CHAPTER 8:

Doing the Right Thing

CASE STUDIES
CAOILE | PERLADO |
SANTIAGO | SUMAPIG

5IE-B
THE CITICORP CENTER CASE
➤ In the early 1960s, Citicorp’s headquarters,
located at 399 Park Avenue in Manhattan,
became too small for the company’s ongoing
growth and expansion.

➤ At the same time, St. Peter’s Lutheran

Church, constructed in 1905 and in need of
serious repair without the funds to do so, began
to consider selling its valuable property on the
northeast corner of Lexington Avenue and 54th
Street.
THE CITICORP CENTER CASE
➤ Citicorp spent five years and approximately
$40 million to purchase all but one portion of
the entire block. The financial institution began
planning to erect a new building on the church’s
block.

➤ But there was one important condition of the

church’s sale of its property to the bank: the
bank would have to build a new church on
the same corner of the block with no
connection to the Citicorp building and no
columns were permitted to pass through the
new church to support the bank’s building.
THE CITICORP CENTER CASE

HUGH STUBBINS
➤ The conditions imposed presented a significant
architectural and engineering obstacle to constructing
a well-designed high-rise building on the site, and
required a team equal to the challenge.

➤ In the early 1970s, Citibank retained Hugh

Stubbins to be the architect of the new building.

WILLIAM LEMESSURIER
Stubbins had started his firm roughly 20 years earlier
and was experienced in designing high-rise projects.
In fact, it was during the construction of Stubbins’ first
high-rise building—the State Street Bank Building in
Boston—where his retention of, and relationship with,
structural engineer William LeMessurier began.
THE CITICORP CENTER CASE
➤ The proposed solution LeMessurier
sketched on the napkin was a chevron
pattern of structural bracing to transfer loads
to columns placed at the midspan of the
building’s exterior walls.

➤ His idea permitted each corner of the

building to cantilever out 72 feet, which
allowed Stubbins to delicately nestle the new
church building into the northwest corner of
the property while maintaining the use of the
entire lot for Citicorp.
 ➤ Although the 160-foot angled top was originally conceived to face west and
provide for residential penthouse setbacks, the City refused to grant a permit
for residential use. As a result, the configuration was re-oriented to the south
THE CITICORP CENTER
to maximize the potential for generating solar power.

➤ The Citicorp Center, completed in 1977, reportedly cost an estimated $195

million. At approximately 25,000 tons, the steel superstructure is considerably
lighter than other skyscrapers of similar size. Due to the relatively light weight,
building sway was a serious concern that LeMessurier addressed in the
design phase.
CASE
THE CITICORP CENTER CASE
 ➤ At the cost of $1.5 million, a
“tuned mass damper” was installed
in the angled top, the first of its kind
implemented in the United States.

THE ➤ This 400-ton block of concrete,

which floats on a film of oil, is
CITICORP computer controlled to absorb the
CENTER energy of the swaying structure
CASE and to reduce the building’s
wind-induced movement by as
much as 50%. At the time it was
designed and installed, no one
could have foreseen just how
valuable the tuned mass damper
might prove to be.
 ➤ In June 1978, Princeton University engineering
student Diane Hartley wrote her undergraduate
THE CITICORP CENTER
thesis, “Implications of a Major Office Complex:
Scientific, Social and Symbolic Implications” on The
Citicorp Center.

➤ In examining the structural engineering of the project, Ms. Hartley spoke to

a junior engineer at LeMessurier’s firm and requested the structure’s plans
and engineering calculations.

➤ She received the documents, and set about performing her own
calculations—which indicated that quartering winds produced significantly
higher stresses than those produced by winds hitting just one face of the
CASE

building. This structural behavior was different from a conventional building

with columns placed at the four corners, where wind perpendicular to one
face presents the worst loading case.
 ➤ Prompted by Hartley’s findings, LeMessurier found out that the chevron
beams had bolted joints instead of welded joints. Cheaper material had been
THE CITICORP CENTER
used without his knowledge. They weren’t as strong as they should be.

➤ His recalculations showed that quartering winds increased stress on the

pillars up to 40%.
CASE
8.1 The Citicorp Center met the applicable standards
and city codes. What might have gone wrong in the
design process for this building?
The problem that might have gone wrong was they also needed to address
the Church’s request:

the bank would have to build a new church on the same corner of the
block with no connection to the Citicorp building and no columns were
permitted to pass through the new church to support the bank’s
building.
8.2 What went right in the aftermath of the discovery
of the problem?
LeMessurier was praised since his acts were remarkable. He has been both
praised for his forthright honesty, and criticized for particular aspects of how he
handled the situation. But LeMessurier’s lasting legacy is one that challenges
design professionals to stand tall behind their work—in good times and bad—and
consider one’s ethical obligations to be of the utmost importance.
8.3 What might have happened if Citicorp had
immediately sued?
If Citicorp had immediately sued the public safety might have
not been addressed since filing a case would also be costly. It
is better to accept the fault for the safety of many
8.4 What role did the newspaper strike have in the
successful outcome of this case? Would things have
been different had there been more press scrutiny?
The newspaper strike made the public realize that not all
news that is being broadcast/printed is true for some
news are bias. Yes, id there been more press scrutiny,
the public wouldn’t trust the media anymore.
8.5 Is it acceptable to try to keep the news media in
the dark about this type of problem?

For us, it is not acceptable to keep the news media in the

dark about this type, we believe that this kind of case should
be news so that public will be guided to act ethically
8.6 Should there have been full disclosure of the hazards of the building to people who
worked in the building and people in surrounding neighborhoods? Is the answer the same
even if emergency-response agencies were well informed and an evacuation plan was in
place?

Yes, there should have been a full disclosure of the hazards of the building to
people who worked in the building and people in the surrounding neighbors. The
most important point in each of the engineering codes of ethics is the
responsibility of each engineer to “hold paramount the safety, health and welfare
of the public.” The concept is fundamental to the profession of architecture. For
example, in New York, the practice of architecture carefully describes professional
services “wherein the safeguarding of life, health, property, and public welfare is
concerned.” Similarly, in Ohio, the State’s Code of Conduct applicable to
architects states that the code of conduct is promulgated “in order to safeguard
the health, safety and welfare of the public”. Yes, the answer is still the same.
8.7 Use line drawing to examine the possible alternatives that LeMessurier had when he
discovered that the building was not as strong as it should have been. Identify other
alternatives that he had, and decide if there were other ethically acceptable possibilities.

The fact that the capacity of the connections was

under-designed became even more troubling when
combined with the failure to take into account additional
loads due to quartering winds. LeMessurier calculated
that the quartering winds increased the member stresses
by 40%. As a result of LeMessurier’s calculations,
thoughts of a very realistic potential structural system
failure and building collapse began to emerge.
THE SEALED BEAM HEADLIGHTS
CASE ● Automobile Fatalities increased in number during the
early years of the car
○ 1930- fatalities were from night time accidents
● Paul Goodell - street lighting engineering from General
Illumination Engineering Company
○ Put out a call for the development better automobile
headlamps in 1935.
○ Call led members of the Illumination Engineering
Society to seek better designs and technology
○ Year 1939, Engineers and headlamp suppliers
collaborated and introduced brighter, longer-lasting
headlamps and head lighting standards into
production
○ Headlamp design- sealed beam headlamp lasted 40
years before newer technology superseded it.
THE SEALED BEAM HEADLIGHTS CASE

● By 1933, there were already 24 million motor vehicles operating on the

highways in the United States, with over 31,000 fatalities and over 1
million injuries.
● In 1920, 35% of fatalities occurred during nighttime driving, but this
number had risen to 56% by 1933.
● In 1935, Paul Goodell, are street-lighting working for the General
Illumination Engineering Company, wrote that “visibility has become the
weak link in traffic safety, and, as illuminating engineers, we must
assume at least a portion of the responsibility in the improvement of
traffic hazards…”
THE SEALED BEAM HEADLIGHTS CASE
● Illumination Engineering Society (IES) - led the way in
developing and testing new designs and working with
state and federal regulators to set appropriate
standards.
● A headlamp consists of three main part
○ Lightsource
○ Reflectors
○ Lens
● The basic components have remained the same since
the invention of automotive lighting through today

● Early lamps - housed in a metal box, originally

designed to prevent the lamps from being
extinguished.
● Early reflectors - made of highly polished, silvered
brass formed into a parabolic shape.
● Early lenses - made of pressed glass and were
used to direct the light in the appropriate direction.
THE SEALED BEAM HEADLIGHTS CASE
Main problems existed in these early light design:

● The silver on the reflector tarnished very easily, leading to diminished

headlight intensity.( a study showed that light output was reduced by 60% in
automobiles only six months old).

● Problem with the light bulb - The filament had to be located at the focus of the
optical system with a very narrow tolerance or the light output would be
diminished or misdirected.

● By the mid-1930s, despite decades of effort, nearly all of the potential

performance had been gotten out of the traditional lighting system with still an
inadequate lighting situation on the roads.
THE SEALED BEAM HEADLIGHTS CASE

Potential solutions to the problem considered

● Fixed lighting of highways - very expensive, involves large upfront capital

costs to install lighting
● Severely limiting the amount of driving that could be permitted at night,
reducing nighttime speed limits to below 30 mph, or imposing large fines
for improper maintenance of automotive lighting systems by the owner.
● Innovative design for headlamps was sure to be hard for the automobile
manufacturers to introduce because during the depression the high costs
of retooling would be very hard to recover.
 THE SEALED BEAM HEADLIGHTS CASE
In 1937, Val Roper
● Research engineer at General Electric Company’s Automotive Lighting Laboratory in
Cleveland
● Outlined the requirements for an improved lighting system:
○ A higher wattage bulb
○ At least two beams (one for open road and the other for use when meeting another
car to reduce glare)
○ A noticeable difference between the two beams to aid the driver in selecting the
correct beam for the driving situation.
● Had been working on developing a brighter bulb

The reason brighter bulbs could not be produced was that the filaments could not be sealed
adequately.

Bright bulbs
● Considerable heat generated-developed cracks due to high thermal expansion of the
glass.
● Limit the bulb’s light output - prevented cracking; reduced the amount of heat generated.
 THE SEALED BEAM HEADLIGHTS CASE
Daniel K. Wright
● Lamb inventor that Roper was working with at GE in 1935
● Used borosilicate glass
○ Harder than the glass
○ Had a lower coefficient of thermal expansion
○ reduced bulb cracking

Still, there was a need for improvement in the parabolic reflector.

● The GE re-search team reasoned that glass could be used for the shape of
the reflector and then could be coated with metal to make it reflective.
● The problem with this idea was that the technology didn’t exist to make a
glass surface to parabolic shape reliably.
 THE SEALED BEAM HEADLIGHTS CASE
Coring Glass Works
● was able to produce a parabolic, aluminized reflector
● more accurate than the conventional design
● design of an appropriate lens to add the front surface
● developed a far superior lamp [meese,1982]
● headlight was technically feasible, but would be very difficult - the Depression was in full
swing.

Potential problem with GE’s customers (the headlamp manufacturers)

● GE had supplied the bulbs to manufacturers for incorporation into their headlamps
● New technology made the headlight a single unit - might have put these customers out
of business
● GE set up a demonstration of its new headlamp for its customers, as well as for the
chair of the Engineering Relations Committee of the society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) and representatives of Ford and General Motors.
● GE was very generous in its customers and others in the use of its sealed beam
patents.
THE SEALED BEAM HEADLIGHTS CASE

1939
● New standards had been adopted
● The work of the engineers was to help educate state and federal
lawmakers who were charged with developing new regulatory standards.
● The new headlights were introduced in the fall of 1939, and improvements
in Automotive lighting and highway safety were realized almost
immediately.
● They also worked with regulators and those who developed engineering
standards to ensure that this technology would be both accepted
engineering practice and required by regulation as soon as possible.
THE SEALED BEAM HEADLIGHTS CASE
The sealed beam lamp underwent some limited
improvement and change during the 40 years after its
introduction

1- has been developed in which a high- intensity

2-and become replaceable.
3-and sealed become separate component
from the reflector and lens of the headlight assembly.
 THE SEALED BEAM HEADLIGHTS CASE

Ethics of the Case

-GE looked beyond its potential gain and put the public
first
"Hold paramount the safety. health, and welfare of the
public."
 THE SEALED BEAM HEADLIGHTS CASE
(Case Questions)
8.8) Did GE have to inform its customers of the
new technology? Did it have to inform the SAE of
it?

Yes, GE needs to inform its customers and SAE

of the new technology since this will affect the
safety of the many.
 THE SEALED BEAM HEADLIGHTS CASE
(Case Questions)
8.9) What obligation did GE have to try to overcome the difficulties with
regulations and standards? Did it have an economic interest in seeing
these standards adopted?

GE could have kept this new technology strictly proprietary, But realizing
the potential for protecting the public safety, the engineers worked with GE
management to make the technology as widely available as possible to all
lighting and automobile manufacturers.
 THE SEALED BEAM HEADLIGHTS CASE
(Case Questions)
8.10) Could this type of industry-wide solution to a public safety problem
occur in today’s economic and legal environment?

The group believes that this type of industry-wide solution to a public safety
can still occur in today’s economic and legal environment but for practicality
reasons the group also think that companies would still consider gaining
profit from it since the aim of each company is to gain profit from their
extensive research and development.
 THE SEALED BEAM HEADLIGHTS CASE
(Case Questions)
8. 11) On August 21, 1998, newspapers began to report that
General Motors was about to introduce an infrared sensor and
display system in its Cadillac models, starting in the 2000 model
year. This is a heat-sensitive system that displays images of people
or animals in the darkness in front of an automobile. The display is
a small screen on the windshield. The range is up to 500 meters;
regular headlights have a range of about 100 meters. Research the
developments in this technology and see if GM approached the
introduction of this technology in the same way that GE approached
the introduction of the sealed beam headlight. Did GM take the
most ethical approach?
 THE SEALED BEAM HEADLIGHTS CASE
(Case Questions)
The group believes that GE still did the same way
that GE approached the introduction of the sealed
beams since it is a new innovation and it is for the
safety of many. They improved the range of
headlights from 100m to 500m, helped the public
see in the dark that is why the group believes that
GE still took the most ethical approach and this is
a new innovation for public safety.
AUTOMOTIVE CRASH TESTING
Since 1979:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA):

sets standards for automotive safety and helps develop

regulations for vehicles sold in the United States.

conducted tests of automobiles and trucks sold in the

United States.

- to determine how well they can withstand a collision.

AUTOMOTIVE CRASH TESTING
NHTSA crash-testing

- evaluates the tests for damage to the vehicle and for injury to the occupants.

- used to help set standards

- help consumers make better choices regarding what vehicle to buy.

Methodology:

1. Test dummies are strapped into a vehicle,

2. The vehicle is accelerated and crashed headlong into a barrier at 35 mph.
 AUTOMOTIVE CRASH TESTING
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS):

1. a nonprofit research organization funded by automobile insurance companies.

2. Developed a different automotive testing methodology

Since 1995, the IIHS has been conducting its own tests of automotive safety:

1. to find ways to make vehicles safer for their occupants

2. to minimize the damage in a crash
3. to save money for the insurance industry. The IIHS makes recommendations
4. to the automotive industry on ways to make their cars safer
AUTOMOTIVE CRASH TESTING
The IIHS uses a different type of methodology to crash-test vehicles

● uses an offset frontal crash test into a barrier that partially deforms during the
collision
● The IIHS feels that this type of test more closely simulates what happens in
real head-on collisions, since most head-on crashes are offset rather than
frontal.
AUTOMOTIVE CRASH TESTING
PROBLEM:

It seems that this is a small point and that the results of the two different types
of crash tests should be similar. However, in many cases, the test results are
very different.

Some vehicles that earned the highest safety rating in the NHTSA tests failed
miserably in the IIHS test and received the lowest rating.

Clearly, these two test methodologies highlight different safety aspects of the
test vehicles
AUTOMOTIVE CRASH TESTING
(Case Questions)
8.12) Does the IIHS have a conflict of interest in trying to work with the auto
companies to help improve

Maybe, since the IIHS uses a different type of methodology to crash-test

vehicles. Rather than a full frontal crash into a rigid barrier, the IIHS test
uses an offset frontal crash test into a barrier that partially deforms during
the collision, simulating the effect of the deforming of a vehicle that you
crash into. The IIHS feels that this type of test more closely simulates what
happens in real head-on collisions, since most head-on crashes are offset
rather than frontal.
AUTOMOTIVE CRASH TESTING
(Case Questions)
8.13) The recommendations of the IIHS are not legally binding on engineers,
whereas NHTSA regulations are. What should engineers and managers do
with the IIHS recommendations?

The Engineers and Managers should double check again their

recommendations and if they found out that that it really is not binding they
should report this to the government and ban IIHS from doing their own
crash testing since this will affect the safety of many citizens
AUTOMOTIVE CRASH TESTING
(Case Questions)
8.14) What responsibility do engineers have to go beyond the requirements
of the law or regulations when there is information available that hasn’t been
considered in framing the regulations?

One responsibility of engineers that needs to go beyond the requirements of

the law to ensure the safety of the public. As Engineers we should always
protect other lives. The Engineers should have reported the wrong
recommendations immediately to avoid any accidents
AUTOMOTIVE CRASH TESTING
(Case Questions)
8.15) Given the information developed by the IIHS, should engineers push
the federal government to incorporate new offset-crash standards into
automobile safety regulations? automotive safety?

Given the information developed by the IIHS, the engineers should first test
if the suggested incorporated new offset crash standards by the IIHS are
really applicable before setting the benchmark, this is to avoid
misinterpretation and confusion to the public.