<< but it WAS serviceable & safe.....average (or below average)
I fail to comprehend how a design so exotic that it was a near impossibility
to fabricate or erect could be deemed. "servicable". Not to belabor the
point, but could you please explain how you would have fabricated, shipped
and field erected these walkways and their components? I have saved the
origional ENR article on this failure and it gave graphic details of both
the original design and the alternate that failed. The alternate detail
doubled the forces on the walkway ends by splitting the connection. As I
recall, there were no web stiffners added to the boxed channels either. I
am at a loss to understand how this simple fact got by the detailers,
checkers and EOR.
My interest in this matter stems from the fact that this terrible accident
caused most engineers to include that nasty little clause in their specs
disavowing the AISC definition of responsibility for design. I agree with
the judge in that the only party likely to have knowledge of the forces
involved was the EOR. I also agree with his premise that responsibility in
such matters cannot be delegated.
Perhaps you see it differently?