When refusal criteria control pier depth targets

When refusal criteria control pier depth targets

Evaluation of Existing Foundation Conditions

When it comes to constructing piers, one of the critical factors that engineers must consider is the depth at which the piers are set. This depth is not arbitrary; it is determined by various factors, including soil conditions, load requirements, and safety standards. Among these factors, refusal criteria play a pivotal role in controlling pier depth targets. Refusal criteria refer to the specific conditions under which pile driving is stopped, typically due to the pile reaching a certain resistance level that indicates it has achieved the necessary bearing capacity.


The impact of refusal criteria on pier depth adjustments is profound. Essentially, refusal criteria serve as a benchmark for determining whether a pier has been driven to a sufficient depth to support the intended load without compromising stability or safety. If the refusal criteria are not met, it signals that the pier has not reached the required depth, necessitating further driving or adjustments.


One of the primary ways refusal criteria influence pier depth is through the process of load testing. During construction, engineers conduct load tests to assess the bearing capacity of the soil at various depths. If the test results indicate that the soil cannot support the intended load at the current depth, the pier must be driven deeper until the refusal criteria are satisfied. This iterative process ensures that the pier is set at an optimal depth that balances structural integrity with cost-effectiveness.


Moreover, refusal criteria help in standardizing the construction process. By providing clear guidelines on when to stop driving piles, they reduce the likelihood of subjective judgments that could lead to inconsistent pier depths. This standardization is crucial for maintaining uniformity across multiple piers within a project, especially in large-scale infrastructure developments like bridges or offshore platforms.


However, it is important to note that refusal criteria are not one-size-fits-all. They must be tailored to the specific project conditions, including soil type, water table levels, and environmental factors. Interior drain channels and sump pumps manage hydrostatic pressure waterproofing and drainage solutions push pier.. For instance, in areas with soft soils, the refusal criteria may require deeper piers to achieve the necessary stability, whereas in regions with hard rock, shallower depths might suffice.


In conclusion, refusal criteria are a fundamental aspect of pier construction that directly impact the depth at which piers are set. They ensure that piers are driven to a depth that provides the required bearing capacity and stability, thereby enhancing the overall safety and durability of the structure. By adhering to refusal criteria, engineers can achieve a balance between structural integrity and construction efficiency, ultimately leading to more robust and reliable piers.

When it comes to managing pier depth, one of the critical factors that engineers and construction professionals must consider is the refusal criteria. Refusal criteria refer to the specific conditions or thresholds that determine when a pier has reached its maximum depth and can no longer be driven into the ground. These criteria play a pivotal role in ensuring the structural integrity and safety of the pier, as well as the overall stability of the project.


In the context of pier depth management, refusal criteria are essential for several reasons. Firstly, they help to prevent over-driving, which can lead to excessive settlement, damage to the pier, or even failure. By establishing clear and well-defined refusal criteria, engineers can ensure that the pier is driven to an optimal depth, balancing the need for structural stability with the risks associated with deeper penetration.


Secondly, refusal criteria help to control the overall cost and schedule of the project. Driving a pier to an excessive depth can be both time-consuming and expensive, as it requires additional resources, equipment, and labor. By setting appropriate refusal criteria, project managers can avoid unnecessary costs and delays, ensuring that the project stays on track and within budget.


Moreover, refusal criteria are crucial for ensuring the safety and reliability of the pier over its intended lifespan. By carefully monitoring and controlling the depth of the pier, engineers can minimize the risk of settlement, erosion, or other forms of degradation that can compromise the structural integrity of the pier. This, in turn, helps to ensure the long-term safety and performance of the pier, as well as the overall project.


In practice, refusal criteria for pier depth management can vary depending on the specific project requirements, soil conditions, and other factors. Common refusal criteria may include maximum allowable settlement, maximum driving resistance, or a combination of both. These criteria are typically established through a thorough analysis of the project site, including soil testing, geotechnical investigations, and other relevant data.


In conclusion, refusal criteria are a critical component of effective pier depth management. By carefully establishing and monitoring these criteria, engineers and construction professionals can ensure the structural integrity, safety, and long-term performance of the pier, while also controlling costs and schedules. As such, refusal criteria should be a top priority for any project involving pier construction or rehabilitation.

Citations and other links

Design Calculations and Load Analysis

Implementing refusal criteria in structural repairs, especially when it comes to controlling pier depth targets, is a critical aspect of ensuring the longevity and safety of structures. Refusal criteria refer to the predetermined limits set for the depth and performance of repair methods, such as piering, to ensure they meet the required standards. Here are some best practices for effectively implementing these criteria:


Firstly, its essential to conduct a thorough site assessment before any repair work begins. This assessment should include soil testing and an evaluation of the existing structural conditions. Understanding the soil composition and the specific challenges posed by the site will help in setting realistic and effective refusal criteria.


Secondly, clear communication and documentation of the refusal criteria are vital. All stakeholders, including engineers, contractors, and clients, should have a clear understanding of what the refusal criteria entail. This includes the specific depth targets for piering and the methods that will be used to measure compliance with these targets.


Thirdly, the use of technology can greatly enhance the implementation of refusal criteria. Advanced monitoring systems can provide real-time data on the progress of piering, allowing for immediate adjustments if the work is not meeting the set criteria. This not only ensures compliance but also improves the efficiency of the repair process.


Regular training for the construction team is another best practice. Ensuring that all team members are well-versed in the refusal criteria and the importance of adhering to them is crucial for the success of the project. This includes understanding the implications of not meeting the criteria and the potential risks to the structures integrity.


Lastly, a robust quality control process should be in place. This involves regular inspections and audits to ensure that the work being done meets the refusal criteria. Any deviations should be addressed promptly to prevent long-term issues.


In conclusion, implementing refusal criteria in structural repairs, particularly for pier depth targets, requires a comprehensive approach that includes site assessment, clear communication, technological integration, team training, and stringent quality control. By following these best practices, we can ensure that structural repairs are not only effective but also sustainable in the long term.

Design Calculations and Load Analysis

Implementation Plan and Quality Control Measures

In the realm of civil engineering, the concepts of refusal criteria and pier depth optimization are pivotal in ensuring the stability and longevity of bridge structures. As we look towards the future, its essential to explore how these elements might evolve and adapt to new technologies, materials, and environmental considerations.


Refusal criteria refer to the point at which further driving of a pile into the ground is deemed unnecessary or unsafe. Traditionally, this has been determined by empirical methods, but future trends suggest a shift towards more sophisticated analytical techniques. Advanced soil testing, real-time monitoring, and the integration of machine learning algorithms are expected to refine the accuracy of refusal criteria. This evolution will not only enhance safety but also reduce construction costs by minimizing over-engineering.


Pier depth optimization, on the other hand, is about finding the ideal depth for bridge piers to ensure structural integrity while considering factors like soil conditions, water levels, and seismic activity. Future trends indicate a move towards more adaptive and resilient designs. The use of smart materials that can adjust to environmental changes, coupled with predictive modeling, will allow engineers to design piers that are not only stronger but also more sustainable.


The interplay between refusal criteria and pier depth is crucial. As refusal criteria become more precise, pier depth targets can be optimized more effectively. This synergy will lead to more efficient use of resources, reduced environmental impact, and ultimately, safer and more durable bridge structures.


In conclusion, the future of refusal criteria and pier depth optimization in bridge construction is poised for significant advancements. By embracing new technologies and methodologies, engineers can create structures that are not only robust and reliable but also environmentally conscious and cost-effective.

 

Ductile failure of a metallic specimen strained axially

Fracture is the appearance of a crack or complete separation of an object or material into two or more pieces under the action of stress. The fracture of a solid usually occurs due to the development of certain displacement discontinuity surfaces within the solid. If a displacement develops perpendicular to the surface, it is called a normal tensile crack or simply a crack; if a displacement develops tangentially, it is called a shear crack, slip band, or dislocation.[1]

Brittle fractures occur without any apparent deformation before fracture. Ductile fractures occur after visible deformation. Fracture strength, or breaking strength, is the stress when a specimen fails or fractures. The detailed understanding of how a fracture occurs and develops in materials is the object of fracture mechanics.

Strength

[edit]
Stress vs. strain curve typical of aluminum
  1. Ultimate tensile strength
  2. Yield strength
  3. Proportional limit stress
  4. Fracture
  5. Offset strain (typically 0.2%)

Fracture strength, also known as breaking strength, is the stress at which a specimen fails via fracture.[2] This is usually determined for a given specimen by a tensile test, which charts the stress–strain curve (see image). The final recorded point is the fracture strength.

Ductile materials have a fracture strength lower than the ultimate tensile strength (UTS), whereas in brittle materials the fracture strength is equivalent to the UTS.[2] If a ductile material reaches its ultimate tensile strength in a load-controlled situation,[Note 1] it will continue to deform, with no additional load application, until it ruptures. However, if the loading is displacement-controlled,[Note 2] the deformation of the material may relieve the load, preventing rupture.

The statistics of fracture in random materials have very intriguing behavior, and was noted by the architects and engineers quite early. Indeed, fracture or breakdown studies might be the oldest physical science studies, which still remain intriguing and very much alive. Leonardo da Vinci, more than 500 years ago, observed that the tensile strengths of nominally identical specimens of iron wire decrease with increasing length of the wires (see e.g.,[3] for a recent discussion). Similar observations were made by Galileo Galilei more than 400 years ago. This is the manifestation of the extreme statistics of failure (bigger sample volume can have larger defects due to cumulative fluctuations where failures nucleate and induce lower strength of the sample).[4]

Types

[edit]

There are two types of fractures: brittle and ductile fractures respectively without or with plastic deformation prior to failure.

Brittle

[edit]
Brittle fracture in glass
A roughly ovoid metal cylinder, viewed end-on. The bottom-right portion of the metal's end surface is dark and slightly disfigured, whereas the rest is a much lighter colour and not disfigured.
Fracture of an aluminum crank arm of a bicycle, where the bright areas display a brittle fracture, and the dark areas show fatigue fracture

In brittle fracture, no apparent plastic deformation takes place before fracture. Brittle fracture typically involves little energy absorption and occurs at high speeds—up to 2,133.6 m/s (7,000 ft/s) in steel.[5] In most cases brittle fracture will continue even when loading is discontinued.[6]

In brittle crystalline materials, fracture can occur by cleavage as the result of tensile stress acting normal to crystallographic planes with low bonding (cleavage planes). In amorphous solids, by contrast, the lack of a crystalline structure results in a conchoidal fracture, with cracks proceeding normal to the applied tension.

The fracture strength (or micro-crack nucleation stress) of a material was first theoretically estimated by Alan Arnold Griffith in 1921:

where: –

Brittle cleavage fracture surface from a scanning electron microscope
is the Young's modulus of the material,
is the surface energy, and
is the micro-crack length (or equilibrium distance between atomic centers in a crystalline solid).

On the other hand, a crack introduces a stress concentration modeled by Inglis's equation[7]

(For sharp cracks)

where:

is the loading stress,
is half the length of the crack, and
is the radius of curvature at the crack tip.

Putting these two equations together gets

Sharp cracks (small ) and large defects (large ) both lower the fracture strength of the material.

Recently, scientists have discovered supersonic fracture, the phenomenon of crack propagation faster than the speed of sound in a material.[8] This phenomenon was recently also verified by experiment of fracture in rubber-like materials.

The basic sequence in a typical brittle fracture is: introduction of a flaw either before or after the material is put in service, slow and stable crack propagation under recurring loading, and sudden rapid failure when the crack reaches critical crack length based on the conditions defined by fracture mechanics.[6] Brittle fracture may be avoided by controlling three primary factors: material fracture toughness (Kc), nominal stress level (σ), and introduced flaw size (a).[5] Residual stresses, temperature, loading rate, and stress concentrations also contribute to brittle fracture by influencing the three primary factors.[5]

Under certain conditions, ductile materials can exhibit brittle behavior. Rapid loading, low temperature, and triaxial stress constraint conditions may cause ductile materials to fail without prior deformation.[5]

Ductile

[edit]
Schematic representation of the steps in ductile fracture (in pure tension)

In ductile fracture, extensive plastic deformation (necking) takes place before fracture. The terms "rupture" and "ductile rupture" describe the ultimate failure of ductile materials loaded in tension. The extensive plasticity causes the crack to propagate slowly due to the absorption of a large amount of energy before fracture.[9][10]

Ductile fracture surface of 6061-T6 aluminum

Because ductile rupture involves a high degree of plastic deformation, the fracture behavior of a propagating crack as modelled above changes fundamentally. Some of the energy from stress concentrations at the crack tips is dissipated by plastic deformation ahead of the crack as it propagates.

The basic steps in ductile fracture are microvoid[11] formation, microvoid coalescence (also known as crack formation), crack propagation, and failure, often resulting in a cup-and-cone shaped failure surface. The microvoids nucleate at various internal discontinuities, such as precipitates, secondary phases, inclusions, and grain boundaries in the material.[11] As local stress increases the microvoids grow, coalesce and eventually form a continuous fracture surface.[11] Ductile fracture is typically transgranular and deformation due to dislocation slip can cause the shear lip characteristic of cup and cone fracture.[12]

The microvoid coalescence results in a dimpled appearance on the fracture surface. The dimple shape is heavily influenced by the type of loading. Fracture under local uniaxial tensile loading usually results in formation of equiaxed dimples. Failures caused by shear will produce elongated or parabolic shaped dimples that point in opposite directions on the matching fracture surfaces. Finally, tensile tearing produces elongated dimples that point in the same direction on matching fracture surfaces.[11]

Characteristics

[edit]

The manner in which a crack propagates through a material gives insight into the mode of fracture. With ductile fracture a crack moves slowly and is accompanied by a large amount of plastic deformation around the crack tip. A ductile crack will usually not propagate unless an increased stress is applied and generally cease propagating when loading is removed.[6] In a ductile material, a crack may progress to a section of the material where stresses are slightly lower and stop due to the blunting effect of plastic deformations at the crack tip. On the other hand, with brittle fracture, cracks spread very rapidly with little or no plastic deformation. The cracks that propagate in a brittle material will continue to grow once initiated.

Crack propagation is also categorized by the crack characteristics at the microscopic level. A crack that passes through the grains within the material is undergoing transgranular fracture. A crack that propagates along the grain boundaries is termed an intergranular fracture. Typically, the bonds between material grains are stronger at room temperature than the material itself, so transgranular fracture is more likely to occur. When temperatures increase enough to weaken the grain bonds, intergranular fracture is the more common fracture mode.[6]

Testing

[edit]

Fracture in materials is studied and quantified in multiple ways. Fracture is largely determined by the fracture toughness (), so fracture testing is often done to determine this. The two most widely used techniques for determining fracture toughness are the three-point flexural test and the compact tension test.

By performing the compact tension and three-point flexural tests, one is able to determine the fracture toughness through the following equation:

Where:

is an empirically-derived equation to capture the test sample geometry
is the fracture stress, and
is the crack length.

To accurately attain , the value of must be precisely measured. This is done by taking the test piece with its fabricated notch of length and sharpening this notch to better emulate a crack tip found in real-world materials.[13] Cyclical prestressing the sample can then induce a fatigue crack which extends the crack from the fabricated notch length of to . This value is used in the above equations for determining .[14]

Following this test, the sample can then be reoriented such that further loading of a load (F) will extend this crack and thus a load versus sample deflection curve can be obtained. With this curve, the slope of the linear portion, which is the inverse of the compliance of the material, can be obtained. This is then used to derive f(c/a) as defined above in the equation. With the knowledge of all these variables, can then be calculated.

Ceramics and inorganic glasses

[edit]

Ceramics and inorganic glasses have fracturing behavior that differ those of metallic materials. Ceramics have high strengths and perform well in high temperatures due to the material strength being independent of temperature. Ceramics have low toughness as determined by testing under a tensile load; often, ceramics have values that are ~5% of that found in metals.[14] However, as demonstrated by Faber and Evans, fracture toughness can be predicted and improved with crack deflection around second phase particles.[15] Ceramics are usually loaded in compression in everyday use, so the compressive strength is often referred to as the strength; this strength can often exceed that of most metals. However, ceramics are brittle and thus most work done revolves around preventing brittle fracture. Due to how ceramics are manufactured and processed, there are often preexisting defects in the material introduce a high degree of variability in the Mode I brittle fracture.[14] Thus, there is a probabilistic nature to be accounted for in the design of ceramics. The Weibull distribution predicts the survival probability of a fraction of samples with a certain volume that survive a tensile stress sigma, and is often used to better assess the success of a ceramic in avoiding fracture.

Fiber bundles

[edit]

To model fracture of a bundle of fibers, the Fiber Bundle Model was introduced by Thomas Pierce in 1926 as a model to understand the strength of composite materials.[16] The bundle consists of a large number of parallel Hookean springs of identical length and each having identical spring constants. They have however different breaking stresses. All these springs are suspended from a rigid horizontal platform. The load is attached to a horizontal platform, connected to the lower ends of the springs. When this lower platform is absolutely rigid, the load at any point of time is shared equally (irrespective of how many fibers or springs have broken and where) by all the surviving fibers. This mode of load-sharing is called Equal-Load-Sharing mode. The lower platform can also be assumed to have finite rigidity, so that local deformation of the platform occurs wherever springs fail and the surviving neighbor fibers have to share a larger fraction of that transferred from the failed fiber. The extreme case is that of local load-sharing model, where load of the failed spring or fiber is shared (usually equally) by the surviving nearest neighbor fibers.[4]

Disasters

[edit]

Failures caused by brittle fracture have not been limited to any particular category of engineered structure.[5] Though brittle fracture is less common than other types of failure, the impacts to life and property can be more severe.[5] The following notable historic failures were attributed to brittle fracture:

Computational fracture mechanics

[edit]

Virtually every area of engineering has been significantly impacted by computers, and fracture mechanics is no exception. Since there are so few actual problems with closed-form analytical solutions, numerical modelling has become an essential tool in fracture analysis. There are literally hundreds of configurations for which stress-intensity solutions have been published, the majority of which were derived from numerical models. The J integral and crack-tip-opening displacement (CTOD) calculations are two more increasingly popular elastic-plastic studies. Additionally, experts are using cutting-edge computational tools to study unique issues such as ductile crack propagation, dynamic fracture, and fracture at interfaces. The exponential rise in computational fracture mechanics applications is essentially the result of quick developments in computer technology.[17]

Most used computational numerical methods are finite element and boundary integral equation methods. Other methods include stress and displacement matching, element crack advance in which latter two come under Traditional Methods in Computational Fracture Mechanics.

Fine Mesh done in Rectangular area in Ansys software (Finite Element Method)

The finite element method

[edit]

The structures are divided into discrete elements of 1-D beam, 2-D plane stress or plane strain, 3-D bricks or tetrahedron types. The continuity of the elements are enforced using the nodes.[17]

The boundary integral equation method

[edit]

In this method, the surface is divided into two regions: a region where displacements are specified Su and region with tractions are specified ST . With given boundary conditions, the stresses, strains, and displacements within the body can all theoretically be solved for, along with the tractions on Su and the displacements on ST. It is a very powerful technique to find the unknown tractions and displacements.[17]

Traditional methods in computational fracture mechanics

[edit]

These methods are used to determine the fracture mechanics parameters using numerical analysis.[17] Some of the traditional methods in computational fracture mechanics, which were commonly used in the past, have been replaced by newer and more advanced techniques. The newer techniques are considered to be more accurate and efficient, meaning they can provide more precise results and do so more quickly than the older methods. Not all traditional methods have been completely replaced, as they can still be useful in certain scenarios, but they may not be the most optimal choice for all applications.

Some of the traditional methods in computational fracture mechanics are:

  • Stress and displacement matching
  • Elemental crack advance
  • Contour integration
  • Virtual crack extension

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ A simple load-controlled tensile situation would be to support a specimen from above, and hang a weight from the bottom end. The load on the specimen is then independent of its deformation.
  2. ^ A simple displacement-controlled tensile situation would be to attach a very stiff jack to the ends of a specimen. As the jack extends, it controls the displacement of the specimen; the load on the specimen is dependent on the deformation.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Cherepanov, G.P., Mechanics of Brittle Fracture
  2. ^ a b Degarmo, E. Paul; Black, J T.; Kohser, Ronald A. (2003), Materials and Processes in Manufacturing (9th ed.), Wiley, p. 32, ISBN 0-471-65653-4.
  3. ^ Lund, J. R.; Bryne, J. P., Civil. Eng. and Env. Syst. 18 (2000) 243
  4. ^ a b Chakrabarti, Bikas K. (December 2017). "Story of the Developments in Statistical Physics of Fracture, Breakdown and Earthquake: A Personal Account". Reports in Advances of Physical Sciences. 01 (4): 1750013. doi:10.1142/S242494241750013X. ISSN 2424-9424. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i Rolfe, John M. Barsom, Stanley T. (1999). Fracture and fatigue control in structures: applications of fracture mechanics (3 ed.). West Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM. ISBN 0-8031-2082-6.cite book: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ a b c d e f g Campbell, F.C., ed. (2012). Fatigue and fracture: understanding the basics. Materials Park, Ohio: ASM International. ISBN 978-1-61503-976-0.
  7. ^ Inglis, Charles E. (1913). "Stresses in a plate due to the presence of cracks and sharp corners" (PDF). Transactions of the Institution of Naval Architects. 55: 219–230.
  8. ^ C. H. Chen; H. P. Zhang; J. Niemczura; K. Ravi-Chandar; M. Marder (November 2011). "Scaling of crack propagation in rubber sheets". Europhysics Letters. 96 (3) 36009. Bibcode:2011EL.....9636009C. doi:10.1209/0295-5075/96/36009. S2CID 5975098.
  9. ^ Perez, Nestor (2016). Fracture Mechanics (2nd ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-24997-1.
  10. ^ Callister, William D. Jr. (2018). Materials science and engineering: an introduction (8th ed.). Wiley. pp. 236–237. ISBN 978-1-119-40539-9. OCLC 992798630.
  11. ^ a b c d Ewalds, H. L. (1985). Fracture mechanics. R. J. H. Wanhill. London: E. Arnold. ISBN 0-7131-3515-8. OCLC 14377078.
  12. ^ Askeland, Donald R.; Wright, Wendelin J. (January 2015). The science and engineering of materials (Seventh ed.). Boston, MA. pp. 236–237. ISBN 978-1-305-07676-1. OCLC 903959750.cite book: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  13. ^ An improved semi-analytical solution for stress at round-tip notches, a closer look
  14. ^ a b c Courtney, Thomas H. (2000), Mechanical behavior of materials (3nd ed.), McGraw Hill, ISBN 1-57766-425-6.
  15. ^ Faber, K. T.; Evans, A. G. (1 April 1983). "Crack deflection processes—I. Theory". Acta Metallurgica. 31 (4): 565–576. doi:10.1016/0001-6160(83)90046-9. ISSN 0001-6160.
  16. ^ Pierce, F. T., J. Textile Indust. 17 (1926) 355
  17. ^ a b c d Anderson, T. L. (2005). Fracture mechanics: fundamentals and applications (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL. ISBN 978-1-4200-5821-5. OCLC 908077872.cite book: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Further reading

[edit]
  • Dieter, G. E. (1988) Mechanical Metallurgy ISBN 0-07-100406-8
  • A. Garcimartin, A. Guarino, L. Bellon and S. Cilberto (1997) "Statistical Properties of Fracture Precursors". Physical Review Letters, 79, 3202 (1997)
  • Callister Jr., William D. (2002) Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction. ISBN 0-471-13576-3
  • Peter Rhys Lewis, Colin Gagg, Ken Reynolds, CRC Press (2004), Forensic Materials Engineering: Case Studies.
[edit]

 

A catastrophic failure is a sudden and total failure from which recovery is impossible. Catastrophic failures often lead to cascading systems failure. The term is most commonly used for structural failures, but has often been extended to many other disciplines in which total and irrecoverable loss occurs, such as a head crash occurrence on a hard disk drive.

For example, catastrophic failure can be observed in steam turbine rotor failure, which can occur due to peak stress on the rotor; stress concentration increases up to a point at which it is excessive, leading ultimately to the failure of the disc.

In firearms, catastrophic failure usually refers to a rupture or disintegration of the barrel or receiver of the gun when firing it. Some possible causes of this are an out-of-battery gun, an inadequate headspace, the use of incorrect ammunition, the use of ammunition with an incorrect propellant charge,[1] a partially or fully obstructed barrel,[2] or weakened metal in the barrel or receiver. A failure of this type, known colloquially as a "kaboom", or "kB" failure, can pose a threat not only to the user(s) but even many bystanders.

In chemical engineering, a reaction which undergoes thermal runaway can cause catastrophic failure.

It can be difficult to isolate the cause or causes of a catastrophic failure from other damage that occurred during the failure. Forensic engineering and failure analysis deal with finding and analysing these causes.

Examples

[edit]
Original Tay Bridge from the north
Fallen Tay Bridge from the north

Examples of catastrophic failure of engineered structures include:

  • The Tay Rail Bridge disaster of 1879, where the center 0.5 miles (0.80 km) of the bridge was completely destroyed while a train was crossing in a storm. The bridge was inadequately designed and its replacement was built as a separate structure upstream of the old.
  • The failure of the South Fork Dam in 1889 released 4.8 billion US gallons (18 billion litres) of water and killed over 2,200 people (popularly known as the Johnstown Flood).
  • The collapse of the St. Francis Dam in 1928 released 12.4 billion US gallons (47 billion litres) of water, resulting in a death toll of nearly 600 people.
  • The collapse of the first Tacoma Narrows Bridge of 1940, where the main deck of the road bridge was totally destroyed by dynamic oscillations in a 40 mph (64 km/h) wind.
  • The De Havilland Comet disasters of 1954, later determined to be structural failures due to greater metal fatigue than anticipated at the corners of windows.
  • The failure of the Banqiao Dam and 61 others in China in 1975, due to Typhoon Nina. Approximately 86,000 people died from flooding and another 145,000 died from subsequent diseases, a total of 231,000 deaths.
  • The Hyatt Regency walkway collapse of 1981, where a suspended walkway in a hotel lobby in Kansas City, Missouri, collapsed completely, killing over 100 people on and below the structure.
  • The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster of 1986, in which an O-ring of a rocket booster failed, causing the external fuel tank to break up and making the shuttle veer off course, subjecting it to aerodynamic forces beyond design tolerances; the entire crew of 7 and vehicle were lost.
  • The nuclear reactor at the Chernobyl power plant, which exploded in April 26, 1986 causing the release of a substantial amount of radioactive materials.
  • The collapse of the Warsaw radio mast of 1991, which had up to that point held the title of world's tallest structure.
  • The Sampoong Department Store collapse of 1995, which happened due to structural weaknesses, killed 502 people and injured 937.
  • The terrorist attacks and subsequent fire at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, weakened the floor joists to the point of catastrophic failure.
  • The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster of 2003, where damage to a wing during launch resulted in total loss upon re-entry.
  • The collapse of the multi-span I-35W Mississippi River bridge on August 1, 2007.
  • The collapse of the Olivos-Tezonco Mexico City Metro overpass of 2021, which had structurally weakened over the years.

See also

[edit]
  • Dragon King Theory
  • List of bridge disasters
  • Progressive collapse
  • Seismic performance
  • Structural collapse
  • Structural failure
  • Resonance disaster
  • Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Hal W. Hendrick; Paul Paradis; Richard J. Hornick (2010). Human Factors Issues in Handgun Safety and Forensics. CRC Press. p. 132. ISBN 978-1420062977. Retrieved 2014-02-24. Many firearms are destroyed and injuries sustained by home reloaders who make a mistake in estimating the correct powder charge.
  2. ^ Gregg Lee Carter, ed. (2012). Guns in American Society. ABC-CLIO. p. 255. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. Retrieved 2014-02-24. ... and left the copper jacket lodged in the barrel, leading to a catastrophic failuer of the rifle when the next bullet fired hit the jacket remnants.

Further reading

[edit]
  • Feynman, Richard; Leighton, Ralph (1988). What Do You Care What Other People Think?. W. W. Norton. ISBN 0-553-17334-0.
  • Lewis, Peter R. (2004). Beautiful Railway Bridge of the Silvery Tay: Reinvestigating the Tay Bridge Disaster of 1879. Tempus. ISBN 0-7524-3160-9.

Building and construction is the procedure involved in delivering structures, framework, industrial facilities, and associated tasks via throughout of their life. It usually begins with planning, funding, and layout that continues until the asset is built and ready for use. Building and construction also covers fixings and upkeep job, any works to expand, prolong and enhance the asset, and its ultimate demolition, dismantling or deactivating. The building and construction industry adds substantially to many countries' gdps (GDP). Worldwide expense on building and construction activities was about $4 trillion in 2012. In 2022, expenditure on the building and construction sector surpassed $11 trillion a year, equivalent to around 13 percent of worldwide GDP. This investing was forecasted to rise to around $14. 8 trillion in 2030. The construction industry promotes financial development and brings several non-monetary advantages to lots of countries, yet it is one of one of the most hazardous markets. As an example, concerning 20% (1,061) people sector fatalities in 2019 happened in building.

.

About United Structural Systems of Illinois

Driving Directions in Cook County


Structural Foundation Repair
42.047538049027, -88.156119464192
Starting Point
United Structural Systems of Illinois, 2124 Stonington Ave, Hoffman Estates, IL 60169, USA
Destination
Open in Google Maps
bowing foundation walls
42.039267787566, -88.08686997854
Starting Point
United Structural Systems of Illinois, 2124 Stonington Ave, Hoffman Estates, IL 60169, USA
Destination
Open in Google Maps
residential waterproofing services
42.093723466038, -88.081975094279
Starting Point
United Structural Systems of Illinois, 2124 Stonington Ave, Hoffman Estates, IL 60169, USA
Destination
Open in Google Maps
permanent foundation repair
42.031516728826, -88.132768551546
Starting Point
United Structural Systems of Illinois, 2124 Stonington Ave, Hoffman Estates, IL 60169, USA
Destination
Open in Google Maps
basement waterproofing Cook County
42.034321541103, -88.17062131774
Starting Point
United Structural Systems of Illinois, 2124 Stonington Ave, Hoffman Estates, IL 60169, USA
Destination
Open in Google Maps
expert foundation repair Hoffman Estates
42.098101823459, -88.111844334127
Starting Point
United Structural Systems of Illinois, 2124 Stonington Ave, Hoffman Estates, IL 60169, USA
Destination
Open in Google Maps
comprehensive foundation repair
42.106569617967, -88.15402951347
Starting Point
United Structural Systems of Illinois, 2124 Stonington Ave, Hoffman Estates, IL 60169, USA
Destination
Open in Google Maps
home foundation protection
42.031060547635, -88.10000117987
Starting Point
United Structural Systems of Illinois, 2124 Stonington Ave, Hoffman Estates, IL 60169, USA
Destination
Open in Google Maps
helical wall tieback anchors
42.014047754937, -88.116603094124
Starting Point
United Structural Systems of Illinois, 2124 Stonington Ave, Hoffman Estates, IL 60169, USA
Destination
Open in Google Maps
Cook County foundation repair
42.077352972693, -88.10039001905
Starting Point
United Structural Systems of Illinois, 2124 Stonington Ave, Hoffman Estates, IL 60169, USA
Destination
Open in Google Maps
Google Maps Location
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/?api=1&origin=42.047989288019,-88.077983664751&destination=United+Structural+Systems+of+Illinois%2C+2124+Stonington+Ave%2C+Hoffman+Estates%2C+IL+60169%2C+USA&destination_place_id=ChIJ-wSxDtinD4gRiv4kY3RRh9U&travelmode=driving&query=Chicagoland+foundation+crack+repair
Click below to open this location on Google Maps
Google Maps Location
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/?api=1&origin=42.088315487954,-88.183549200532&destination=United+Structural+Systems+of+Illinois%2C+2124+Stonington+Ave%2C+Hoffman+Estates%2C+IL+60169%2C+USA&destination_place_id=ChIJ-wSxDtinD4gRiv4kY3RRh9U&travelmode=driving&query=Illinois+foundation+solutions
Click below to open this location on Google Maps
Google Maps Location
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/?api=1&origin=42.040062748634,-88.086542269404&destination=United+Structural+Systems+of+Illinois%2C+2124+Stonington+Ave%2C+Hoffman+Estates%2C+IL+60169%2C+USA&destination_place_id=ChIJ-wSxDtinD4gRiv4kY3RRh9U&travelmode=driving&query=Foundation+Repair+Service
Click below to open this location on Google Maps
Google Maps Location
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/?api=1&origin=42.094120345143,-88.117899390338&destination=United+Structural+Systems+of+Illinois%2C+2124+Stonington+Ave%2C+Hoffman+Estates%2C+IL+60169%2C+USA&destination_place_id=ChIJ-wSxDtinD4gRiv4kY3RRh9U&travelmode=driving&query=carbon+fiber+wall+reinforcement
Click below to open this location on Google Maps
Google Maps Location
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/?api=1&origin=42.047538049027,-88.156119464192&destination=United+Structural+Systems+of+Illinois%2C+2124+Stonington+Ave%2C+Hoffman+Estates%2C+IL+60169%2C+USA&destination_place_id=ChIJ-wSxDtinD4gRiv4kY3RRh9U&travelmode=driving&query=Structural+Foundation+Repair
Click below to open this location on Google Maps
Google Maps Location
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/?api=1&origin=42.092599351612,-88.103413988163&destination=United+Structural+Systems+of+Illinois%2C+2124+Stonington+Ave%2C+Hoffman+Estates%2C+IL+60169%2C+USA&destination_place_id=ChIJ-wSxDtinD4gRiv4kY3RRh9U&travelmode=driving&query=Chicagoland+foundation+crack+repair
Click below to open this location on Google Maps
Google Maps Location
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/?api=1&origin=42.075378204097,-88.162831816366&destination=United+Structural+Systems+of+Illinois%2C+2124+Stonington+Ave%2C+Hoffman+Estates%2C+IL+60169%2C+USA&destination_place_id=ChIJ-wSxDtinD4gRiv4kY3RRh9U&travelmode=driving&query=structural+foundation+solutions
Click below to open this location on Google Maps
Google Maps Location
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/?api=1&origin=42.074377733434,-88.086262780534&destination=United+Structural+Systems+of+Illinois%2C+2124+Stonington+Ave%2C+Hoffman+Estates%2C+IL+60169%2C+USA&destination_place_id=ChIJ-wSxDtinD4gRiv4kY3RRh9U&travelmode=driving&query=foundation+settlement+repair
Click below to open this location on Google Maps
Google Maps Location
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/?api=1&origin=42.045957978833,-88.158387263017&destination=United+Structural+Systems+of+Illinois%2C+2124+Stonington+Ave%2C+Hoffman+Estates%2C+IL+60169%2C+USA&destination_place_id=ChIJ-wSxDtinD4gRiv4kY3RRh9U&travelmode=driving&query=residential+waterproofing+services
Click below to open this location on Google Maps
Google Maps Location
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/?api=1&origin=42.054592176062,-88.20960373186&destination=United+Structural+Systems+of+Illinois%2C+2124+Stonington+Ave%2C+Hoffman+Estates%2C+IL+60169%2C+USA&destination_place_id=ChIJ-wSxDtinD4gRiv4kY3RRh9U&travelmode=driving&query=cracked+foundation+repair
Click below to open this location on Google Maps