Using the course material and readings from Lesson 1 and the NSPE Code of Ethics as a reference, write a case analysis for Case 4: "Citicorp," which may be found on pp 213 of the text. In your analysis, be sure to consider and comment on the relevance and impact of the following:

The three (3) types of responsibility (obligation, blame, and role) discussed in Chapters 3.1 & 3.2 / Lesson 1

The eight (8) Impediments to Responsible Action

The concepts of Reasonable Care and Good Works in Lesson 1 and Chapter 3.7

Case 4 in the textbook as shown below

William LeMassurier was understandably proud of his structural design of the 1977 Citicorp building in downtown Manhattan. He had resolved a perplexing problem in a very innovative way. A church had property rights to a corner of the block on which the 59-story building was to be constructed. LeMassurier pro- posed constructing the building over the church, with four supporting columns at the center of each side of the building rather than in the four corners. The first floor began nine stories above ground, thus allowing ample space for the church. LeMassurier used a diagonal bracing design that transferred weight to the columns, and he added a tuned mass damper with a 400-ton concrete block floating on oil bearings to reduce wind sway.

In June 1978, LeMassurier received a call from a student at a nearby university who said his professor claimed the Citicorp building s supporting columns should be on the corners instead of midway between them. LeMassurier replied that the professor did not understand the design problem, adding that the innovative design made it even more resistant to quartering, or diagonal, winds. However, since the New York City building codes required calculating the effects of only 90-degree winds, no one worked out calculations for quartering winds. Then he decided that it would be instructive for his students to wrestle with the design problem.

The student s call and discovery may have prompted this that LeMassurier had

made just one month earlier. While consulting on a building project in Pittsburgh, he called his home office to find out what it would cost to weld the joints of diagonal girders similar to those in the Citicorp building. Unsurprisingly, he learned that the original specification for full-penetration welds was not followed. Instead, the joints were bolted. However, since this still more than adequately satisfied the New York building code requirements, LeMessurier was not concerned.

However, as he began to work on calculations for his class, LeMessurier recalled his Pittsburgh discovery. He wondered what difference bolted joints might make to the building s ability to withstand quartering winds. To his dismay, LeMessurier determined that a 40 percent stress increase in some areas of the structure would result in a 160 percent increase in stress on some of the building s joints. This meant the building was vulnerable to total collapse if certain areas were subjected to a 16-year storm (i.e., the storm that could strike Manhattan on average once every 16 years). Meanwhile, hurricane season was not far away.

LeMessurier realized that reporting what he had learned could place his engineering reputation and his firm's financial status at substantial risk. Nevertheless, he acted quickly and decisively. He drew up a plan for correcting the problem, estimated the cost and time needed for rectifying it, and immediately informed Citicorp owners of what he had learned. Citicorp s response was equally decisive. LeMessurier s proposed course of action was accepted, and corrective steps were immediately undertaken, although the public was unaware of the problem. As the repairs neared completion in early September, a hurricane was reported moving up the coast toward New York. Fortunately, it moved harmlessly out over the Atlantic Ocean, but not without first causing considerable anxiety among those working on the building and those responsible for implementing plans to evacuate the area should matters take a turn for the worse. Although correcting the problem cost several million dollars, all parties responded promptly and responsibly. Faced with the threat of increased liability insurance rates, LeMessurier s firm convinced its insurers that a much more costly disaster might have been prevented because of his responsible handling of the situation. As a result, the rates were reduced.

e text book is shown below