by Rick Stryker
What are the permit and design issues you should consider for constructing
a new cabin, health center, or climbing wall at your camp? And beyond
construction matters, what are the most innovative site development, maintenance,
and facility management objectives to achieve? “Building Principles,”
a new regular column, will appear in every issue to keep you informed
of the elements that directly relate to best business practices in facility
management.
We've all heard the expression about getting something for nothing. More
often than not, you end up with something that's worth what you paid.
Like anything else, however, unforeseen circumstances can cost the organization
much more in the end than may have been saved. Let's illustrate this condition
with a hypothetical example . . . Suppose that the program staff has lobbied
for high ropes course elements and a climbing tower for several seasons.
After much consideration, the project gets approval. The catch is that
the budget is not sufficient to cover all the construction costs. Being
the resourceful individual that defines a great career camp person, the
program director begins to solicit help and donations from every source
imaginable. The most attractive offer comes from a local power company
that offers to supply and install utility poles for the supports. (Sound
familiar, yet?) The first element will be a zip line.
After the poles are installed by the power company, the ropes course
installer comes, places the hardware, and completes the construction of
all the elements. The “project ”is certified complete by the installer.
The staff is trained, camp opens, and the new zip line is the biggest
hit in years. Then the unthinkable happens. A support has toppled over,
and a camper or staff member has been injured.
Identifying Liability
Who “owns ”the liability? Obviously, nobody involved is going to rush
to the front of this line! The ropes company will reasonably assert that
it had no part in placing the poles. The power company will contend that
the poles and labor to install them were a donation. The poles had been
placed with the customary and reasonable care associated with the installation
of power poles. They had no other directions upon which to base their
installation. The prevailing question will be, “Who certified the adequacy
of the foundation and structural components of this high-risk attraction?”
Utility-pole versus structure installation
On the surface, this looks very simple, and the applications appear to
be obvious. The fact is, though, that the design considerations associated
with the installation of utility poles are vastly different from those
associated with the installation of a structure. Wooden power poles are
installed with the intended use of supporting wires that are mounted either
directly to the pole itself or to a crosspiece. It may also be assumed
that a transformer (or some other heavy, stationary piece of equipment)
will be mounted on the pole at some time in the future. All of these weights
(“loads”) are still vertical (“dead”) and are ultimately held in the air
by the interaction between the pole and the soil beneath and around the
pole.
Zip-line supports
In the case of a support for a zip line, the loads are highly variable
and are comprised of a combination of live and dead loads that are not
always acting directly towards the ground. The drawings in Figure 1 are
known as “free body diagrams, ”and attempt to simplify the systems into
sketches that show where and how the forces act on the poles.
Some of the considerations that should be part of the zip-line design
include:
- The physical properties of the pole (there are no universal standards
for utility pole length, diameter, or strength),
- The physical properties of the soil in which it is embedded (soils
vary considerably over surprisingly short distances),
- The live and dead loads that are expected to act on the pole and
its foundation,
- The dynamic (active) behavior of the entire system when it is being
used as it was intended, and
- The dynamic behavior of the entire system when it is being used as
it was not intended.
This last point is one that may be easily overlooked. The potential effects
of immediate and long-term misuse or misbehavior of participants should
always be a consideration of the designer.
Conducting a Risk Analysis
To illustrate how these factors come into play, consider extreme examples.
For instance, it is easy to imagine that if the pole is set in a swamp,
the ability of the soil to resist the toppling of the pole is much lower
than if the pole is set at the same depth in a well-drained, tightly compacted
clay soil. A complete design, then, should be a series of linked, cyclic
questions and answers. What if we were to set the pole 30' deep? Is that
enough? Perhaps. Is it too much? Perhaps. The answers to these questions
depend on repeated and cyclic revisiting of those points listed earlier.
As another example, consider the design requirements of modular playground
equipment. The Consumer Product Safety Commission and Underwriters Laboratories
test for pinch points and places for limbs and heads to be caught, among
other things. We expect nothing less. And yet, in the zip line example,
an “attractive nuisance” has been installed with little more than crossed
fingers and a desire to make camp more challenging, attractive, inviting,
and exciting.
All of this is not to say that every project requires the time and expense
of an engineer or architect. Many improvements can be made very successfully
by placing other contractual requirements on the firm doing the work.
Paving projects are a great example. The astute owner can prepare a scope
of work, set warranty requirements, and carefully select a contractor
in such a way that the road surface lasts for many, many years. In this
case though, the largest exposure for a substandard job is the cost and
value of the work itself. Can we say the same about every project where
we undertake improvements?
Safeguarding Camp Facilities
The camp community is especially aware of the potential for harm to their
clientele. This is evidenced by the seminar topics at the national and
regional conferences, as well as the ongoing Web discussions about the
need for access to “instant” background checks of potential camp employees.
The camp insurance folks have worked diligently to help camp operations
identify and minimize exposure to risks and liability. But what about
the liability and risk exposure associated with the physical facilities,
which support the programs?
Engineers and architects are closely regulated by state governments and
the insurance industry for a reason. These professions are bound, in varying
degrees, to the open-ended requirement to safeguard the health, safety,
and welfare of the public. By allowing structures, buildings, roadways,
and water and sewage systems to be installed or modified by unlicensed
individuals, camp owners are exposing themselves to ever-increasing risk.
In this day and age of litigation over coffee that's too hot, everyone
is increasingly focused on liability reduction. The facilities that serve
our clients should receive no less consideration.
Originally published in the 2001 November/December
issue of Camping Magazine. |
