More FIGG Engineering Failures 4

[EPCI-Steel]

I have not seen it mentioned anywhere on this board, but FIGG has been involved in two major bridge debacles here in Texas. They designed two new cable stayed ship channel bridges, one in Houston and one in Corpus Christi, each with a total construction cost just shy of 1 billion. Well the construction had been halted on both bridges (each close to 50% complete) for most of the year due to major design deficiencies and FIGG has been removed from both projects by the State after being given a chance to prove or modify their design in light of the third party reviews.
New engineering companies have taken over the projects, and currently everything is in stasis as the way forward is decided. I drive by these monuments to wasted tax dollars frequently and it just makes me angry.
I'm posting on my phone so no article links right now but a quick Google search will waste hours of your time with the reports that have already been made public detailing the shortcomings of the current design.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

seems to me that you have a compete lack of design codes or of a system to ensure compliance if you actually have them and any one reads them .

 

[EPCI-Steel]

I do not design bridges or concrete structures. However I believe the design of concrete structures (from what interaction I have had) is codified very well here in the US. The design of large load bearing pile groups maybe less so, and a bit open to interpretation when backed by research and testing. For large public projects I believe that a third party review is mandatory and under the contract of the designer. These were being designed well before the FIU bridge collapse, and the third party review in that case was inadequate.

I would appreciate the input of someone who works in this field to verify or correct my beliefs, and just weigh in and add some insight.
Thanks

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

i actually was involved years ago in the AMSE codes for nuclear pressure vessels.

It was nothing important but for the failure of loading lugs so they went by ductile tearing instead of fast fracture.

from my knowledge if that side of things are the same the codes are pretty international and have been for the last 20 odd years.

The appliance and QA of a design though will be marketable different

 

[FacEngrPE]

I do not think that the structural engineering / construction industry has the equivalent of the ASME Code stamp shop

https://www.asme.org/certification-accreditation.

It takes considerable effort to obtain and keep the right to apply the mark to product.
Fred

 

[EPCI-Steel]

Houston Ship Channel Bridge

https://www.worldhighways.com/wh10/news/new-designer-houston-channel-bridge

 

[EPCI-Steel]

Corpus Christi Harbor Bridge

https://www.constructiondive.com/ne...0m-harbor-bridge-replacement-in-texas/582424/

https://www.caller.com/story/news/2...actor-suspend-design-work-project/4196735002/

 

[thebard3]

From the worldhighways article--
"In July this year, the US Federal Highway Association suspended FIGG Bridge Engineers from participating in federally-funded projects and proposed a 10-year suspension."

Sounds to me like there's no choice but to replace them, design deficiencies or not.

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

 

[EPCI-Steel]

Rereading the articles about the Corpus Christi Harbor Bridge, I do not see any allegations of inadequate design. Infact the reason for replacement in not clear at all. The have been a few references to redesign by the new engineer, but nothing clear.

 

[CWB1]

Not to let Figg or other contractors off the hook, but I can't help notice once again that there is no mention of govt regulators being held accountable. Much like sex, engineering projects take two to tango.
Regulators failing to notice major design flaws and halt the project until after hundreds of millions of dollars were spent and construction was well underway makes one wonder what they were actually regulating beyond the breakroom donuts. I cannot speak much to civil projects beyond thirdhand discussion with friends and experience as an elected local official approving similar projects, but IME the engineer/contractor always seems to catch 100% of the blame. When I worked in defense I was always amazed by the incompetence and lackadaisical attitudes within govt. I would point out a contractor's padding of costs via needless design of custom fittings or other nonstandard parts and not only did nobody care, in several cases I was rebuked for suggesting a regulatory or procurement engineer should address the issue to save money and simplify logistics. As both a taxpayer and engineer, its disgusting.

 

[JohnRBaker]

Not sure if FIGG has had projects outside of Texas where there were problems, but the comment about lack of 'government regulators', well the cases cited so far ARE all in Texas, a state not particularly noted for either effective regulations nor stringent followup when needed. Whenever there's been a disaster in Texas, be it the result of nature or man, eventually the issue of poor regulations or poor enforcement becomes one of the topics of the discussion, and often for good reason.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[thebard3]

The NTSB report of the FIU bridge failure was very critical of Florida DOT lack of effective oversight.

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

 

[hokie66]

Regulators are not there to control quality, they only process paperwork and issue punishments when things go wrong.

 

[1503-44]

Dont get confused. Government regulators regulate. Regulation is not design. Regulation is not construction. Regulation is not operation. Regulators are not responsible for implementation and or compliance. It is the owner that must undertake compliance. That is left entirely up to the owner's engineer, contractor and inspection efforts. Under certain circumstances regulators might approve designs and constructions of certain devices, however such approvals are conditional and never absolve the owner from responsibility to ensure their designs serve their intended purpose. That is why we have "owner's engineers", not regulator's engineers. Occasionally regulators may have an inspection role, but still their inspectors are not responsible for the design of whatever it is that they might be inspecting. Responsibility for changes to an out of compliance device that they may order as necessary to meet regulatory requirements rests with the owner.

Regulators are not the design police. Does the police department make regulations? No. Is the FAA rebuilding Boeing 737 Max. No. Does your local building code inspector ever take over a deficient project, redesign and construct the corrections he ordered and do so at his own cost? No. Of course not. They regulate and ensure compliance, which even so, is still not a guarantee that anything they approve will actually work, or anything they won't approve wont work. That responsibility always rests solely with the owner and any engineer he may hire in that regard. Not that the current administration has any regard for anything other than eliminating as much of all of that as they possibly can.

If a division of government is the owner, your criticism are well deserved, otherwise it is most likely misplaced.

 

[djs]

Alas, the government regulators have it both ways: Authority without responsibility. I am familiar with several projects locally where a standard, common design was submitted, and the government required unique, untested changes which when implemented did not work. Did the regulators suffer? No the contractor forced to use unique untested design did.

In one local case, a water resivoir pond was deigned with rip rap covering the shores to prevent erosion. The state government rejected that solution (used world wide) and required a soil cement mixture covering. An unfortunate consequence to that "solution" was the buildup of water under the cement soil layer and above the clay impermeable layer. This caused the soil cement layer to crack.

 

[jgailla]

They should have known to use a drainage layer under the soil-cement.

 

[1503-44]

I do not believe that the "Contractor was FORCED" to do anything. If changes were made to the design that the contractor bid on, NORMALLY they are within their rights to refuse. And, if the contractor proceded with working on the changed portion, NORMALLY it was because the contractor AND the owner's engineer both agreed to the solution proposed by the regulating authority. I dont think that any regulator has the authority to require that anything actually be built at all, except perhaps to remedy an eminent danger to the public under an emergency situation. An owner NORMALLY has the right to not build anything at all, especially when his original design been changed. Walk away is the option of last resort. If you can prove that was not the situation and the contractor or owner was indeed "forced" to build something he/they did not agree was an appropriate solution and objected on those grounds, I would be very interested to see your evidence. I would think at least it would involve a number of highly unusual and extenuating circumstances.

Your example of a failing concrete slab over clay in an erosion zone is suggestive only of basic lack of proper engineering design by whomever made that proposal. I can see no reason why it would have been accepted by the owner or the contractor, except if the owner had poor engineering advice and somehow the contractor was absolved of all performance obligations and responsibility to do so in his contract.

 

[1503-44]

First, they should have known that riprap was the appropriate solution unless the original engineer of that design agreed to change it.

 

[CWB1]

Regulators are not the design police.

If they aren't then somebody needs to lose their license and be fired for dereliction of duty. On public works' projects like these elected officialdom says, "we want a white bridge." The municipality's engineer then creates the detailed project requirements, solicits bids/approvals, and is supposed to ensure that the build fulfills every requirement. Even on privately funded projects, the AHJ's engineer is ultimately responsible for reviewing every plan, approving the design, and inspecting basic construction quality.

 

[ATSE]

Quoting: "...I do not believe that the "Contractor was FORCED" to do anything..."
Do you have experience as a contractor in California? If you did, you would not have made that comment.
On municipal and state projects, the gov't regulators and gov't engineers and gov't inspectors and gov't legal staff and appointed officials (by the governor) are in the same department, many in the same building. This is easily verifiable.
No doubt many contractors are incompetent, but most government organizations are rarely an example for any engineering organization to follow. There are exceptions, but few.
The primary difference: when the contractor screws up, the contractor owns it. When the gov't screws up, they blame the contractor, and then the taxpayers own it.