nishida, S. 1992. Failure analysis in engineering applications. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Petroski, H. 1994. Design paradigms: Case histories of error and judgment in engineering. Cambridge [England: Cambridge University Press. Reese, C. D. 2012. Accident/incident prevention techniques. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis. Shappell, S. A., Wiegmann, D. A., & United States. 2003. A human error analysis of general aviation controlled flight into terrain accidents occurring between 1990-1998. Washington, D.C: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aerospace Medicine. Shepherd, R., & Frost, J. D. 1995. Failures in civil engineering: Structural, foundation, and geoenvironmental case studies. New York: The Society. Read More