Gryphon 1962 - Adm.monash.edu.au

FOREWORDBY THE PRINCIPALMelbourne ha s rec en tly had a ra re experi encethe failure of a maj or engineering st ructure. Therea rc lessons to be learnt fro m a cons id era tion ofthis eve nt. The re are techn ica I lessons, of course,but I am conce rn ed here with broader questi on s.In th e first place, th e failure em p hasises thehe avy resp ons ibil ity wh ich rests on th ose who carryout the d esign and cons tru cti on of large works.The very ra rity of failure may lead us to tak e forgra nt ed th e high sta ndards o f pro fessional corn ­petence and rel ia bi lity which h a ve been ach ieved .Another important lesson is th at mathematicalanalysis and established th eory alone a re notsu fficien t for the solu tion of engineering problems.We are still awaiting the findings of th e Ro yalCo m rn lssion on the exac t causes of failure o f theKing Street Bridge, but it wi ll be surp risin g ifthe mathematical analysis wa s at fault. Mathematicsis a powerful a id in determ ining rhe consequenceswhich follow from gi ven hypotheses; butestablishment of valid h ypotheses is th e core or theengineer's problem, and it demands the exercise o fall his skill and judgem ent. It is not alw a ys el!syfor a student to appreciate this situ ation fully, asth e bulk of th e time in hi s academic training mustbe devoted to giving h im an understanding of basi ctheory and mathematical analysis. These are essen ­tial tools, but th ey must be a p p l ied with enginee r­ing judgement devel oped through years of experi ­ence,Next, I want to consider the question of theattitude we should ad opt if the R oyal Commissionfind s tha t an h on est e rror has been made by peoplewh o were conscientiously ca rrying out their duti es.Should we be just a little please d at the ir di s­co m fitu re? Should we be wise after the event andfeel that we should n ever have made sim ila r mi s­takes in sim ila r circumstances?.\Ir. A. E . Lambert.Or shou ld we feel gen ui ne sym pa thy fo r menwho ha ve carried O Ul difficult tasks to th e best o fthei r abi lity bu t h ave made some errors of judgement?Sho u ld we, in all humil ity. realize tha t we our ­selves shall be ex tremely fortuna te if we go t h rougho ur car eers wit hou t m aking any serious m ista kes.or if a ll o ur m ista kes are corrected by ou r colleagues before being translated in to a ction ?I lea ve you to ans we r th ese queslion s, bUI hastento add that I am n ot su ggest lllg that we sho u ldcondone a ny deliberate malpracti ce. o r negli gence,or gross incompetence, if rh e Com m issio n sho u ldfind th at this has occurred.As I write this, th e Royal Commission ha s notyet mad e its in vestigation, but pape rs a nd articlesp ublished before the failure mak e it clear thatthose responsible kn ew th at a p roblem ex iste d a ndbe lieved th at th ey h ad found a solut ion. In spiteof th e difficu lt ies, they were willing to attemptso meth ing new . All progress depends upon suchenterprise, an d even careful p rel iminary investigationwill not a lways en sure accurate pred ict ion ofwh at will happen in the field. Let us be proudthat most o f our progress is achieved withou tdi sast er, a nd let us not place 10 0 much emphasiso n a bso lu te sa fety if it must be at th e cost ofstag n at ion .Let us, th en, await th e find ings of the Ro yalCo m miss ion with a gen u ine a nd humble desire 10learn all we ca n from past mistakes a nd a d etermination10 a pp ly th is and other lesson s in aneffort to avoid making mistakes ourselves in anytask s that may be entrusted to us in th e future.And let us not be too severe in condemnation ofa ny erro r of judgement that may have OCCUlTed inspite o f serious attempts to make the best use ofmodem techniques rather than follow old methodstoo slavishly.