presentation engineering professional practice 2011..case study...

1. JAYA SUPERMARKET
COLLAPSE
Group 3
Kartini Bt Muhamad
Kartini Bt Ibrahim
Lim Teck Chee

2. Objectives
To know the process and
procedure involved in
demolition of building.
To educate people about the
importance of adopting ethical
conducts to prevent disastrous
consequences

3. Introduction
 Structural demolition is defined as an
operation to bring down or destruct the
structure. It can be completely or partially
dismantling of a structure by planned and
controlled methods in order to ensure the
safety of work.
 Buildings, like all structures, are designed
to support certain loads without
deforming excessively.
 The loads are the weights of people and
objects, the weight of rain and snow and

4. Causes of Collapse
 The causes of building collapse can be
classified under general headings to facilitate
analysis.
 These headings are:
Bad Design
Faulty Construction
Foundation Failure
Extraordinary Loads
Unexpected Failure Modes
Combination of Causes

5. The Evaluation of Demolition
Techniques
 Demolition techniques for structure is greatly
affected by the structure form using
reinforcement concrete, pre stressed
concrete, plain concrete or masonry and the
size of the constructed structural.
 The location of the building, range of the
demolition either is whole or partial
demolition, grade of safety in work and the
time taken to demolish the structure will
greatly affect the evaluation if demolition
technique.
 The evaluation of demolition method is a very

6. Experience and knowledge play crucial
role in demolition engineering. Those
parameters will affect the decision of
engineer in determine the suitable method
of demolition
 Many demolition techniques had invented
and applied in this world such as using
machinery method, hand
method, chemical agent, explosion and
hydraulic demolition.

7. CASE
STUDY

8. Background of Case Study
 Built in 1974, it was one of the first supermarkets in
Petaling Jaya and has survived the many facets of
development until now.
 The shopping centre was involved in a controversy in the
early 1990s when it built its present 10-storey car park
extension - four storeys higher than what the building
plans approved by the then Petaling Jaya Municipal
Council (MPPJ).
 The building has four storeys of retail units, five storeys
of office units and four storeys of carparks. The building
has been earmarked for redevelopment, where it will be
demolished and rebuilt with better-planned features like
loading bays, access roads and security.

9.  One of the city’s earliest landmarks, Jaya
Supermarket, collapsed while demolition
work was going on.
 A 10-storey office block at the other end of
the building was not affected.
 It was on the process of the reconstruction of
a four-storey complex and basement parking
along Jalan Semangat.
 People around there saw that six cranes
falling down along with the building.
 Claimed the lives of seven Indonesian
construction workers. Three others were
injured.

10. Reasons of the Collapse
• Initial investigations showed that the
contractor, Pembinaan C.W Yap Sdn Bhd, did not get
the greenlight from the Department Of Safety and
Health (DOSH) to start demolition, although it did get
approval from the Petaling Jaya City Council to carry
out the work.
• Investigation also state that the contractor not use the
proper methods for demolish the building.
• Indicated overloading caused by heavy machines
may have triggered the collapse.
• Eight heavy demolition tractors were in the building
when the incident occurred.
• Nine mini excavators were to be hoisted on the
building’s two roofs — three at the ninth floor and six
at the fourth floor roofs.

14. Action Taken
• A month after the incident, the state government
blacklisted the owner and firms (6) involved in the
redevelopment of the Jaya Supermarket.
 Jaya Section Fourteen Sdn Bhd (land owner and
developer)
 DP Architects Sdn Bhd (that submitted the
building plan)
Meinhardht (M) Sdn Bhd (engineering company)
Pembinaan CW Yap Sdn Bhd (contractor)
 Jurutera Perunding Sdn Bhd (engineering
contractor)
 DLS Management (project manager).

15.  Syarikat Pembinaan C.W Yap Sdn Bhd, the
main contractor in charge of demolition and
reconstruction at the site was charged at the
Sessions Court under Section 17(1) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994.
 Sub-contractor Lian Hup Earth Work and
Construction Sdn Bhd was charged under
Section 15 (1) of the same Act for failing, as
employer, to ensure safety, health and welfare
of all employees during work.

16.  The companies face a fine not exceeding
RM50,000 or imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years or both upon conviction.
 Housing and Local Government deputy minister
Datuk Seri Lajim Ukin had said that the
information in the report was classified under
the Official Secrets Act (OSA).
 He slammed the classification of the report over
the incident that involved public interest, adding
that this had prevented parties affected by the
collapse to claim for losses.

17. Demolition Regulation
 Demolition is dealt with under the Building
Act 1984.
 Any person who intends to carry out the
demolition of a building must inform the local
authority.
 No one can start demolition work unless the
local authority has been notified.
 It requires six weeks prior notice to be given
to the Local Authority Building Control before
demolition begins.

18.  The Local Authority Building Control may
decide to issue a notice within six weeks on
receipt of the notification to specify conditions
that need to be met which may include
precautions to protect adjoining properties
and the public.
 Demolition work must also comply with the
Construction (Design and Management)
Regulations 1994 and a health and safety
plan produced by the principal contractor.

19. Summary of Cases Study
Did not get • Still continue to the demolition process
approval from
DOSH.
Not follow the
demolition • Building collapsed.
regulation
No
compensation • The victim cannot claim their losses
because no approval from DOSH.
for all the victims

20. No • Not consider the weight of
responsibility
on the safety in the crane that will effect
workplace the stability of the building
The fine • They will do the same
imposed is not
commensurate thing again .

21. Pictures

23. METHODOLOGY
USE TO
ANALYSE THE
CASE STUDY

24. Utilitarianism
• Definition: actions that serve to maximize human
well-being.
 Balance the need of society with the need of
individual and what will provide the most benefit to the
most people.
• Good: They will built a new supermarket that
give benefit to society (after demolition) complete
all the necessary things in daily live.
• Bad: Environmental Issues(not follow the
demolition regulation-collapsed)

25. Safety and Risk
Safety is a value of judgment ,but precise
SAFET because in many cases we can readily
Y distinguish a safe design from an unsafe One.
Risk is a key element in engineering design
RISK ,it is impossible to design anything to be
completely risk free.
Engineer have a responsibility to ensure that their work is
conduct in the most environmentally safe manner possible.
EXPLAINATI there was no mention of explosives being used in the
method statement.
ON The contractors structure were did not dismiss the
possibility of the building crumbling if the wrong anchors .

26. Virtue Ethics
• define as moral distinction and goodness.
Definition
• The engineers not monitor during demolition
process.
• They not consider the weight of the machine
Irresponsible • They not thinking about the environmental situation

27. No
• The victims cannot claim their losses.
sympathy
• Continue the demolition even though did
Impatient not have approval from DOSH.
• Do not care about their worker’s right and
Unconcern the people around the collapsed building.

28. Rights Ethics
• Definition: right ethics holds that people have
fundamental right that other people have a duty
to respect.
• From Case Study:
The right to have a comfortable supermarket.
The right to pay attention to our customers or
workers .
 cannot let our customers or workers suffer
because of our project.

29. Duty Ethics
• Definition: people have duties , an
important one is which is to protect the
right of others
• From this case study:
 Pay the compensation to the victims.
 be honest, careful, and trustworthy.
 willingness to admit mistake.

30. IEEE Codes Of Ethics
DEFINITION:
To accept responsibility in making decisions
consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the
public and to disclose promptly factors that might
endanger the public or the environment.
RELATE TO CASE STUDY:
The construction company should consider the
safety of their workers and public around their
project building .However, they didn’t consider the
consequences if their project failure and just think
to finish their work.

31. Discussion
• The government should take other pro-active
steps to avoid future disasters.
• They seem to be charged only under OSHA if
they are found guilty.
• The max fine is just RM50k or imprisonment for
a term not exceeding two years or both upon
convinction.That really is nothing for these
companies.
• Proper risk assessment is the most fundamental
issue of commitment to safety.

32. We can take a cue from neighboring Singapore.
 Singapore Building Control Act 1989
introduced several new measures to regulate
the construction industry.
 In regulating the design and supervision of a
construction building, a developer must appoint
an Accredited Checker,
 Their duties are to evaluate, analyze and
review the structural design in the plans of any
building works and perform such original
calculations.
 The Accredited Checker must be independent
in that he must have no professional or financial
interest in the building works.

33. Conclusion
• In summary, we are able to see and appreciate
that construction liability is a complex issue.
• Finding a cause of a collapse of a building is
never easy. For most of the time it will be a
guessing game or a process of elimination.
• With so many uncertainties and issues at
hand, it is best for the Government to take pro-
active steps to better regulate the construction
industry.
• The developments in Singapore would be a
good starting point for us to compare and
emulate.