PowerPoint Presentation

BEKU 4583ENGINEERING ETHICS

TITLE: CASE STUDY ON THE HIGHLAND TOWERS TRAGEDY

GROUP MEMBERSKANTHAAN A/L SIVAPATHYSERAN A/L MANICKAMSHITIAN LING MUHAMMAD NAIM BIN MOHD RAZAKI

Highland Towers consisted of three 12-story blocks of apartments which known as Block 1, 2 and 3. It was constructed between years 1975 until 1978. It was once notorious 1980s and 1990s by wealthy people.On Saturday, 11th December 1993, after 10 days of rainfall, a landslide occurred resulting collapsing of Block 1. The tragedy cause 48 deaths with 2 survival. Introduction Chronology

Chronology

ANALYSIS OF MAJOR ISSUES SURROUNDING THE FAILUREConstruction of buildings on the edge of a hill was not suitable especially in equatorial and tropical climates with high rainfall.Building apartment on the hillside was also against the Land Conservation Act 1960. The acts prohibited the development carried out on the hillside greater than 18 degrees for reasons connected to the environment.

Causes of the Highland Towers TragedyHowever, based on the Technical Investigation Committee, the main cause of this incident was occurring landslide at the hill slope rear of the apartment building. This happen due to the:i) Development takes place at Hill International which is located on the hill near the condominium.ii) Surface water flow that occurs over this incident has caused soil erosion on hill slopes. iii) Rubble wall at the front and rear of the building causing slip because there is no support and resistance of the wall.

Causes of the Highland Towers Tragedy3) The negligible characteristic of human also causes to the this tragedy;

Management Not engaging a qualified architect, constructing insufficient and inadequate terraces, retaining walls and drains on the hill slope.

ArchitectNot having ensured adequate drainage and retaining walls were built on the hill slope adjacent to the Highland Towers site, not complying with the requirements of the authorities in respect of drainage, and not investigating the terracing of the hill lopes and construction of retaining walls.

Engineer Not having taken into account the hill or slope behind the Towers, not having designed and constructed a foundation to accommodate the lateral loads of a landslide and not having implemented that approved drainage scheme.

Local AuthorityNegligent in respect of its duties associated with building. For example in respect of approval of building plans, to ensure implementation of the approved drainage system during construction.

An Analysis of the Ethical Lapses3 years after Highland Towers (HT) tragedy, the owners of Block 2 & 3 issued a Writ against 10 defendants who were involved in this tragedy.Defendants:Highland Properties Sdn Bhd (developer)Architect Engineer Local AuthorityArab-Malaysian Finance Bhd (50 lots of bungalow land owner at rear)Tropic Company (clearing works on A-M land)Metrolux (owner of a land above A-M land)Project ManagerThe State Government of SelangorDirector of Lands & Mines of SelangorEngaged a non-qualified architectConstructing insufficientInadequate terraces, retaining walls and drains on the hill slope

First Defendant (developer)

Not having ensured adequate drainage and retaining walls were built on the hill slope near to the HT siteIn colluding with the First and Third Defendant (the Engineer) to obtain a Certificate of Fitness without fulfilling the conditions

Second Defendant (Architect)Supervised the building Constructed by laws and any conditions imposed Full responsibility for those portions they are concerned withNot having taken into account the hill slope behind the HTNot having ensured that the adjacent hill slope was stable

Collude with the First and Second Defendants to obtain the Certificate of Fitness

Third Defendant (Engineer)

Negligent in its duties associated with building. i.e. in respect of approval of building planProtected by reason of s95(2) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act.Fourth Defendant (Local Authority)Not be subject to any action, claim or liabilitiesWorks carried out with provisions of this Act or any by-laws madeInspection and approval by state and local authorities

Negligence for preventing water from flowing downhill to the A-M land and instead directing water into the East Stream, when they knew this would increase the water volume and inject silt into it.

Seventh & Eighth Defendant (Project Manager)

In 2000, High Court Judge apportioned the liability to the defendants with different rates. The case is then put to rest. However, the local authorities received the legal mandate that they are fully immune to liabilities. Even committing unreasonable negligence, they will be shielded by the law under Section 95(2).

Building Professionals require considering the vicinity of the site as well as the site itself in assessing safety-particularly in regard to adjacent hill slopes.

Building Professionals cannot hide behind limited scopes of engagement-these are a matter between themselves and their employer, but the scope of their duty owed to persons likely to be affected by their services is not so limited.

Building Professionals require ensuring that others engaged to do work likely to affect the structures they have been engaged to design/supervise are competent and will carry out their work in a workmanlike manner.

If Building Professionals hold themselves out to have expertise in a particular area when they are unqualified, their conduct will be measured against the ordinarily competent qualified practitioner of such expertise.

Building Professionals must ensure the law is followed, reporting to the authorities if necessary if their clients break the law, even at the risk of being discharged by their client.

Recommedation