The Reduction/Elimination of Engineered Structures Failure

I am about to complete a manuscript on this with Prof. John Campbell. It is our opinion that what Griffiths referred to as prior (preexisting) crack is an artifact of how we treat liquid metals, filling all engineering metals with invisible cracks that the current NDI techniques cannot detect. So even of the structures have been designed by licensed engineers with high factors of safety, our metallic structures will have invisible defects that open up under stress during failure. The forensic literature is full of these premture fatigue failure cases, although the engineering design seems to be impeaccable.

Thank you, Murat, for your useful reply.

Once available, might you send me a copy of your new manuscript?

Stay Healthy!

Cheers,

Bill

Another engineer (USA) contributes the following:

Q1 of 2:

The vigilance of materials used when the structure was erected/built. A knowledge/understanding that codes, materials, & soils (base failures) followed/used at the time of construction were different.

Q2 of 2:

Negligence. An attitude/culture of "looking the other way" when informed of possible problems/issues with structures.

A colleague writes:

A very interesting question…over-reliance on automated calculations (use of software), no real feel for the behavior of materials..?

For the high rise structure

The use of some alternatives in structural engineering is enough to reduce this risk and prolong the life of failure by generalizing the use of coated concrete, for example, concrete filled steel tubular for columns as well as for beams, which gave a high efficiency in energy absorption and at least delayed the collapse of structures in a remarkable way.

Thanks, Ahmed for sharing your alternative.

Cheers,

Bill

It's the charlatan's problem. He has a certain basic knowledge, but stretches his possibilities. He has the talent to convince others of his ideas.

Thanks Martin for your insight.

Q. Does your reply limit itself to the "Charlatan" or might it also include:

a. Inability to effectively and efficiently communicate prior to acting?, or,

b. Fear of speaking back to a superior manager?

Cheers,

Bill

Murphy's laws are not considered sufficiently. Instead the principle is valid: one crow does not peck the other's eye. In an older case the accident occurred in the following way: the construction plan was only valid for static loads instead of dynamic ones. Further, the welding seams were not controlled, and the final test was to soft.

Thanks for your continued contribution Martin, much appreciated.

Cheers,

Bill