Roko ignored vital security measures
Oct 22, 2008
EDITOR—The accident that has just happened on the NSSF construction site is quite unbelievable. In this case, both the consultant and the constructor (ROKO) are to blame. In the first place, the consultant should have looked out for the best constructive method, as far as basement excavations are
EDITOR—The accident that has just happened on the NSSF construction site is quite unbelievable. In this case, both the consultant and the constructor (ROKO) are to blame. In the first place, the consultant should have looked out for the best constructive method, as far as basement excavations are concerned.
With the developments in the area of geotechnical engineering, one can afford to construct the supporting walls in the ground, before the commencement of any excavations. The most suitable example can be the Milan walls.
This type of wall can be constructed to the depth of around 30 metres or more, prior to any basement excavations. After all this, one can comfortably start excavating without any fear of slope failure. On the other hand, Roko is to blame for having failed to carry out security measures on the site. On a big project like that, the consultant is supposed to have provided a Risk Likelihood Project to ROKO.
This type of project stipulates all the measures that have to be taken to avoid any accidents on site. I think the root problem to all this is the failure to use the right people to do the right things.
At times companies don't want to hire specialists in order to have larger profits, but like in this case, whoever is directly guilty will have to spend a lot of money on compensations.
Eng. Samuel R. Musobozi
University of Puebla
Mexico
With the developments in the area of geotechnical engineering, one can afford to construct the supporting walls in the ground, before the commencement of any excavations. The most suitable example can be the Milan walls.
This type of wall can be constructed to the depth of around 30 metres or more, prior to any basement excavations. After all this, one can comfortably start excavating without any fear of slope failure. On the other hand, Roko is to blame for having failed to carry out security measures on the site. On a big project like that, the consultant is supposed to have provided a Risk Likelihood Project to ROKO.
This type of project stipulates all the measures that have to be taken to avoid any accidents on site. I think the root problem to all this is the failure to use the right people to do the right things.
At times companies don't want to hire specialists in order to have larger profits, but like in this case, whoever is directly guilty will have to spend a lot of money on compensations.
Eng. Samuel R. Musobozi
University of Puebla
Mexico