cover feature

Failure Of Structures
By Ir. Tee Horng Hean, B.Eng. (Hons), MSc (Eng.), MBA, M.I.E.M.

A structural engineers dream is to design structures which are fit for their intended uses. No engineer would want to see a structure collapse or fail, unless that engineer is an engineer researching in causes of failure. Some common causes of structural failure are discussed in this paper. This paper is not intended to discredit any parties (architects, engineers, developers, advertisers, etc.) and as such, some photographs may appear doctored to protect the anonymity of the parties involved. The intention of writing this paper is to jog the young engineers memory on the importance of engineering fundamentals, and failure to observe these engineering fundamentals taught in school could be disastrous.

any young engineers have never witnessed structural failure. A structural failure may have adverse consequences on the parties involved in the construction of the structure. For instance, a former school bus driver brought up a negligence suit against a contractor who constructed a unipole tower, which collapsed on his bus while he was driving at the junction of Jalan Segambut and Jalan Kuching (NSTP, March 6 2001). According to the findings, the unipole could only withstand a wind speed of 19.2 metres per second and in Kuala Lumpur, wind speeds of as high as 35.5 metres per second have been recorded (NSTP, March 6 2001). The best remedy for young engineers, if in doubt of their design criteria and to avoid any structural failure, is to ascertain the facts from reliable sources. What Is A Structure?

Basically, a structure is a system for transferring loads from one place to another and nature can show examples of structures that support loads (Seward, 1998, p.2). Professor Harry H. West also noted that structure describes much of what is seen in nature such as a fern leaf, an oak tree, shrub with ribbed branches, spider webs, etc. (West, 1993, p.4). A tall tree in a rainforest, for instance, forms buttresses (see Photo 1). A structural engineer would definitely know that by forming these buttresses, the huge moments (a form of force that causes bending) induced at the base of the tree can be resisted, and as such, this cantilever-tree can grow to a considerable height to resist the force imposed by winds. Engineers do make use of this phenomenon and it is quite common to see them adopting stiffeners to resist certain amounts of moment at a stanchion base, for instance (see Photo 2). If engineers adopt structural engineering knowledge, why is it that there is still failure of structures? Some of the causes of structural failure are discussed in the following topics.

Photo 1: A tall tree with buttresses

Photo 2: A stanchion with a stiffener

B U L E T I N I N G E N I E U R 14

Photo 3: A typical continuous hoarding system Underestimating Loads Sometimes, designers may underestimate the load that would be imposed upon their structure when the structure is in operation. A good example is the unipole structure that collapsed as described earlier. The unipole structure could only withstand wind pressures of not exceeding q = 0.613 x 19.22 = 226N/m2 but in the area where the collapse of the unipole occurred, wind pressures of as high as q = 0.613 x 35.52 = 773N/m2 have been recorded. Various structural elements are likely to be overstressed when designers underestimate the load that would be imposed on their designed structure. Consequently, their structure is susceptible to collapse. Connections Surprisingly, research has shown that 30% of structural failures are caused by defective detailed design of the joints between structural members (Seward, 1998, p.232). For instance, a simple system of hoarding with structural elements being connected with undersized bolts may look perfectly sturdy (see Photo 3). However, due to the use of Photo 5: A small bolt used to connect structural elements undersized bolts (see Photo 4 and Photo 5), connecting the horizontal and vertical structural members, the bolts were sheared off, causing the horizontal elements to be disconnected and resulting in the cantilever effect (see Figure 1). Bearing in mind that in a cantilever system, the stress intensity experienced by the structure can be as large as four times of that of the continuous system. This is precisely what happened to this hoarding and since the bolts were Figure 1: Change of structural system due to sheared bolt sheared off, the domino Photo 4: A sheared off bolt with the size of ones thumbnail

BULETIN INGENIEUR

15

cover feature

cover feature

effect of excessive bending of the steel hoarding sheet (see Photo 6), the structural members being subjected to excessive bending and the footing being pulled off the ground (see Photo 7) occurred. In short, failure of connections can lead to a change in the structural system, and in turn, have adverse domino effects. Photo 6: Failure of a simple hoarding structure

Photo 7: A footing being pulled off the ground

Inconsistent Design, Detailing And Construction A structural engineer deals with numbers in his structural design, which may be Greek to a layman, a draughtsperson or even the contractor. In order to communicate his design to the contractor, structural drawings are produced. At times, the structural engineer may not be the one producing the structural drawings but his draughtsperson would be the one drafting it. Somehow or rather, miscommunication may occur and designs do not tally with the drawings. There may be times when young engineers may draft the drawings but drafted them incorrectly. It is quite common to note that engineers analyse a reinforced concrete structure as a pin-joint or simply supported but in his or her detail, a fixed support is being provided. The consequence of proceeding with construction would be similar as that of the hoarding where a change of structural system may occur. A good example of a pin-joint can be seen in a seesaw (see Photo 8).

Photo 8: A pin-joint

For instance, a lamppost when properly fixed to the ground (see Photo 9 ), is perfectly sturdy and most engineers would analyse the lamp-post as a fixed

BULETIN INGENIEUR

16

cantilever. But due to improper detailing or construction, this lamp-post behaved like a pin-joint (similar to the see-saw) and some lateral force had induced the collapse of the lamp-post (see Photo 10 and Photo 11).

Not Considering Elements In Contact With Structure When columns are supported by relatively small footings and the soil surrounding the footings is of compressible soil, a structural engineer should analyse the columns as pin-jointed (Winter & Nilson, 1979, p.392). Similarly, if the soil surrounding the footings is stiff and incompressible, then the structural engineer should analyse the columns as fixed.

Photo 9: A lamp-post Photo 12: A collapsed signboard

Photo 10: A collapsed lamp-post

Photo 13: Close-up view of footing of Photo 12 Structural engineers would analyse a signboard, assuming it to be fixed but sometimes, due to the soil conditions, it is not possible to have a fixed joint. For instance, one would analyse this signboard as fixed (see Photo 12), but due to the fact that the soil is soft and compressible, after a heavy shower and due to strong wind forces the footing of this signboard can easily be pulled out when the post is not adequately penetrated into the ground (see Photo 13). The strong wind has imposed a stress that is higher than that allowed by the soil, and consequently, the footing behaved as a pin-joint.

Photo 11: Lamp-post not properly fixed to the ground (Close-up of Photo 10)

BULETIN INGENIEUR

17

cover feature

cover feature

Similarly, the following signboard was erected in soft and compressible soil and consequently, excessive deflection is experienced and one could easily pull down the whole signboard without much effort (see Photo 14 and Photo 15). Following the above argument, we can deduce that if a structural element were to be anchored into a brickwall, it is considered fixed so long as the stresses transferred to the brick-wall at the joint do not exceed the stress of the brick. On the other hand, if the applied force on the structural element is excessive, causing the stresses transferred to the brick-wall at the joint to exceed the allowable stress of the brick, this element now behaves like a pin-joint (similar to the see-saw). This is one of the aspects often overlooked and has to be taken into consideration in structural engineering designs.

Photo 16: Collapse of a signboard metres collapsed after a gust of strong wind (see Photo 16). A rough free body diagram of this structure is shown in Figure 2. After running a simple structural analysis on the above structure by applying a wind force with a speed of 35.5 metres per second, it was noted that the structure would not have collapsed if undersized angles were not used. From the site condition, it was observed that the angles gave way and experienced excessive twisting and buckling (see Photo 17).

Photo 14: A deflected signboard

Photo 17: Twisting and buckling of undersized angles

Photo 15: Soft and compressible soil (Close-up of Photo 14)

Providing Undersized Members Though it seldom happens, there are times when undersized members are used. These undersized members would most definitely experience excessive stress. When certain structural members cannot withstand the forces that are imposed upon them, the structure would be imminent of collapse. For instance, the following signboard measuring approximately 20 metres by 16.5

Figure 2: Free body diagram of signboard

BULETIN INGENIEUR

18

Lack Of Maintenance Many people have the misconception that structures do not need any maintenance. This is totally incorrect. Whatever the structures are made of, whether steel, timber or reinforced concrete, they need constant maintenance. Steel structures, for instance, are susceptible to corrosion while timber structures can be destroyed by a colony of termites. Without maintaining a structure, slowly but surely, defects would occur. If these defects are left unattended, it would lead to further serious defects and in the end, a structural collapse may be possible due to the weakening of the structural members. Figure 3: Change of structural system Due to the fact that the angles failed, the above structural system changed from a triangular frame (see Figure 3) to a cantilever. The change of the structural system has caused the cantilever to experience a high bending stress near the footing. This high bending stress cannot be resisted by the welding provided between the I-beam and the baseplate (see Photo 18), and consequently, the toppling of the signboard occurred. Besides that, this high stress has caused the web of the I-beam to tear (see Photo 19). Overlooking The Third Dimension Every single object, be it a ball, a car or a structure, can move in three different directions, namely left to right, up to down and backward to forward. All structures, except for space frames, can be analysed and designed by simplifying them into two-dimensional structures. There may be the possibility that engineers can overlook one of the three dimensions. When this occurs, the structure is only structurally sound in two dimensions but can fail in the third dimension. Constructing An Unstable (Mechanism) Structure There are times when a structure is erected but is unstable. This is especially frequent in roof trusses. Many a time, the centre line of the structural members do not meet and thus, forming a structural system which is not a truss. For instance, the following structural framework (see Photo 20) was constructed and it was noted that there was no triangulation of the framework, which was of necessity for roof trusses. The structure looked sturdy when erected. Even when the roofing sheets were installed (see Photo 21 ), the structure still looked stable. Unfortunately, during the monsoon season, heavy rain and strong wind were inevitable and they both imposed additional load on the structure, which consequently collapsed (see Photo 22). Most textbooks on structural mechanics would note that most trusses would require a system of triangulation in order for the structure to be stable, and in this case (see Photo 20), the collapsed structure did not have any form of triangulation system. Not Consulting An Engineer Obviously, this point needs no explanation whatsoever. There are times when constructors would defy the instructions of engineers and proceed with construction, without realising that they could be constructing a collapse-prone structure. Worst of all, there are owners who never even engage a structural engineer but copy the sizes of a structure from another construction site to erect their own. This can be very dangerous as the site conditions vary.

Photo 18: The weld between the I-beam and baseplate gave way

Photo 19: Tearing of I-beams web

BULETIN INGENIEUR

19

cover feature

cover feature

Photo 20: An unstable timber truss structure without proper triangulation system

Photo 21: Roofing sheets installed to timber frame

Photo 22: Collapse of timber structure

Conclusion The paper discussed only some of the common factors as to why structures fail. There can be lots of other factors including minor mistakes such as dimensioning a structural member longer than it is supposed to be, using the wrong units (imperial/metric), not following the construction drawings, mixing of high tensile and mild steel reinforcements for reinforced concrete structures, reducing the lever arm of a reinforced concrete structural element when workers step on the steel reinforcements, providing inadequate anchorage length for reinforcement bars, etc. which can lead to structural failure. The other cause of possible failure in the structure is misuse of the erected structure. One of the best ways for young engineers to avoid making the mistakes discussed in this paper is to ascertain the facts from reliable sources. The fundamentals of engineering should be applied in the design of all engineering structures. Overlooking the design of even a minute part of a structure such as connections can be disastrous. REFERENCES

Harry, H. West, 1993, Fundamentals of Structural Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. NSTP, 6 March 2001, New Straits Times Press, March 19 Decision by Court on Negligence Suit, [Online], Available from URL: http: //www.lexisnexis.com/universe [Accessed: 18 November 2003] Seward, D., 1998, Understanding Structures Analysis, Materials, Design, Second Edition, MacMillian, Hampshire. Winter, G. & Nilson, A. H., Design of Concrete Structures, Ninth Edition, McGraw Hill, New York. BEM

BULETIN INGENIEUR

20