Historical Failures and The Evolution of Fracture Mechanics - LinkedIn PDF

7/30/2019 Historical failures and the evolution of Fracture Mechanics | LinkedIn
Try Premium Free

Search for 1 Month
Historical failures and the evolution of

Fracture Mechanics
Published on June 12, 2016
Ajay Taneja
Expertise: Finite element methods 52 articles Follow
development, Stress Analysis, Fatigu... See more
1. INTRODUCTION
If one looks back at the undergraduate course on Strength of Materials, it may be recalled,
that, from the beginning of the course through its end, the material (of which the structure is
made up of) was idealized as being homogeneous (i.e. of uniform composition) and a
continuum (i.e. made up of a continuous mass than of discrete particles). Thus, the subject of
strength of materials never recognised or considered the inherent flaws in the structure.
It is interesting to note that many of the structural failures that have occurred since past few
decades [some, not being very long ago] have been because of the flaws/ defects present in
the structure since its inception and the growth of these flaws during the life time of the
structure, thus, resulting in the collapse of the structure. In fact, if one goes back to the
history of the subject of Fracture Mechanics, it may be appreciated that the subject has
gradually evolved through the lessons learned through such structural failures which have
been because of the inherent flaws in the present in the structure and their growth through
different mechanisms during the life time of the structure.
Through this article, I have attempted to focus on the following structural failures and the
lessons learned through these failures which have contributed to the evolvement of the
subject of Fracture Mechanics over the past few decades. These failures being:
Boston Molasses Tank Failure
Like
Liberty Comment
Ship Failure Share Messaging
60 · 21 Shares
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/historical-failures-evolution-fracture-mechanics-ajay-taneja/ 1/10
Search
Comet Disaster Try Premium Free
for 1 Month
Aloha Airlines Fuselage Failure
I have discussed the above failures through the following sections in chronological order and
have finally (in the last section of this article) attempted to bring out the lessons learned
through these failures.
2. BOSTON MOLASSES TANK FAILURE
The Collapse:
On January 15, 1919, Boston suffered one of history’s strangest disasters: a devastating
flood of molasses…! A large molasses tank in Boston, Massachusetts in the United States
exploded with a great force. The tank contained 2.3 million gallons (i.e. more than 8 million
litres) of molasses at the time of collapse. The steel tank was enormous: 50 feet (15 metres)
in height and 90 feet (27 metres) in diameter.
Figure: The Boston Post Headlines January, 16, 1919
The wave of molasses rushed through the streets of Boston at an estimated 35 miles per
hour (i.e. 56 kilometres per hour) killing 21 people and injuring around 150. The power of
the wave was sufficient to rip buildings off their foundations. A piece of the tank was blown
into the elevated railway tracks, breaking girders (see picture below) and almost forcing a
northbound train off its tracks. The property damage was estimated to a total of $100 million
in today’s dollars.
Figure: A large piece of tank pushed against an elevated railway
Some structural aspects of the steel tank:
The tank was itself just 3 years old at the time of the disaster. The tank was constructed of
large curved steel plates, seven vertical rows overlapping and held together with rows of
rivets, the whole set into a reinforced concrete base.
The steel thickness varied from 0.67 inch for the first ring at the base to 0.31 inch for the
seventh ring at the top. The figure below shows the vertical joint in the first ring at the base.
Figure: The geometry of the vertical riveted joint in the first ring at the base of the
tank
Messaging
Search
Causes of failure: Try Premium Free
for 1 Month
Several factors that occurred on the day of the collapse and the previous day are believed to
have contributed to the disaster:
1. Thermal shock: The tank was poorly constructed and insufficiently tested. Due to
fermentation occurring within the tank, carbon dioxide production may have raised the
internal pressure inside. The rise in the local temperatures that occurred over the previous
day might have also assisted in the building up of the pressure. Records show that air
temperature rose from -17°C to 5°C over that period thus resulting in a thermal shock.
2. Fatigue crack propagating from near the base of the tank: The failure
occurred from a manhole cover near the base of the tank (the hoop stress being greatest near
the base of a filled cylindrical tank), and it was believed that a fatigue crack grew around to
criticality. The tank had been filled to its capacity eight times since it was constructed thus
putting the walls under an intermittent cyclic load.
3. Poor structural health monitoring: It has been reported that the storage facility
was never properly tested - by filling it with water - because a shipload of molasses was due
only days after the completion of the tank in December 1915. From the beginning leaks had
appeared and it is believed that the distillery company had painted the tank brown
deliberately to hide the leaks (since molasses is brown in colour).
It should be noted that the failure occurred due to a fatigue crack growing near the manhole
cover to its critical length, thus, throwing light on the crack growth mechanism due to
fatigue.
Metallurgical aspects of the tank that led to a brittle collapse:
Two metallurgical aspects of the molasses tank steel are of note: the likely brittle behaviour
during the failure temperature (4°C) and the observation of a microstructural feature called
Neumann bands. Low carbon and manganese in steel leading to explosive /
brittle behaviour:
Most of the structural steel production in 1915 was by open hearth process
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_hearth_furnace). The material exhibited very good
strength with high ductility. At that time, fracture toughness was not specified in material
procurements. The chemistry for steel in the plates containing the manhole (where the
fatigue crack grew to its critical length) is shown the table below and compared with 2
modern steels:
Table: A typical chemistry for the molasses tank steel shell plate and current steels
Messaging
Try Premium Free

Search for 1 Month
Note the particularly low value of manganese in the steel used to construct the molasses
tank. Chemistry, thermal processing and quality of production all affect the fracture
properties of steel.
For the class of steels corresponding to the molasses tank, carbon has the greatest effect on
the propensity (tendency) for brittle behaviour. The higher the carbon, the higher the
temperature at which there is a transition from brittle to ductile behaviour. Some research
data (of 1951 i.e. 32 years after the collapse!) suggests that the transition temperature for the
molasses tank steel could have been as high as 15°C which is significantly above the
operating temperature at the time of failure (which was 4°C).
Neumann bands (the contribution of the failure to Fracture Mechanics)
Neumann bands are narrow bands, a few micrometres wide, usually within a grain.
Substantial research even before the molasses tank failure indicated that this feature was
only produced in low carbon steel by explosive loading or at extremely low temperatures.
Expert reports showed micrographs of Neumann bands were found near the primary
fracture. It is now known that a rapidly propagating crack in brittle low carbon steel can
produce Neumann bands without explosive loading. Crack velocities in brittle steels can
reach as high as 3,000 feet per second.
3. LIBERTY SHIP FAILURE: BRITTLE FRACTURES AND THE BIRTH OF

FRACTURE MECHANICS
Figure: One of the ‘survived’ Liberty ship
History behind the construction of Liberty ships:
As part of the war effort during the World War II, the materials, munitions and supplies were
vital to the United States in order to sustain the battle against the Germans. A very
successful bombing operation by Germany on the ships had inflicted significant damage to
the munitions of the United States.
As a result, in 1941, President Roosevelt announced that $350 million would be spent to
provide a ship building programme, the objective being to build ships faster than the enemy
could sink them!
In pursuit of this objective, the Americans decided to use the method of “welding” than the
conventionally followed method of “riveting” for ship building. The ships were called as
“Liberty ships”. In addition to increasing the speed of construction, the use of welding also
decreases construction costs. The number of skilled labourers required carrying out welding
on the ship’s hull and the deck were thought to be significantly lesser than the numbers
required to carry out using riveting.
Messaging
The sinking, cracking and the damage:
Search
2708 Liberty ships were constructed between 1939 to 1945. 1038 damages or accidents were
Try Premium Free
for 1 Month
reported by April, 1st 1946!
More than 200 Liberty ships sank or were damaged beyond repair. “Schenectady” (as
named) was one of those ships which broke into 2 pieces with a loud sound (see picture
below). The accidents were caused due to the lack of fracture toughness of the welded joint.
The accident highlighted the importance the importance of fracture toughness and marked
the “birth of fracture mechanics”.
Figure: “Schenectady”- the ship that broke into two
Causes of collapse:
It was clear from the nature of the failures of the ships that the collapse occurred through a
brittle fracture. It was observed that nearly all the failures occurred in the cold waters of the
North Atlantic whereas the ships stationed in the South Pacific remained intact! The mystery
was later resolved by Constance Tipper of Cambridge University.
She demonstrated that there is a critical temperature that there is a critical temperature below
which the fracture mode in steels shifts from ductile to brittle. That is: the fracture toughness
of steel changes drastically over a small temperature range. The low temperature steel is
brittle and fractures by cleavage. At high temperature, it is ductile and fails by plastic
collapse. In transition between ductile and brittle, both mechanisms of fracture can occur.
Thus, there is a region where the material is 100% ductile and a region where the material is
100 % brittle and a transition zone as shown in the figure below.
Figure: The ductile-brittle transition (note: the low fracture toughness in the zone
corresponding to low temperatures)
The ships stationed in the North Atlantic were susceptible to brittle fracture as the
temperature was in the corresponding zone as marked above.
Quality of the welds:
The welding techniques used in ship production caused a controversy. There were issues
with inexperienced labourers who had been drafted in to increase ship production for the
World War II efforts. It was believed that the unskilled welding caused micro-cracks in the
weld itself, thus, resulting stress concentrations which contributed to the brittle fracture of
the Liberty ships.
Crack growth, fracture: Locations
It should be noted that the most common type of cracks (for most of the ships) was one
which began at the square corner of the hatch (opening) which coincided with a weld. Thus,
Messaging
both the weld and stress concentrations acted as localised areas of high stresses.
Search
One remedial measure adopted was to use rivet steel arrestor plates in areas of higher stressTry Premium Free
for 1 Month
concentration thus arresting crack growth. In fact, Victory ship was an upgrade in ship
design had arrestor plates to maintain a less stiff and stronger ship design that was better
able to deal with fatigue.
Thus, the reasons of the failure of the Liberty ships could be summarized as;
The material used did not have sufficient fracture toughness especially at lower
temperatures.
The standard of the welded joints was in general poor due to inexperienced welders;
which meant there were micro cracks in the welds.
The all-welded construction eliminated crack arresting plate boundaries which are
present in riveted joints.
4. THE COMET DISASTER
de Havilland Comet was the world’s first production commercial jet liner. Developed and
manufactured by de Havilland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland), the Comet’s
first prototype first flew on 27 July 1949. It featured an aerodynamically clean design with 4
turbojet engines buried in the wings, a pressurised fuselage and “large square
windows”. For that era, it offered a relatively quiet, comfortable passenger cabin and
showed signs of being a commercial success at its 1952 debut.
Initial success and the sensation:
During its first year of operation, the Comet carried a total of 28,000 passengers covering a
total of 104 million miles. By 1953, de Havilland Comet had firm orders of 50 Comets from
the world’s several airlines and was negotiating for 100 more. The Comet was looked upon
as a great success throughout the world.
And, then, after a year of service, the accidents began (1953)….!
Accidents in 1953:
The first 2 accidents in 1953 occurred during take-off.
In the first, the plane failed to become airborne. The accident was blamed as a pilot error and
no one was killed.
The second accident left no survivors and appeared to be a design flaw and modifications
were done to the wings that allowed a greater lift at low speed.
Messaging
Search
The third accident occurred as the Comet crashed on take-off from Calcutta in India. In spite
Try Premium Free
for 1 Month
of these 3 accidents, the public confidence was in place until January, 10 1954…!
What happened on January 10, 1954?
On the 10th of January, 1954 a Comet after departing from Ciampino Airport in Rome to
London, had climbed 26,000 feet en-route to its assigned altitude of 36,000 feet when it
plunged into the sea. Witnesses in the island of Elba in Italy saw the aircraft fall into the sea
in flames. All 29 passengers and 6 crew members were killed.
The Elba investigation and the Comet water tank test:
While a crash investigation is normally conducted by the government or aviation authority,

it was decided that the British authorities would head the Elba investigation. Around 70% of
the Elba wreckage was recovered following thorough investigation which for the first time
included using under water television cameras.
The authorities salvaged the wreckage from the ocean and reconstructed the aircraft. Once
the debris was put together, it was found that the cabin itself had failed and the conclusion
was the disaster was due to extreme decompression of the cabin.
The Ministry of Civil Aviation decided upon a unique test to figure out the exact cause of
the accidents. They built a large tank, large enough to hold one of the grounded comets. The
wings protruded from the water tight slots from the sides of the tank (see picture below):
Figure: The Comet in the water tank for pressure tests
The wings protruded from the water tight slots from the sides of the tank. Then the tank and
the cabin were flooded with water.
By using water instead of air, water being a much less compressible fluid the test would be
much safer and fuselage would be able to be repaired and re-tested as necessary. Had air
been used, the results would have resembled the catastrophic inflight break up like the 2
flights. The wings of the aircraft were moved up and down by hydraulic jacks to simulate
the flexing of the wings that occurs due to the air currents during flight.
The Comet that was being tested had undergone 1230 pressurized flights before testing and
1830 “tank flights” before the fuselage failed at the corner of a square forward escape hatch
window.
Figure: Fuselage failure at the corner of a “square” escape window
Several months later the results of the tests were confirmed when a large section of the cabin
roof was recovered from the sea. A crack had started in the corner of the navigation window
Messaging
at the top of the fuselage. Even through it was a small crack of a few mm at the corner of a
Search
square window, structurally, total rack length = length of the actual crack + length of Try Premium Free
for 1 Month
window diagonal.
The stress concentrations were high specifically because of the squarish shape of the
windows and window frames which is very different from the round/oval shapes of modern
airplane window.
And this was intuitive reason for which the US Administration did not
allow the Comet to fly because the size of windows was larger than the
normal windows. This was purely out of engineering judgement, then…!
Causes of the disaster besides the square windows:
Apart from the square windows, de Havillands testing of the new plane was inadequate.
They had limited the new cabin to static testing alone meaning that during the tests, they had
subjected the cabin to pressurization alone but had neglected the effects of motion such as
flexing of the wings. Thus, the actual service loads were not simulated properly and effect of
flexing was neglected. This provided an explanation that the structure was not fully design
proof.
If one looks at the history of fatigue development, this was the time that the concept of S-N
curve was being researched.
5. ALOHA AIRLINES FLIGHT 243 FUSELAGE FAILURE
Aloha Airlines Flight 243 was a flight between Hilo and Honolulu in Hawaii. On April 28,
1988, a Boeing 737 serving flight suffered extensive damage after an explosive
decompression in flight, but was able to land safely in spite of fuselage failure mid-air!
There was one fatality (of one of the flight attendant) and another 65 passengers and crew
were injured.
Figure: Aloha Airlines flight 243 fuselage failure
It may be noted that the other three failures discussed in this article: Boston Molasses tank
failure, the Liberty Ships failure, Comet disaster, all occurred after the structure had been in
service for the first few years. But, in the case of the Aloha airlines fuselage failure, the
failure occurred after the structure had been in service for 19 years whereas the intended
design life was 20 years. Following the investigation, it was concluded that widespread
corrosion was the main cause.
The disaster marked a turning point in the history of aircraft corrosion. At the start of the jet
age (1950 to 1960’s), little or no attention was paid to corrosion and corrosion control. Only
Messaging
Search
the more recent designs like Boeing 777 and later version of 737 have incorporated Try Premium Free
for 1 Month
significant improvements in corrosion prevention and control in design and manufacturing.
6. LESSONS LEARNED THROUGH THESE FAILURES
In summary, it could be concluded that the following lessons have been learned through
these failures;
Boston molasses tank failure:
The failure brought out the importance of structural health monitoring. The tank was
painted brown and hence no visual inspection was possible on any leak of molasses
which is also brown.
The failure reinforced the concept of ‘Neumann bands’ which are known to occur in in a
rapidly propagating crack in brittle steels.
The failure threw light on the composition of steel necessary for ductile behaviour.
Liberty ship failure:
The disaster brought out the importance of temperature effect on fracture toughness and
marked the birth of fracture mechanics.
Comet disaster:
The failure highlighted that cracks could occur in stress concentration zones and grow in
service due to fatigue loading causing failure
The failure also highlighted the importance of proper simulation of service loads during
testing. It may be noted that flexing of wings had been neglected during the testing.
Aloha Airlines fuselage failure:
The failure brought out the importance of stress corrosion cracking
It gave impetus to improved design approaches for corrosion prevention and control
Report this
Published by
Ajay Taneja 52 articles Follow
Expertise: Finite element methods development, Stress Analysis, Fatigue and Fr…
Published • 3y
Reactions
+52
Messaging
0 Comments Try Premium Free

Search for 1 Month
Add a comment…
Ajay Taneja
Expertise: Finite element methods development, Stress Analysis, Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics, Software Development
Follow
More from Ajay Taneja
Linear/Logistic Regression using A very short insight: What is On Fatigue Failure: Part 9 – Thermo- On Fatigue Failure – Part 8: Stra
Machine Learning - Machine Learning all about? mechanical Fatigue Life Method
Bias/Weights/Over fitting: A point of
Ajay Taneja on LinkedIn Ajay Taneja on LinkedIn Ajay Taneja on LinkedIn
view
Ajay Taneja on LinkedIn
See all 52 articles
Messaging

Historical Failures and The Evolution of Fracture Mechanics - LinkedIn PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Historical Failures and The Evolution of Fracture Mechanics - LinkedIn PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/30/2019 Historical failures and the evolution of Fracture Mechanics | LinkedIn

Try Premium Free

Historical failures and the evolution of

Boston Molasses Tank Failure

Aloha Airlines Fuselage Failure

2. BOSTON MOLASSES TANK FAILURE

Figure: The Boston Post Headlines January, 16, 1919

Figure: A large piece of tank pushed against an elevated railway

Some structural aspects of the steel tank:

Metallurgical aspects of the tank that led to a brittle collapse:

Try Premium Free

Neumann bands (the contribution of the failure to Fracture Mechanics)

3. LIBERTY SHIP FAILURE: BRITTLE FRACTURES AND THE BIRTH OF

Figure: One of the ‘survived’ Liberty ship

History behind the construction of Liberty ships:

Figure: “Schenectady”- the ship that broke into two

Quality of the welds:

Crack growth, fracture: Locations

4. THE COMET DISASTER

Initial success and the sensation:

And, then, after a year of service, the accidents began (1953)….!

The first 2 accidents in 1953 occurred during take-off.

What happened on January 10, 1954?

The Elba investigation and the Comet water tank test:

While a crash investigation is normally conducted by the government or aviation authority,

Figure: The Comet in the water tank for pressure tests

Figure: Fuselage failure at the corner of a “square” escape window

Causes of the disaster besides the square windows:

5. ALOHA AIRLINES FLIGHT 243 FUSELAGE FAILURE

Figure: Aloha Airlines flight 243 fuselage failure

6. LESSONS LEARNED THROUGH THESE FAILURES

Boston molasses tank failure:

Liberty ship failure:

Aloha Airlines fuselage failure:

The failure brought out the importance of stress corrosion cracking

0 Comments Try Premium Free

More from Ajay Taneja

See all 52 articles

You might also like