Disabled ramp, St Clair Esplanade

Ok, I accept that engineering companies need not be registered, I do not accept that " just a technical failure in design or monitoring does not warrant a complaint, the complaint procedure is for ethical misconduct" as being grounds for dodging responsibility for selling an ineffective engineering design such as the St. Clair steps failure.

Part 3 Section 4 of the IPENZ Code of Ethics reads as "

A Member must—

a) not misrepresent his or her competence; and

b) undertake engineering activities only within his or her competence; and

c) not knowingly permit engineers whose work he or she is responsible for to breach paragraph (a) or paragraph (b)."

Now to me, the failure of a project that I have designed, means that I have undertaken work that is outside my competence.

The argument that this is just a technical failure and does not warrant a complaint is a nonsense statement. In addition to work failure due to engineering incompetence, there is obviously a breach of contractual law. The DCC have still failed to demonstrate that they have taken affirmative action to remedy the work failure, and properly represent Dunedin ratepayers. Why not?

@ Hype.O.Thermia

Exactly (thanks for the support), pretending is unethical, making a mistake is not. We don't know what actually happened, do we?!

Under current legislation, IPENZ is the official registrar  for Chartered Engineers in New Zealand.  Those appearing as CPEng do have liability for their work, have to be assessed for competence to get on the register and have to demonstrate competence on an ongoing basis.

A complaint leading to de-registration would be highly detrimental to the career prospects of a Chartered Engineer.

While I enjoyed Calvin's critique and agree that the ramp should go parallel to the sea-wall and emerge behind shelter on to Middle Beach, I can't help but point out the launch ramp for the Surf Lifesaving Club, which emerges perpendicular to the seawall directly onto the beach.  This appears to be in good order, despite taking the same battering.  Maybe we had better engineers in those days... 

Hypothetically, wouldn't it be a tad unethical to present oneself as a competent trained experienced engineer for purposes of obtaining payment, while being unaware of or incompetent to design a structure to withstand the 100% predictable forces affecting the utility of said structure?

@ The Watcher: IPENZ has only individuals as members not companies as you may see (watch) on the IPENZ website! In addition, just a technical failure in design or monitoring does not warrant a complaint, the complaint procedure is for ethical misconduct.

The St Clair beach step design responsibility and its failure obviously falls back to the DCC and thence to the Chartered engineering company, and then possibly the individually registered engineer employed by that company.

The engineering company and its engineers will be members of the Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand (IPENZ). I note that there are currently no complaints laid by the DCC against either the engineering company or the individual engineer responsible for the step design in the "Current complaints" register of the IPENZ.

Chartered professional engineers have legal responsibility for their actions. The absence of a complaint laid by the DCC indicates their failure to follow the legal process pertinent to such a contract. Why has this been allowed to happen? After the departure of the previous DCC CEO there was an acting CEO who should have picked up on this contract failure. Why did this not happen?

1. Why did the initial design fail? Pretty much common sense I would have thought.

If you are going to put stairs or a ramp down to a beach, first you start the necessary distance back and arrive at the beach in line with the wall. If that is not practical for space reasons then run them down on the angle parallel with wall, but, behind the wall, not in front. Exit on to the beach via a portal in the wall. Preferrably flare the sides of the opening to deflect water energy out from the wall.

Why? Well, if one knows anything about hydraulics he would know that when waves come in and meet an immoveable object such as the rocks at the pool end of the beach, the energy is diverted at an angle from whence it came. In this case it rushes along the face of the wall and meeting the underside of the ramp as it is, it drives in and, depending the strenght of the event heaves the ramp up and breaks it.

First time was barely three months after the wall was completed. It is simple physics. Energy =mass x velocity. The consultants should know that, and the council should hold them responsible. After all, they undertook the brief for professional fees to design and supervise the project.

I wrote to DCC's senior manager Graeme Hall in 2004 along these lines. Result, nothing, and no-one admitting anything. Mr Hall is now gone.

The ramp is still out of action, and the southern stairs look decidedly suspect as well. The balustrades ought to have been fabricated in 316 stainless steel, but was probably not considered on price. It would have been cheaper in the long run, and forever. Again, design fault by professionals. All the more reason why the DCC should employ its own engineer to over view all capital projects and specifications.

It seems to me that a huge amount of ratepayers money has been wasted in attempting to install permanent stair access down to the beach. Several questions demand answers because this council is certainly not doing the job.

1. Why did the initial and the follow-up designs fail?
2. Why has galvanized pipe been used repeatedly after failure?
3. Why has timber been used as a hand-rail instead of stainless-steel? The remaining timber has and is splitting.
4. Why not use a design where either gabions, or large rocks are installed in a manner so that the initial wave shock is absorbed by them and not concrete.

Public steps for access to beaches have been designed and constructed successfully for over 100 years around the world. Why are engineers in Dunedin not using designs that have proven to be successful? Do they lack the knowledge, or believe they can design a better concept? It is very obvious that they lack the expertise, and that council management lack the management skills that demand answers.