Engineering Mistakes That Led To The 1907 Quebec Bridge Collapse

A Considerable number of failures emanating from engineering errors act as a catalyst for change in standards of practice and hence formulate chances of creating better ethical practices for the profession. When evaluating ethics in engineering, it is important to distinguish between ethics of engineering and ethics in engineering. Basically, ethics in engineering examines personal behaviors of an engineer. On the flipside, ethics of engineering encompass the role of engineers within the industry, morals of their organizations and those of engineering societies, and ethical obligations surrounding the profession.

This paper analyses a disaster case surrounding the 1907 Quebec bridge collapse and ethical issues surrounding the whole misfortune

Constructing the Quebec bridge, one of the biggest bridges in the world as much as it appears fascinating, it was a daunting project. In the commencement of 1907, operations connected to the construction of the biggest cantilever bridge were on climax. However, no one imagined that the bridge would collapse after a few months of hard work. The Quebec bridge project was basically the idea of the Quebec bridge company in conjunction with entrepreneurs from around the Quebec region.

The idea of constructing this bridge was backed up by the need to ease transportation of goods to the shores of the southern region of the city which until that time, ferries were the only means of transport (Schultz, & Gastineau, 2016).. The project and idea of the bridge started back in 1903 when Phoenix bridge company was contracted to come up with a design of how the bridge would look like. More on this is that Theodore cooper, a renowned designer from the United States was contracted to lead the designing team. Right from the beginning, the bridge presented difficulties.

Observing the fact that there was need for vessels to pass on flowing waters of the St. Lawrence river, constructing this bridge turned out to be a problematic endeavor. To provide space for vessels, the bridge wasn’t supposed to present a distance of 150 meters from the waterway. Additionally, because the bridge was expected to be multifactional, the width was another disturbing aspect. The bridge was designed in a way that it would hold two roadways, duo railway tracks, and two street car tracks.

Therefore, it was to be constructed on not less than a width of 67 feet. This width seemed unrealistic to the designers and the engineers on operation; however, they were determined to see to it that they completed their mission. The width, length, and height above the water and observing the fact that water vessels were expected to be passed underneath, meant that the designing and construction of the bridge required systematic work and determined individuals, which it lacked.

The whole course of constructing one of the biggest bridges couldn’t have been judged by the process but via the effect it would have after completion or the repercussions of failing. The tragedy and misfortune of the Quebec bridge can best be described from the perspective of the Utilitarian Consequentialist Ethics theory. Generally, the consequentialists theory is a concept that insists on evaluating the effectiveness or wrongness of something as per the importance of the act. For example, the theory can be underlined where an action is considered significant if it can present huge advantages that can cater for a considerable population.

The aftermath and results of the first and second Quebec projects present the difference on the manner in which the two are viewed. If in any case the foremost project did not fail, Cooper and his team would remain to be Icons of celebration even in the contemporary world. However, their failure in constructing the bridge still instigates a mention in their names. It is undeniably clear that choices have consequences, and the choices made by Cooper and his team led to failure and collapsing of the Quebec bridge. Moreover, the endeavor and effort of the team to construct one of the largest bridges in history is not remembered; instead, what lingers in the minds of people is one of the biggest mistakes ever committed in history.

To begin the construction, the delegated engineers were required to exhibit that they were potentially capable of handling and completing the task. Towards the culmination of 1903, Phoenix company presented the first design of the bridge. After presenting it to Cooper who happened to be the senior supervisor, he approved the design and did not cite out even a single change or mistake. The drawing design was an important aspect of the whole project, it was the map and therefore if there were mistakes in it as a map, then the engineers were exposed to the susceptibilities of loosing directions. For Cooper and the whole team, it was a naïve decision to chip away with counterchecking the design while in real sense they understood the consequences of such a mistake. To begin with, the possible weight of the dangling bridge was approximated with close reference from the design.

Therefore, it was upon the team to discuss and see to it that they held accurate measures but it is clear that nothing of that sought happened. This instance clearly presents lack of teamwork. Reports present that even before Cooper approved the design, the construction had already started. Regrettably, Cooper realized that the approximated weight of the bridge particularly on the lower side had moved beyond the engineering limit. Cooper’s choice at this moment remains to be one of the principle decision and choices which could have saved the bridge and the millions of dollars that had been invested on it (Santerre, Smadi, & Bourgon, 2016).

Ethical Aspects

There are a number of ethical concerns that this case present. The most notable is that twists went ignored for a long time. The engineers in the site quarreled amongst themselves as to the cause. Despite the fact that workers who did not report to the site as a result of deformations lacked the practical knowledge, it appears like they were the only ones who clearly understood what was going on with the bridge. Engineers and other people in charge ought to listen the ideas of laborers, because most of them clench years of hands on experience.

Another ethical concern raises from Cooper’s refusal to having an autonomous engineer review his work. No one questioned his choices and decisions even in when they appeared vague. An independent advisor may have not consented the larger than normal design. some of the errors that showed up including underestimated loads and the failure to re-examine the weight of the load could have been noticed prior to the misfortune. The inference of this is that Cooper’s engineering expertise turned out to be the lone factor that was depended on for pledging structural reliability of the bridge (Trabia 2016).

With a clear glimpse of what this project represented, it is undeniably clear that it deserved ultimate attention and seriousness. Cooper’s ignorance and failure to focus on small things led to the whole disaster. In his situation, he had only one choice, to do away with the whole scheming project and begin from scratch. However, he embraced the project and assumed that an additional weight of 8 million pounds was bearable in engineering. From this instance, one can reason that, with extensive knowledge in engineering, Cooper understood the repercussions of failing in this project.

However, despite being acquainted, he wanted to serve his quest and had the ego of being the best designer (Gjelsvik, & Gandhi, 2017). Looking at this instance from the consequentialist ethics theory perspective, it is undeniably clear that Cooper was much into furnishing his profile and forgot the significance and essence of the project. As such, failure was instigated by lack of professionalism. Just like any other profession, engineering has a protocol and a code of ethics that needs to be followed.