The Failures That Changed the Perception of our Designs

Dr. Subramanian NARAYANAN

Consulting Engineer
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
USA
drnsmani@gmail.com

Dr. N. Subramanian earned his PhD from IIT, Madras in 1978 and has 40 years of professional
experience which includes teaching, research, and consultancy in India and abroad. Dr.
Subramanian has authored 25 books and more than 200 technical papers, published in international
and Indian journals and conferences. He has won the Tamil Nadu Scientist Award, the Lifetime
Achievement Award from the Indian Concrete Institute (ICI) and the ACCE(I)-Nagadi best book
award for three of his books. He also served as the past vice-president of ICI and ACCE(I).

Summary
With the dwindling natural resources, it is
very important for engineers to avoid failures
of any nature and build structures which are
safe, stable, economic, aesthetic, durable, and
environment friendly. However, building and
other structural failures are occurring at regular
intervals in India. These failures, though well
reported in newspapers, the reasons for these
collapses are not well documented, even though
some committees are appointed in some cases
to study the failures. If the causes of failures are
well publicized, designers and builders can learn
from the mistakes done by others and will not
repeat them in their practice. Hence an attempt
is made in this paper to describe some important
failures that resulted in code clause changes or
in changes to professional practice. It is high time
that legislation is passed in India, similar to those
available in Western Countries, such that only
qualified and experienced engineers are allowed
to practice, so that failures are minimized.
Keywords: Bridge failures, Buckling, Building
Collapse,
Connections,
Cooling
towers,
Deflection, Foundation failures, Post-tensioned
Steel, Progressive collapse, Wind, Earthquakes,
Anchor bolt failures, Corrosion, Shear wall, Space
frame, Structural failures, Terrorist Attacks

1.0 Introduction
Building collapses are common in India, where
The Bridge and Structural Engineer

high demand for housing and lax regulations

have encouraged some builders to cut corners,
use substandard materials or add unauthorized
extra floors. Let us consider some recent
examples: in April 2013, 74 people were killed
and 60 people wounded when an eight-story
building which was built illegally in the Mumbai
suburb of Thane in western Maharashtra state
caved in. It was the worst building collapse in
the country in decades. The probable cause of
the collapse was that an eight-story building was
built instead of a sanctioned four-story building.
Some sources cite that 80% of constructions in
Thane are illegal!
Another major collapse took place on 27
September 2013, at 6 a.m. IST, when a fivestory building collapsed in the Mazagaon area of
Mumbai city in Maharashtra killing 61 people and
injuring 32 others.
In a recent incident on 28th June 2014 in New
Delhi, 10 people died after a dilapidated fourstory building collapsed to the ground. The New
Delhi collapse was probably triggered by digging
of the ground in an adjacent plot for foundation
work. Hours later, on the same day, one of
the twin 11-story buildings under construction
collapsed on the outskirts of Chennai, Tamil
Nadu, as heavy rains pounded the area. This
resulted in a massive rescue effort by more than
300 persons, which found that 61 people were
killed and 27 injured. The probable causes were

Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014 23

that 11 stories were built using a structural design

which was indented for 6 stories only and that a
few columns were removed in the ground floor
indiscriminately! The official report of the failure
may be available only after a few months.

when an under-construction over-bridge of the

Delhi Metro collapsed in July 2009. A chimney
collapsed in September 2009 at the Balco Plant
in Chhattisgarhs Korba district, claiming 41
lives and another 210 m tall newly constructed
concrete chimney at Parichha Thermal Power
Project in UPs Jhansi collapsed in May 2010.
The majority of structural failures all over the
world (whether it is collapse of the structure
or functional failure) are generally attributed
to some engineering problem, such as poor
quality of construction, weak ground conditions,
unauthorized extensions, structural alterations
and no maintenance, and rarely to design
and detailing errors (Brown and Yin 1988 and
Prabhakar, 1998). Table 1 shows the comparison
of principal causes of building failures in USA
during 1977-2000 (Wardhana and Hadipriono,
2003), which also shows that construction
deficiencies are the most frequent cause of
collapse.
Table 1 Comparison of principal causes of
building failures in USA during 1977-2000a
(Wardhana and Hadipriono, 2003)
Principal
causes

Fig.1 One of the twin 11-storey towers at

Mugalivakkam near Porur, Chennai collapsed on
28th June, 2014 killing 61 people

Such failures are common not only in structures

built by private builders but also found in
prestigious government projects. For example, a
footbridge that was built near the main stadium
for the Commonwealth Games collapsed in Sept.
2010, just 12 days before the opening ceremony,
injuring 23 construction workers. When 50m
section of the overhead Andheri-Ghatkopar Metro
bridge, at Mumbai came crashing down in Sept.
2012, one person died and eight were injured.
This was a joint venture between Reliance
Infrastructure, Veolia Transport and the Mumbai
Metropolitan Regional Development Authority
(MMRDA). Similarly six persons, including an
engineer, were killed and 13 others injured

24 Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014

Collapse

Distress

1977198219891977198219891981
1988
2000
1981
1988
2000
number number number number number number
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)

Design

14 (23)

5 (14)

7 (3)

12 (40)

Detailing

6 (10)

5 (14)

2 (1)

1 (11)

1 (6)

5 (17)

1 (11)

Con22 (37) 12 (32) 52 (25)

struction

6 (20)

2 (22)

11 (65)

Maintenance

1 (3)

4 (44)

1 (6)

Material
External
Others
(NA)
Total
aOne

1(2)

22 (11)

1(2)

3 (1)

16 (27) 11(30) 60 (29)

2 (7)

4 (13)

1(6)

4(11)

61 (29)

1 (11)

3 (18)

60
(100)

37
(100)

207
(100)

30
(100)

9 (100)

17
(100)

case unknown

In order that these failures do not happen in

future, we need to learn from these failures. Even
though some committees are constituted to study
the cause of some import failures in India, most
often the committee reports are not made public.
Whereas, in Western countries such reports
are made available to the public and hence
all concerned agencies can learn from these
The Bridge and Structural Engineer

failures and will not repeat them in their projects.

In this paper some of the major failures, which
changed our perception of design and detailing
of structures and resulted in modification of code
clauses are discussed.

Foundation Failures
Foundations are important to any structure
as the entire load acting on the structure
is transmitted to the soil below through the
foundation only. Due to the complex nature of
soils and their behaviour, a hybrid approach is
usually adopted in foundation design in which
soil bearing pressures are checked based on
the working stress method and members of the
foundation are designed using the limit states
method (Subramanian, 2013). Foundation
failures are difficult to rectify and may endanger
the entire building. Hence it is important to
design them conservatively. If the footing is not
of the required thickness, there is a danger of the
column piercing through the foundation. Several
failures (both partial and total) in the past have
demonstrated the importance of foundation
failures, especially in poor soils. We will just look
at two fascinating foundation failures here.

Successful foundation failure

The Tower of Pisa is a freestanding bell tower of
the cathedral of the Italian city of Pisa. The tower

Fig. 2 Tower of Pisa, considered as the first

foundation failure (Photo: Er. S. Srinivas)

The Bridge and Structural Engineer

is a 56.4 m tall, circular, eight-story structure

made of white marble. Although intended to
stand vertically, the tower began leaning to the
southeast soon after the onset of construction in
1173 due to a poorly laid 3 m deep foundation
and weak, unstable subsoil. Prior to restoration
work performed between 1990 and 2001, the
tower leaned at an angle of 5.5 degrees, but the
tower now leans at about 3.99 degrees. This
means that the top of the tower is 3.9 m away
from the vertical plane through the tower (see
Fig. 2).
Several attempts have been made to stabilize
the foundation movement- details of these may
be found in Subramanian and Muthukumar
(1998) and Burland et al. (2009). After a decade
of corrective reconstruction and stabilization
efforts, the tower was declared stable in 2008
and is expected to stand for at least another 200
years.
It may be of interest to note that in June 2010,
the Capital Gate building in Abu Dhabi, UAE was
certified as the World's Furthest Leaning Manmade Tower; it has a 18-degree slope, almost
five times as that of the Leaning Tower of Pisa;
however this tower is deliberately engineered to
slant.
2.2 Rare Foundation Failure in China
On June 27, 2009, an unoccupied 13-storey
block of flat building, still under construction,
at Lianhuanan Road in the Minhang district of
Shanghai city, China toppled over and ended
up lying on its side in a muddy construction field
(see Fig. 3). One worker was killed.

Fig. 3 Toppling of a complete structure in China

[Source: Basulto , David. "Building collapse in
Shanghai" 30 Jun 2009. ArchDaily. Accessed 24th
July 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/27245]
Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014 25

The cause of this building collapse was due to a

pressure difference on two sides of the structure,
according to an investigation report. The
report said the collapse was caused by earth,
excavated along the building on one side with a
depth of 4.6 m, for an underground car park, and
piled up to a depth of up to 10 m on the other
side of the structure. The weight of overburden
earth created a pressure differential, which led to
a shift in the soil structure, eventually weakening
the pile foundation and causing it to fail. This
situation might have been aggravated by several
days of heavy rain leading up to the collapse, but
investigators did not site this as a crucial factor.
The sequence of failure of this building is shown
in Fig. 4. More details about this failure may
be found in Subramanian (2009). This failure
underlined the importance of not disturbing the
soil near a construction, even if the building is
supported on piles.

Fig. 4 Sequence of foundation failure of a tall

building in Shanghai, China

Failure of Columns
Next to foundations, the most important elements
of any structure are its columns, as the failure of
a column may result in a catastrophic failure of
the whole structure. Thus, the designer should
carefully design and detail columns and their
footings.
3.1 Savar building collapse
On 24 April 2013, Rana Plaza, an eight-story
commercial building, collapsed in Savar, a subdistrict in the Greater Dhaka Area, the capital

26 Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014

of Bangladesh killing 1,129 and injuring 2,515

people (see Fig. 5). It is considered to be the
deadliest accidental structural failure in modern
human history.

Fig. 5 Dhaka Savar Building Collapse (Source: http://

en.wikipedia.org/)

The building contained clothing factories, a bank,

apartments, and several other shops. The shops
and the bank on the lower floors immediately
closed after cracks were discovered in the
building. Warnings to avoid using the building
after cracks appeared, the day before, had been
ignored. Garment workers were ordered to return
the following day and the building collapsed
during the morning rush-hour. The main cause of
failure is probably because the upper four floors
had been built without a permit. It may also be
due to the fact the building was designed only for
shops and offices, but contained factories and
hence the structure was potentially not strong
enough to bear the weight and vibration of heavy
machinery. The Savar building collapse led to
widespread discussions about the corporate
social responsibility across global supply chains.
3.2 Failures of Columns During Earthquakes
Observations in several past earthquakes
indicated very poor performance of buildings
due to several reasons such as shear-critical
columns, weak columns and strong beams,
sudden change in stiffness, plan and vertical
irregularity, unconfined beam-column joints,
weak stories (see Fig. 5). Column stiffness is
inversely proportional to the cube of column
height. Hence, columns with significantly less
height than other columns in the same storey
will have much higher lateral stiffness, and
The Bridge and Structural Engineer

consequently will attract much greater seismic

shear force. Brittle shear failures have been
observed in the unsupported zones of such short
captive-columns during several earthquakes
in the past. A mezzanine floor or a loft also
results in the stiffening of some of the columns
while leaving other columns of the same storey
unbraced over their full height. Based on these
observations, codes now specify that special
confining reinforcement be provided over the full
height in such columns to give them adequate
confinement and shear strength. Such confining
reinforcement is also stipulated when shear
walls terminate over open storey columns in the
ground floor.

The soft first story and weak story irregularities,

that are widely used by architects in their designs,
were the cause of failure of columns in such
stories during earthquakes as demonstrated in
Northridge, California (1994); Chichi, Taiwan,
and Izmit, Turqua, in 1999; and Bhuj, India in
2001 (see Fig. 6 & 7). Unfortunately buildings
with such soft first storey/weak storey are still
being constructed in several parts of India. It is
because the area enclosed by a soft first story
is rewarding to the developer since it is neither
considered as part of the maximum allowable
built-up area, nor for tax control, but is salable as
car parking area.

Deficiency A: Shear-critical columns

Deficiency F: Overall weak frames

Shs in a moment frame or gravity
Overall
deficint
frame system.
system
strength
and
stiffness,
leding to inadeuacy
of an otherwise
r e a s o n a b l y
configured building
Deficiency B: Unconfined beam-column Joints Deficiency G: Overturning mechanisms

Shear and axial failure of
Columns
prone
to
unconfined beam-column joints,
crushing from overturning
particularly corner joints
of
discontinuous
concrete or masonry infill
wall.

Deficiency C: Slab-column connections

Deficiency H: Severe plan irregularity

Punching of slab-column
Conditions (including
connections under imposed
some corner buildings)
lateral drifts.
leading
to
large
torsional-induced
demands.
Deficiency
weakness

D:

Splice

and

connectivity Deficiency I: Severe vertical irregularity

Inadequate splices
in
plastic
hinge
regions and weak
connectivity between
members.

The Bridge and Structural Engineer

Volume 45

Setbacks
causing
concentration of damage
and collapse where stiffness
and strength changes. Can
also be caused by change
in material or seismic-forceresisting-system
Number 4 December 2014 27

Deficiency E: Weak-story mechanism

Deficiency J: Pounding

Weak-column, strong-beam
Collapse caused by pounding
moment frame or similar
of adjacent buildings with
system prone to story
different story heights and
collapse from failure of weak
non-coincident floors.
columns subjected to large
lateral deformation demands.

Fig.6 Component and system-level seismic deficiencies found in pre-1980 concrete buildings (NIST GCR
10-917-7, 2010)

Fig. 7 The columns on one edge of the open first

storey of this building in Bhuj collapsed bringing the
building down on its side.

Several failures of columns during earthquakes

were also due to the following reasons: (a)
buckling of column reinforcement (due to
insufficient lateral ties), (b) insufficient transverse
reinforcement in beam-column joints, (c) poor
anchorage of beam bars in beam-column joints,
(d) provision of strong beams and weak columns,
and (e) improper detailing in plastic hinge zones
(see also Fig. 6). Based on these observations,
several clauses in the codes have been changed.
For example, in the draft IS 13920 the following
changes have been introduced:

The minimum dimension of a column shall not

be less than 20db, where db is diameter of the
largest diameter longitudinal reinforcement
bar in the beam passing through or anchoring
into the column at the joint, or 300 mm
At each beam-column joint of a momentresisting frame, the sum of nominal design
strength of columns meeting at that joint (with

28 Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014

nominal strength calculated for the factored

axial load in the direction of the lateral force
under consideration so as to give least
column nominal design strength) along each
principal plane shall be at least 1.4 times the
sum of nominal design strength of beams
meeting at that joint in the same plane. In the
event of a beam-column joint not conforming
to above, the columns at the joint shall be
considered to be gravity columns only and
shall not be considered as part of the lateral
load resisting system.

Lap splices shall be provided only in the

central half of clear column height, and not
within a joint, or within a distance of 2d (where
d is the effective depth of column) from face
of the beam.
Not more than 50% of area of steel bars
should be spliced at any one section.

The parameters such as ratio of concrete strength

to tie strength, axial load level, unconfined
cover concrete thickness, and longitudinal
reinforcement and their spacing affect the
effectiveness of confining reinforcement in
columns. Hence, Subramanian (2012) suggested
that the following equation, based on the work of
Elwood et al. 2009, for determining the confining
reinforcement in rectangular columns
Ash = 0.3kn k p

Ag f c'
Ac f yt

(1)

Where

0.8 Pu
n h + 12
kn = 0.6 + 0.4 x
0.2
and k p =
nl 20
Ag f ck

Ag
h + 12
1.3 and x
With the following conditions: fyt 689 MPa,
1. 0
Ac
20

(1a)

The Bridge and Structural Engineer

Where, Ac = area of concrete core within

perimeter transverse reinforcement, Ag= gross
area of column, Ash = total cross-sectional area
of transverse reinforcement (including cross
hoops) with spacing s and perpendicular to
dimension bc, bc is the cross-sectional dimension
of column core measured to the outside edges
of transverse reinforcement composing area
Ac, = specified cylinder compressive strength
of concrete, fck= specified cube compressive
strength of concrete, fyl = specified yield strength
of longitudinal reinforcement, fyt = specified yield
strength of transverse reinforcement, hx = centerto-center horizontal spacing of cross ties or hoop
legs, n= total number of longitudinal bars, nl =
number of longitudinal bars laterally supported
by corner of hoops or by seismic hooks of
crossties that are 135 degrees; Pu = factored
load on column, and s = centre-to-centre spacing
of transverse reinforcement along column height.
Similarly, the following confinement equation is
proposed for circular columns (Subramanian,
2011):
f ck Ag

f yt Ac

s = 0.44k p

(2)

Where s is the volumetric ratio of transverse

reinforcement, kp is as defined earlier. Note that
the term kn is not required for circular columns,
as spirals provide effective confinement than
rectangular hoops.

Failure of Slabs
Since two-way slabs are three-dimensional
elements, they may redistribute the overloads and
hence failures in slabs are not frequent, provided
they are detailed properly. However, punching
failures in flat plates may be catastrophic and
may not give enough warning. Hence such flat
slabs should not be used in severe earthquake
zones. When used in moderate zones, flat slabs
should be checked for punching stresses and
detailed properly near the vicinity of columns
(Subramanian, 2013 & 2014).
4.1 Collapse of Skyline Plaza, Virginia, U.S.A.
Skyline Plaza apartment building in Bailey's
Crossroads, Virginia, U.S.A. is an example of a

The Bridge and Structural Engineer

catastrophic collapse of a 30 story cast-in-place

reinforced concrete structure. This flat-plate
structure collapsed while under construction, due
to punching shear on the 23rd floor and resulted
in a progressive collapse (see Fig. 8).

Fig. 8 Progressive collapse of Skyline Plaza building

in Virginia, USA (Photo by Nick Carino of NIST)
Source: Ellingwood et al. (2007)

In the midst of construction on March 2, 1973,

one apartment building and the parking garage
adjoining it collapsed. Fig. 6 shows the damage
following the collapse. The incident occurred
at around 2:30 in the afternoon and resulted in
the death of 14 construction workers and the
injury of 34 others. It was designed as a 26 story
apartment complex with a four-story basement
and a penthouse level. All floor slabs were 200
mm thick and the floor-to-floor height was 2.75
m.
The Center for Building Technology of the
National Bureau of Standards (now the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST)
investigated this collapse. A three-dimensional
finite element analysis was conducted on the
22nd and 23rd floors to determine the magnitude
of forces exerted on the floor slabs and
whether the slabs could properly handle those
forces. Upon completion of the analysis, it was
determined that moments in the column strips of
the slab were not great enough to cause failure.
On the other hand, the analysis showed that the
slab around few columns experienced shear
stress greater than the shear capacity of the
concrete slab. The improper and early removal
of forms supporting the 23rd floor resulted in
increased shear force around the columns. The
recently poured concrete had strength less than

Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014 29

the design strength of 20 MPa at the time of

the collapse and was unable to withstand these
increased forces. Hence it triggered a punching
shear collapse mechanism around a number of
columns on the 23rd story. Without the support of
these columns, other columns on that story were
overstressed which ultimately led to the collapse
of the entire 23rd floor slab onto the floor below.
The increased loading on the 22nd floor from
the weight of the collapsed floors above was
sufficient to trigger a progressive collapse all
the way to the ground level. (Leyendecker and
Fattal, 1977; Schellhammer et al., 2013).
The important lessons learnt from the partial
collapse of Skyline Plaza are (Leyendecker and
Fattal 1977):
1. Redundancy within structural design is
essential to prevent progressive collapse.
2. Construction loads, which will govern the
design, must always be estimated and
considered in the design.
3. Preconstruction plans of concrete casting,
formwork plans, removal of formwork
schedules, or reshoring program should be
decided in consultation with the contractor.
4. Before the removal of shoring, the concrete
strength should be ascertained.
5. Proper shoring of the currently executed
floor and the floors below should be verified,
especially in flat plate systems.
Following this failure, the Portland Cement
Association (PCA) and the Prestressed Concrete
Institute both issued new design guides with
provisions included to prevent progressive
collapse (PCA-IS 184, 2006). The importance
of designing for construction loads as well as
normal design loads were emphasized in ACI
journals (Agarwal and Gardner, 1974).
ACI 318 code included a provision to place
rebar continuously through the slab-column
intersection at the top and bottom of the slab. If
the slab fails in punching shear, the bottom bars
act as a catenary and prevent the collapse of the
slab onto the structure below.
Several other failures of flat slab structures
have been reported in the literature, which
30 Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014

include 2000 Commonwealth Avenue, January

5, 1971: Five storey Harbour Cay Condominium
collapse at Cocoa Beach, Florida, March 27,
1981(11 workers killed and 23 injured- The most
probable cause of collapse was a combination
of design and construction errors: the design
did not even consider the possibility of punching
shear failure); Four storey warehouse at Ontario,
Canada, January 4, 1978; five story Sampoong
Department store, Seoul, Korea, June 29th 1995
(The collapse is the largest peacetime disaster
in South Korean history - 502 people died, 6
missing, and 937 sustained injuries); Pipers
Row Car Park, Wolverhampton, UK, 1997;
Geneva, Switzerland,1976; Bluche, Switzerland,
1981; Cagliari, Italy, 2004; and parking garage
flat slab at Gretzenbach, Switzerland, 2004
(Subramanian, 2014). In addition several flat
plate systems failed during earthquakes.
4.2 The LAmbiance Plaza Collapse
L'Ambiance Plaza was planned as a sixteen-story
building, with thirteen stories of apartments and
three levels of parking, at Bridgeport, Connecticut,
USA. It consisted of two offset rectangular
towers, 19.2 m by 34 m each, connected by an
elevator. These towers were being constructed
by the lift slab method, patented by Youtz and
Slick in 1948. Floor and roof slabs were twoway, unbonded, post-tensioned flat plates. On
April 23, 1987, during construction, the entire
structure suddenly collapsed, killing 28 workers
and injuring many more (see Fig.9). At the time
of the collapse, slabs 3, 4, and 5 of the east tower

Fig. 9 Collapse of LAmbiance Plaza, Connecticut,

U.S.A. (Source: Ratay, 2011)

The Bridge and Structural Engineer

had been placed into final position, and slabs

9, 10, and 11 for the west tower had just been
lifted. The entire collapse took only 5 seconds!
The collapse was one of the worst disasters in
USA. This was the first serious failure of a liftslab structure, a system that had been in use for
about 40 years.
An unusually prompt legal settlement
prematurely ended all investigations of the
collapse. Consequently, the exact cause of
the collapse has never been established. The
building had a number of deficiencies; any one
of which could have triggered the collapse. The
report by the National Bureau of Standards
(NBS) concluded that an overloaded steel angle
welded to a shear-head arm channel deformed,
causing the jack rod and lifting nut to slip out
and caused the collapse to begin. Failure was
possibly due to high concrete stresses on the
floor slabs by the placement process, resulting
in cracking of the slab concrete and ending in a
punching shear failure. Moreover, the ACI code
states that a minimum of two tendons shall be
provided in each direction through the critical
shear section over the columns. This was not
followed in the LAmbiance Plaza structure.
While buildings constructed by the lift-slab
method are stable once they are completed,
they may be unstable during construction, if
the following measures are not taken during
construction (Martin, http://911research.wtc7.
net; and Cuoco, et al, 1992)
Provision of temporary lateral bracing during
all stages of construction.

A more recent failure is that of the six-story parking

structure at Berkman Plaza in Jacksonville,
Florida, under construction on December 6,
2007, where 60% of the structure collapsed
suddenly "like a stack of pancakes", killing one
and injuring 23 others (see Fig. 10). The structure
consisted of cast-in-place simple reinforced
concrete columns, cast-in-place reinforced
and post-tensioned concrete beams, and castin-place post-tensioned concrete slabs. The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) concluded that while the collapse was
due to errors made by those on the design,
construction, and inspection teams, the structural
design had numerous deficiencies including one
column that was barely able to support the dead
loads of the structure. The formwork plans called
for the shoring and reshoring to extend all the
way to the ground. However, it was learned that
the shoring and reshoring below the 3rd level had
been removed shortly before the concrete on the
6th floor was placed (www.oshrc.gov/foia/Rpt_
SouthernPanServCo.pdf). This failure along with
the failures of Harbour Cay Condominium Cocoa
Beach, and the Turner Agri-Civil Center Arcadia
resulted in the Florida Structural Engineers
Association (FSEA) proposing legislation to
amend Chapter 471 of the Florida Statutes to
recognize the discipline of structural engineering
and provide for a corresponding license. An
engineer would apply for the SE license only
after being licensed as a PE, and after taking
and passing the NCEES 16-hour structural
examination.

Provision of concrete punching shear and

connections redundancies in the structure.

Provision of temporary posts, to support the

concrete slab until it is completely attached
to the column.

Provision of sway bracing (cables which keep

the stack of floors from shifting sideways).
Though this is required, it was not used in
LAmbiance Plaza

This failure resulted in temporary ban and tighter

design and construction requirements in some
states of USA on lift-slab construction (Ratay,
2011).
The Bridge and Structural Engineer

Fig.10 Collapsed Berkman Plaza, Jacksonville,

Florida (Source: Ratay, 2011)

Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014 31

5.0 Progressive Collapse and Ronan

Point Building
Progressive collapse provisions were introduced
in the British code as early as 1970. This was
a direct result of the Ronan Point collapse in
1968. This involved a 23-storey tower block in
Newham, East London, which suffered a partial
collapse when a gas explosion demolished a
load bearing wall, causing the collapse of one
entire corner of the building (see Fig. 11). Four
people were killed in the incident, and seventeen
were injured. (Ronan Point was repaired after
the explosion, it was demolished in 1986 for a
new low-rise housing development project)

in Oklahoma City, abnormal load requirements

were introduced in US Codes. Structural integrity
requirements are yet to be introduced in IS 456.

6.0 Failure of Beams

Though flexural failure of beams is rare, shear
failure of beams and failure due to improper
detailing have been reported in the literature. A
few such failures are discussed in this section.
6.1 Partial collapse of Wilkins Air Force Depot
in Shelby, Ohio
It is interesting to note that the shear provisions
of the ACI code were revised after the partial
collapse of Wilkins Air Force Depot in Shelby,
Ohio, in 1955 (See Fig. 12). At the time of
collapse, there were no loads other than the
self-weight of the roof. The 914 mm deep beams
of this warehouse did not contain stirrups and
had 0.45 percent of longitudinal reinforcement
(Feld and Carper 1997). The concrete alone was
expected to carry the shear forces- and had no
shear capacity once cracked. The beams failed
at a shear stress of only about 0.5 MPa, whereas
the ACI Code (1951 version) at the time permitted
an allowable working stress of 0.62 MPa for the
M20 concrete used in the structure. Experiments
conducted at the Portland Cement Association
(PCA) on 305 mm deep model beams indicated
that the beams could resist a shear stress of
about 1.0 MPa prior to failure (Feld and Carper
1997). However, application of an axial tensile

Fig. 11 Ronan Point collapse, London, U.K. (Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/)

Due to the failure of Ronan Point apartment

building, many other similar large panel system
buildings were demolished. The Building
Research Establishment, U.K., published a
series of reports in the 1980s to advise Councils
and building owners on what they should do
to check the structural stability of their blocks.
As a result of terrorist attacks on embassies
abroad, along with the Murrah Federal Building

32 Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014

Fig. 12 Shear failure of 900 mm deep beams in Air

Force Warehouse, Shelby, Ohio (Photo: C.P. Seiss)
(Source: Lubell et al 2004).

The Bridge and Structural Engineer

stress of about 1.4 MPa reduced the shear

capacity of the beam by 50 percent. Thus, it was
concluded that tensile stresses caused by the
restraint of shrinkage and thermal movements
caused the beams of Wilkins Air Force Depot to
fail at such low thermal shear stresses (Feld and
Carper 1997). The expansion joints locked and
did not function as intended to relieve stresses.
This failure outlines the importance of providing
minimum shear reinforcement in beams. It has
to be noted that repeated loading will result in
failure loads which may be 50 to 70 percent of
static failure loads (ACI-ASCE committee 426,
1973).

During the removal of shuttering of the last

bay on 26th January 1962, a sudden heavy
cracking sound was heard and within a few
seconds the roof caved in along the ridge. The
beams had cracked in the middle, and the main
reinforcements were pulled out. The collapsed
roof came to rest on the centering props below.

6.2 Sleipner Offshore Platform

Sleipner A is a combined accommodations,
production and processing offshore platform
at the Sleipner East gas field in the Norwegian
sector of the North Sea. It is a Condeep type
platform with a concrete gravity base structure
consisting of 24 cells and with a total base area
of 16 000 m2. Even though it was analyzed and
designed using sophisticated finite element
software, it resulted in catastrophic failure on
23rd August 1991 (resulting in an economic
loss of about $700 million), due to the underestimation of applied shear in the analysis and
over-estimation of shear strength in the design
of the tricell walls; about 15 m height of the
tricell walls did not contain any stirrups. It may
probably be considered as the most expensive
shear failure; more details of this failure may be
found in Collins et al 1997.
6.3 Failure of Industrial Building at Neyveli
A single span reinforced concrete structure
with a span of 19 m, as shown in Fig. 13,
was constructed for a urea drying and cooling
building at Neyveli, Tamilnadu in January 1962.
The roof beams in the end bays were reinforced
with seven 38 mm diameter bars at the bottom
and seven 22 mm diameter bars plus one 16 mm
diameter bar at the top. The beams in the central
bay were reinforced with seven 38 mm diameter
bars plus one 20 mm bar at the bottom and one
38 mm diameter bars plus six 32 mm diameter
bars at the top. The beam had a cross section
of 1425 mm x 600 mm and was made of M 15
concrete.
The Bridge and Structural Engineer

Fig. 13 Urea drying and cooling building at Neyveli

Testing of concrete cubes revealed that the

compressive strength of concrete was more
than that required according to the design. The
materials used, including the steel reinforcement
were of high quality, and yet the structure failed.
A close examination of the failed area disclosed
that most of the reinforcement bars were lapped
at the centre of the beam, where failure had
occurred. Naturally, a beam with a clear span of
18 m could not be reinforced without resorting
to lapping, as the bars were supplied at a
standard length of 12 m. To use the bars more
economically, and to avoid more than one lap,
all the lapping had been done in only one place,
that too at the centre. This resulted in heavy
congestion of bars and the bond between steel
and concrete was poor. The version of IS 456
in vogue at that time did not prohibit the lapping
of tensile reinforcement. Even the revised 1964
code suggested only that laps should be avoided
in maximum stressed zones as far as possible,
and lapped splices in tension should not be used
in the case of bars greater than 36 mm diameter;
such splices should be welded (Srinivasan 1975).

7.0 Bridge Failures

There are many historical examples of major
bridge failures, but one of the major collapses that
made an impact on our profession is the collapse
of the 41-year-old U.S. 35 High way 'Silver
Bridge' across the Ohio River at Point Pleasant,

Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014 33

West Virginia. It has to be noted that out of a total

of 503 recorded failures, 243 bridge failures were
related to flooding and scour (Wardhana and
Hadipriono, 2003). In addition to scour, bridge
designers must consider lateral loads caused by
significant flooding events as per the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. The lateral
loads imparted to bridge piers by ships and/or
barges or lateral loads resulting from vehicle or
train collisions (when bridge piers are located
near traffic lanes or a railroad below) must also
be considered in the design. It is because 12
percent of the total number of bridge failures
studied, resulted from land and marine vehicle
collisions (Wardhana and Hadipriono, 2003).
Here only the major failures that resulted in code
or specification changes are discussed.
7.1 Collapse of the Silver Bridge, West Virginia,
U.S.A.
The Silver Bridge was a chain suspension
structure that collapsed suddenly on December
15, 1967 in rush-hour traffic, killing 46 people
(two of the victims were never found), injuring
nine and sending 31 vehicles into the water. The
report of the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), released after 18 months of the failure,
attributed the failure to a small crack in the
lower limb of an eyebar in the suspension chain
(formed through fretting wear at the bearing),
which grew because of internal corrosion (a
problem known as stress corrosion cracking)
leading to the failure (Petroski, 1985; Seim,
2008). As a result of the collapse, an upstream
bridge, the St. Marys Bridge, was immediately
closed to traffic and was demolished by the state
in 1971. In 1968, the U.S. Congress passed
the Federal Highway Act to establish National
Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS); and it
was introduced on May 1, 1979. This standard
stipulated that each highway department should
have a bridge inspection organization capable
of performing inspections, preparing reports,
and determining ratings, in accordance with the
provisions of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Manual for Maintenance Inspection of Bridges
at regular intervals not exceeding two years
(Ratay, 2010). Many bridges throughout the

34 Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014

USA were closed or had speed limits and traffic

loads imposed on them. The Silver Bridge was
replaced within two years by a cantilever design
- the type that failed at Minneapolis, recently
(see section 7.3).
7.2 Collapse of I-95 Bridge over the Mianus
River in Connecticut
On June 28, 1983, a highway bridge carrying
Interstate 95 over the Mianus River in
Connecticut collapsed due to the cleavage
fracture failure of a pin-and-hanger connection,
killing three and injuring another three persons
(see Fig. 14). The ensuing investigation cited
corrosion from water buildup due to inadequate
drainage, and inadequate inspection as a cause.
The replacement span completed in 1992,
eliminated the pin-and-hanger assemblies that
caused the collapse of the original bridge. This
collapse focused attention on fracture-critical
bridges and established national inspection
guidelines, additional inspector training and new
fatigue research for these types of structures.
The FHWA added a new supplement to the
Bridge Inspectors Training Manual 70 in 1986:
Inspection of Fracture Critical Bridge Members.

Fig. 14 Collapse of I-95 Bridge over the Mianus

River in Connecticut (Source: Ratay, 2010)

7.3 Other Notable Bridge failures

One of the notable failures of a riveted steel truss
bridge is the collapse of the Quebec Bridge,
Canada on August 29, 1907, during construction,
killing 75 workers. The main cause of failure was
found to be the buckling of latticed compression
chords even though the official report attributed
the collapse to a number of other reasons (http://

The Bridge and Structural Engineer

matdl.org/failurecases/Bridge_Collapse_Cases/
Quebec_Bridge). Additionally, member stresses
were not recalculated and checked when the
center span length was increased by 61 m
during the design phase, overstressing several
members. As the bridge was erected, ironworkers
noticed significant mid-point displacements in
some of the truss compression members, but this
was not reported to the designer. Additionally,
even though it was a major bridge design, no one
proof checked the original design (The project
suffered a second collapse in 1916, when a
casting in the lifting apparatus broke, causing the
center span to fall into the water, killing thirteen
workers).
With the collapse of New Yorks I-90 over the
Schoharie Creek Bridge in 1987 and the deaths
of 10 people, attention was turned towards
underwater inspections. This structure failed
due to scouring of the center pier. In 1988, the
FHWA issued a technical advisory guide, Scour
at Bridges. In October of that same year, the
NBIS was modified based upon suggestions
made in the 1987 Surface Transportation and
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act. The national
underwater inspection frequency interval was set
at a maximum of 60 months. Scour critical bridge
inspections were initiated.
Even with these guidelines several bridge
failures have occurred. Most are small bridges
that collapsed due to overloads and many might
not have caused great loss of life. A recent
exception however was the sudden collapse
on August 1, 2007 of the I-35W Bridge over the
Mississippi River in Minnesota killing 13 people
and injuring 145 (See Fig. 15). The findings by
the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board)
indicate under-designed gusset plates were a

Fig.15 Two different views of the I-35W Bridge

failure (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/)

major factor, coupled with weight added to

the bridge over the years as well as ongoing
construction that had more than 191 tons of
construction material piled over the failure area
on the bridge on the day of the collapse. More
details of this bridge failure may be found in
Subramanian (Feb 2008).
Subramanian (June 2008) provides a brief
report about the measures taken by engineers
to prevent failures similar to that of the I-35W
Mississippi river bridge collapse.
The collapse of shoring in the construction of a
highway bridge built to carry Maryland Route 198
over the Baltimore-Washington Expressway, in
1989 injured nine workers and five motorists,
and killed one. This led to the research and
publication of new design specifications and
construction practices for temporary works by
the FHWA and to the changes in the provisions
for temporary works in the AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges (Ratay
2010). A few more bridge failures that resulted
in changes to code and standard clausess and
practices may be found in Ratay (2010).
7.4 Collapse of Koror - Babeldaob Bridge,
Republic of Palau, Micronesia
The importance of considering long term
deflections in the design was revealed in the
1996 collapse of the Koror-Babeldaob Bridge
(see Fig. 16). This bridge was completed in
1977, to connect the two main islands of Koror
and Babeldaob in the Republic of Palau. It
is a reinforced concrete, balanced cantilever
prestressed concrete box girder bridge with a

The Bridge and Structural Engineer

Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014 35

total length of 385.6 m, with a main span of 241 m.

Its two lane single cell box girder superstructure
was built using cast-in-place segments and
a permanent mid-span hinge. After 18 years,
the deflection in the main span was found to
be excessive (the total deflection was 1.61 m
compared to the calculated final sag of 0.46 m
to 0.58 m, measured from the design camber of
-0.3 m), and the prestress loss was measured as
50%. Two independent studies were conducted
and they concluded that the bridge was safe and
the large deflections were due to actual creep
and the lower value of modulus of elasticity of the
concrete compared to those adopted in design.

Bazant et al 2010 showed that the main lessons

from this failure are (1) the use of a realistic
creep and shrinkage model is important (existing
models for creep and shrinkage prediction grossly
underestimate the deflections and prestress
loss); (2) three-dimensional finite element
analysis is required; and (3) the differences in
drying rates among slabs of different thicknesses
and exposures must be taken into account. They
also showed that the Model B3, as per 1995
RILEM recommendation, when modified, could
be used to estimate the long-time deflections
reliably.

8.0 Wind Induced Failures

It is estimated that about 80 - 85% of economic
losses due to natural disasters in the world are
caused by extreme wind and its related events
(Smith and Katz, 2013). Here only the collapse
of Tacoma Narrows Bridge and Ferrybridge
Cooling towers are considered.
8.1 The wind-induced collapse of Tacoma
Narrows Bridge
The original Tacoma Narrows Bridge opened
on July 1, 1940, and dramatically collapsed on
November 7 of the same year (See Fig. 17).
This suspension bridge spanned the Tacoma
Narrows strait between Tacoma and the Kitsap
Peninsula, in the United States and had a total
length of 1,810.2 m with a central (longest) span
of 853.4 m.

Fig. 16 The Koror-Babeldaob Bridge, Republic of

Palau, Micronesia, before and after failure (Source:
Bazant et al. 2010 & 2011)

It was decided to install additional prestressing

and eliminate the hinge at the mid-span. The
retrofit began on 17th October 1995, with the
removal of concrete overlay. But, the bridge
collapsed suddenly on 26th September 1996, 3
months after the reopening, with 2 fatalities. A
new bridge was constructed in its place and was
opened on January 11, 2002.
It wasnt until 2008 that the technical data
necessary for complete analysis were released.

36 Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014

Fig. 17 Collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge,

Washington state, 1940 (Source: Smithsonian
Institution)

The Bridge and Structural Engineer

The failure of the bridge occurred due to the

twisting of the bridge deck in mild winds of
about 64 km/h (See Fig. 17). This failure mode
is termed as torsional vibration mode (which
is different from the transversal or longitudinal
vibration mode). This vibration was caused by
aeroelastic fluttering (a phenomenon in which
aerodynamic forces on an object is coupled with
a structure's natural mode of vibration to produce
rapid periodic motion).

in 1973, Bouchain, France in 1979, Fiddler's

Ferry, U.K. in 1984, and in Willow Island, West
Virginia, USA and Port Gibson, Mississippi,
USA in the 1980s. These failures resulted
in the revision of building codes all over the
world, to include provisions regarding improved
structural support, and necessity of doing wind
tunnel tests for complicated configurations and
arrangements.

In the Tacoma Narrows bridge, instead of the

usual deep open trusses, narrow and shallow
solid I- beams were used in the decks, which
resulted in the build-up of wind loads. This bridge
collapse boosted research in the field of bridge
aerodynamics which resulted in better designs.
After the collapse, two bridges were constructed
in the same general location. The first one, now
called the Tacoma Westbound bridge is 1822
m long -12 m longer than Galloping Gertie. The
second one, the Tacoma Eastbound Bridge,
opened in 2007.
8.2 Failure of Ferrybridge Cooling towers
Large cooling towers are susceptible to wind
damage, and several spectacular failures have
occurred in the past. One such dramatic failures
is the three 115 m tall, hyperbolic cooling towers
failed by snap-through buckling at Ferrybridge
power station, England on 1st Nov. 1965 due
to vibrations in 137 km/h winds. The structures
were designed to withstand higher wind speeds.
But the following two factors caused the
collapse: The average wind speed over a one
minute period was used in design; whereas,
the structures were susceptible to much shorter
gusts, which were not, considered in the original
design. The designers used wind loading based
on experiments using a single isolated tower.
But, in reality, the shape and arrangement of
these cooling towers, created turbulence and
vortex, on the leeward towers that collapsed. An
eyewitness said that the towers where moving
like belly dancers. Three out of the original eight
cooling towers were destroyed and the remaining
five were severely damaged, as shown in Fig.
18. The failed towers were rebuilt and the others
strengthened. Occurrences of failure of cooling
towers have also been reported in Ardeer, U.K.
The Bridge and Structural Engineer

Fig. 18 Three collapsed cooling towers at

Ferrybridge, UK (Source: http://www.knottingley.org/
history/tales_and_events.htm)

In addition to the above failures, the pedestrian

steel suspension London Millennium Footbridge
over the River Thames in London, England,
resulted in a serviceability failure due to
excessive vibration. To improve the view, the
bridge's suspension design had the supporting
cables below the deck level, giving a very
shallow profile. Construction of the bridge began
in 1998, and it was opened on 10th June 2000.
Londoners nicknamed the bridge the Wobbly
Bridge after they felt an unexpected and
uncomfortable swaying motion on the first two
days after the bridge opened. After extensive
analysis by the engineers, the problem was
fixed by the retrofitting 37 fluid-viscous dampers
(energy dissipating) to control horizontal
movement and 52 tuned mass dampers (inertial)
to control vertical movement. After a period of
testing, the bridge was successfully re-opened

Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014 37

on 22 February 2002. The bridge has not been

subject to significant vibration since then. This
bridge outlined the importance of considering
serviceability limit state due to vibration in the
design of bridges.

9.0 Failures due to Terrorist Attacks

The collapse of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
in Oklahoma in 1995 and the terrorist attack on
World Trade Center Towers in New York and
the Pentagon in Washington D.C. during 2001
resulted in renewed research in fire resistant
design and blast resistant design.
9.1 Failure of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
in Oklahoma
On 19 April 1995, the nine-story concrete framed
Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma
was struck by a huge car bomb causing partial
collapse, resulting in the deaths of 168 people.
The bomb, though large, caused a significantly
disproportionate collapse of the structure. The
bomb blew all the glass off the front of the
building and completely shattered a ground floor
reinforced concrete column. At second story level
wider column spacing existed, and loads from
upper story columns were transferred into fewer
columns below by girders at second floor level.
The removal of one of the lower story columns
caused neighbouring columns to fail due to the
extra load, eventually leading to the complete
collapse of the central portion of the building
(See Fig. 19). The bombing was one of the
first to highlight the extreme forces that blast loading

from terrorism can exert on buildings, and led to

increased consideration of terrorism in structural
design of buildings. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) developed a
number of design guidelines for limiting or
mitigating the effects of terrorist attacks, focusing
primarily on explosions, but also addressing
chemical, biological, and radiological attacks
(FEMA 426, FEMA 427, FEMA 428, FEMA 430,
and FEMA 439 A &B).
9.2 Collapse of World Trade Center Towers,
New York
The twin 110 storey towers of the World Trade
Center in New York City, USA collapsed on
September 11, 2001, as a result of two commercial
airliners, hijacked by terrorists, deliberately
crashed into them. The impact and resulting fires
caused both towers to collapse within two hours.
Later that day, WTC Building 7 also collapsed
from fires that had started when the North Tower
collapsed. As a result of the attacks to the towers,
2,752 people died, including all 157 passengers
(including the hijackers) and crew aboard the
two airplanes (Subramanian, 2002).
The following changes were included in
International Codes as a result of 9/11 attack
(http://www.iccsafe.org.):
Elevators must be provided in high-rise
buildings more than 36.5 m tall so that
firefighters can get into and fight fires, without
having to walk up the stairs with heavy
equipment;

An additional stairway has to be provided for

high-rises that are more than 128 m tall;

In lieu of the additional stairway, extra

elevators may be provided that can be used to
evacuate building occupants without waiting
for assistance from emergency personnel;

A higher standard for fire resistance has to

be adopted in high-rise buildings more than
128 m tall;

More robust fire proofing has to be provided

for buildings more than 23 m tall, so that
they will not be dislodged by impacts or
explosions;

Fig.19 Collapsed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building

in Oklahoma (Source: http://eyeofthefish.org)

Shafts enclosing elevators and exit stairways

38 Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014

The Bridge and Structural Engineer

should have impact resistant walls;

Self-luminous exit pathway markings should
be provided in all exit stairways; and

Radio coverage systems should be available

within the building to allow emergency
personnel to better communicate with
the people inside the building and with
emergency staff outside the building.

10.0 Failure of Anchor bolts

On July 10, 2006, about 26 tons of concrete
and associated suspension hardware fell
on a passenger car when it was passing the
Interstate 90 connector tunnel in Boston, USA
(This tunnel is often referred to as the Big Dig),
killing a passenger and injuring the driver. A
later investigation found hundreds of dangerous
adhesive anchors were holding together the tiles
on the tunnel ceilings, which had to be removed.
The National Transportation Safety Boards
(NTSB) investigation of that accident determined
that the ceiling collapse was due to the use of
an epoxy anchor adhesive with poor creep
resistance, that is, an epoxy formulation that
was not capable of sustaining long-term loads.
Over time, the epoxy deformed and fractured
until several ceiling support anchors pulled out
and allowed a portion of the ceiling to collapse.
Selection of a better adhesive could have
prevented the accident. Powers Fasteners has
increased the safety factor on its fast-setting
materials by a factor of four since the Big Dig
collapse. NTSB recommended federal and
state highway authorities develop standards
and protocols for the testing of adhesive
anchors used in sustained tensile load overhead
highway applications, and consider the creep
characteristics of polymers. A mandatory tunnel
inspection was also suggested. More information
about this failure and recommendations by NTSB
may be found at NTSB/HAR-07/02 (2007). This
led ACI committee 318 to work diligently on
design requirements for adhesive anchors and
include them in Appendix D of ACI 318-11.
In this connection, it is important to note that ACI
503.5R-92, Guide for the Selection of Polymer
Adhesives with Concrete, which was first

The Bridge and Structural Engineer

published in 1992 and reapproved in 1997 and

2003 cautions about creep failure of adhesive
anchors and suggests pre-testing of such
anchors. ACI Committee 355 also developed
ACI 355.2-07, Qualification of Post-Installed
Mechanical Anchors in Concrete.
New Steel Erection Final Rule by the US
Department of Labor, Office of Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), issued on January 18,
2001, effective January 18, 2002, mandated
the use of four, rather than two, anchor bolts
in structural steel column base plates, as well
as a minimum design load and eccentricity in
Section 1926.755(a) General requirements for
erection stability of the Construction Industry
Standards. This rule was "negotiated" as a result
of numerous construction accidents caused by
the toppling of unbraced steel columns during
erection (Ratay, 2011)

11.0 Other Failures

In this section we will consider other failures
which prompted revision of code provisions.
11.1 Collapse Due to Corrosion of Post-tensioned
Steel
The Benjamin Franklin Hall, (also called Der
Kongresshalle or the 'pregnant oyster'), built in
1957 collapsed on May 21, 1980, without any
visible deterioration prior to failure, killing one
and injuring numerous people. The 76 mm thick
reinforced concrete shell roof resembles an
open human eye with a tension ring as the pupil
and the two arches at the edges representing the
upper and lower lids. The two arch support points
represent the corners of the 'eye'. The thin shell
roof had post-tensioning bars in ducts which had
corroded partly due to poor quality of grouting,
and led to the collapse. The hall was rebuilt in its
original style and reopened again in 1987 at the
750 years jubilee of Berlin. More details of the
failure may be found in Subramanian, 1982.
It has to be noted that the internally posttensioned Ynys-y-Gwas Bridge in Wales
collapsed in 1985. In 1986 the bridge over the
Mandovi River in Goa, India collapsed after less
than 20 years in service due to corrosion of the
post-tensioning cables and the Malle Bridge over
Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014 39

the river Schelde in Belgium collapsed in 1992

for similar reasons. Based on these failures,
the UK Department of Transport banned ducted
grouted post-tensioning in bridges in 1992.
11.2 Hyatt Regency walkway collapse
The lobby of the 40-story Hyatt Regency hotel in
Kansa City, Missouri, USA featured a multistory
atrium, which had suspended concrete
walkways on the second, third, and fourth levels.
The Second and fourth level walkways were
suspended from a set of steel tension rods of size
32 mm, with the second floor walkway hanging
directly underneath the fourth floor walkway. The
walkway platform was supported on 3 crossbeams suspended by steel rods retained by
nuts. The cross-beams were box beams made
from C-channels welded toe-to-toe. The original
design called for three pairs of rods running from
the second floor all the way to the ceiling. On
July 17th 1981, when a party was going on, the
4th floor walkway failed and fell on the lower
walkway, both walkways crashing into the floor
three stories below killing 114 people and injuring
185. The separate third floor walkway was not
involved in the collapse.

Fig. 20 Difference between the design and

construction of the walkway support system

The cause of the failure is found to be that the

contractor replaced the single vertical suspension
rod specified by the original designer, by two
shorter rods; one from the upper support to the
first walkway, and another from the bottom beam
of the first walkway down to the second walkway
(see Fig. 20). Now the nut and washer under the
upper rod is subjected to double the design load
(in addition the resulting eccentricity created a
local bending moment), which lead to the failure.
Failure to communicate this detail properly to the
original designers and failure to check the details
were cited as the main problems for the failure;

40 Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014

the faulty connection detail that failed was never

shown on any drawings, and it was not even
designed. The high number of fatalities resulting
from the walkway's collapse raised the question
of whether the factor of safety required for a
building should be proportional to the possible
consequences of its collapse (Kaminetzky,
1991).
11.3 Hartford Civil Centre roof collapse
The Hartford Civic Centre Coliseum, Connecticut,
USA, was completed in 1973. The space frame
roof structure was 7.6 m high and covered 110
m by 91 m, with clear spans of 64 to 82 m. On
January 17, 1978, at 4:15 a.m. the roof crashed
down 25.2 m into the floor, due to a large snow
storm. Luckily it was empty by the time of the
collapse, and no one was hurt. Though there
were several causes for the collapse, the main
cause was the relatively minor changes in the
connections between steel components, i.e.,
the fabrication deviating from design. A few
centimeters shift of the fabricated connection, cut
down the axial force capacity to less than tenth of
the design value! Some angle sections found at
the wreckage were found to have failed in block
shear. Epstein and Thacker, in 1991 used finite
element analysis and found that block shear was
the mode of failure for these angles. This study
also established the difference in behaviour of
coped beams (where the load is applied to the
connection in the plane of the web, which also
is the block shear plane) and angles (where the
load is applied eccentric to the failure plane).
In addition, the Hartford Civic Centre Coliseum
roof design was extremely susceptible to torsional
buckling of compression members which, as
a mode of failure, was not considered by the
computer analysis used by the designers. Had
the designers chosen tubular or even I sections,
instead of the cruciform section adopted in the
roof members, the failure might have been
averted (the four steel angles forming the
cruciform cross-section has much smaller radius
of gyration than tubes or I-sections, and hence
not efficient in resisting compressive loads).
This failure also showed that computer software
should be used only as a software tool, and not
as a substitute for sound engineering experience
The Bridge and Structural Engineer

and judgment (Smith and Epstein, 1980).

The use of low toughness weld metal at the

beam-column connection;

11.4 Failure of Slender Shear Walls

Uncontrolled deposition rates;

Observed wall damage in recent M 8.8

earthquakes in Chile (2010) and New Zealand
(2011), where modern building codes exist,
exceeded expectations. In these earthquakes,
structural wall damage included boundary
crushing, reinforcement fracture, and global
wall buckling. IN ACI 318-11, A single curtain of
web reinforcement is allowed if wall shear stress
is less than 0.17f_c^' MPa, where f_c^' is the
cylinder compressive strength of concrete. This
provision is acceptable for squat walls with low
shear stress (e.g., walls with aspect ratio less
than 1.5); however, for slender walls where
buckling of boundary vertical reinforcement and
lateral instability are more likely due to significant
tensile yielding of reinforcement under cyclic
loading, two curtains should always be used.
This recommendation applies to both Special
Structural Walls (high ductility) and Ordinary
Structural Walls (moderate ductility). Based on
laboratory tests it was suggested to change the
value of the denominator in Eqn. 21.8 of ACI 31811 from 600 to 1200 (Wallace, 2012). To ensure
spread of plasticity consistent with the derivation
of Eqn 21.8 of ACI 318-11, walls should be
designed and detailed as tension-controlled.
11.5
Failure
of
Connections

Welded

Beam-column

Subsequent to the January 1994 Northridge

earthquake in California and Kobe earthquake
in Japan in 1995, it was determined that some
damage to momentresisting frames occurred at
the beam-column connections. Failures included
fractures of bottom beam flange-to-column
flange complete-joint-penetration groove welds,
which propagated into the adjacent column
flange and web and into the beam bottom flange.
This failure was accompanied in some instances
by secondary cracking of the beam web shear
plate and failure of the beam top flange weld. The
factors that contributed to the damage included
the following (FEMA 2000):
Stress concentration at the bottom flange weld,
due to the notch effect produced by backing
strips left in place;
The Bridge and Structural Engineer

The use of larger members than those

previously tested;

Lack of control of basic material properties

(large variation of member strength from the
prescribed values);

Inadequate
quality
construction; and

control

during

The tri-axial restraint existing at the center

of beam flanges and at the beam-column
interface, which inhibits yielding.

A multi-billion dollar research conducted over

10 years resulted in the development of design
provisions for moment resistant frames, and
prescribed in AISC 341-05 (Seismic provisions
for structural steel buildings, American Institute
of Steel Construction), which was again
revised in 2010. In addition, AISC developed
another standard, AISC 358-05 (Pre-qualified
connections for special and intermediate
steel moment frames for seismic applications
including Supplement No.1), which was revised
in 2010. This Standard presents materials,
design and detailing, fabrication, and inspection
requirements for a series of pre-qualified moment
connections. The AISC 358-2010 contains a
number of pre-qualified connections and these
are discussed in Subramanian, 2010.

12.0 Summary and Conclusions

The earliest building code is The Code of
Hammurabi circa 1760 BC. Unlike todays codes,
the Code of
Hammurabi dealt more with the consequences
of building failure rather than how to safely
construct a building. For instance, Law #229
stated If a builder builds a house for someone,
and does not construct it properly, and the house
which he built falls and kills its owner then the
builder shall be put to death. Modern building
codes shifted from outlining the punishment for
poor construction to mandating requirements that
would make building safe and better. Todays
building codes are built on the experience of
Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014 41

the past. Hence, each new earthquake, fire,

tornado, hurricane or other natural/man-made
disaster results in improved codes for building
construction. Therefore, when a structural failure
occurs, investigators review the adherence
of the failed structure to the governing codes,
standards, regulations and industry practices.
If it is found that some of the clauses in these
Standards contributed to or, indeed, created the
cause of the failure, attempts are made to review
and revise those provisions. In this paper, some
of the important collapses that resulted in revision
of code clauses are described. Such failures
if documented properly will be useful to the
practicing engineers who can learn from these
failures and will not repeat the mistakes in their
designs. In addition, in Western Countries the
concept of conducting professional examinations
has been introduced to qualify Engineers for
professional practice. Such a practice will
reduce the number of failures, as the practicing
Engineers will be required to constantly upgrade
their knowledge, as more and more materials,
design and construction techniques and methods
are being introduced rapidly due to research and
development conducted all over the world.

[5]

[6] BURLAND, J.B., JAMIOLKOWSKI, M.B.

and VIGGIANI, C., Leaning Tower of Pisa:
Behaviour after Stabilization Operations,
International Journal of Geoengineering
Case Histories, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2009, pp. 156169. (http://casehistories.geoengineer.org/
volume/volume1/issue3/IJGCH_1_3_2.
pdf, last accessed on 26th June 2014)
[7]

COLLINS, M.P., VECCHIO, F.J., SELBY,

R.G., and GUPTA, P.R. , The Failure of an
Offshore Platform, Concrete International,
ACI, Vol. 19, No. 8, Aug. 1997, pp. 29-35.

[8]

CUOCO,
D.,
PERAZA,
D.,
and
SCARANGELLO, T., "Investigation of
L'Ambiance Plaza Building Collapse."
Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, ASCE, Vol. 4, No.4, Aug. 1992,
pp. 211-231.

[9]

ELLINGWOOD, B. R., SMILOWITZ, R.,

DUSENBEERY, D.O., DUTHINH, D.,
LEW, H.S., and CARINO, N.J., Best
Practices for Reducing the Potential for
Progressive Collapse in Buildings, NISTIR
7396, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, Feb 2007, 216
pp.

References:
[1]

ACI-ASCE COMMITTEE 426, Shear

Strength
of
Reinforced
Concrete
Members, Proceedings, ASCE, Journal of
the Structural Div., Vol. 99, No. ST6, June
1973, pp. 1091-1187.

[2]

AGARWAL, R.K. and Gardner, N.J., Form

and Shore Requirements for Multi-Story
Flat Slab Type Buildings, Proceedings,
ACI Journal, Vol. 71, No.11, Nov. 1974,
pp.559-569.

[3]

BAZANT, Z.P., HUBLER, M. H. and YU, Q.,

Pervasiveness of Excessive Segmental
Bridge Deflections: Wake-Up Call for
Creep, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 108,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2011, pp. 766-774.

[4]

BAZANT, Z.P., YU, Q., LI, G-H, KLEIN, G.J.

and KRISTEK, V., Excessive Deflections
of Record-Span Prestressed Box Girder,
Concrete International, ACI, Vol. 32, No. 6,
June 2010, pp.44-52.

42 Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014

BROWN, C.B., and YIN, X., "Errors

in Structural Engineering", Journal of
structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114,
No. 11, Nov. 1988, pp. 2575-2593

(http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build07/
art008.html, Accessed 1st July 2014)
[10] ELWOOD, K.J., MAFFEI, J., RIEDERER,
K.A., and TELLEEN, K., Improving Column
Confinement, Part 1: Assessment of Design
Provisions, Concrete International, ACI,
Vol. 31, No.11, Nov. 2009, pp. 32-39, and
Part 2: Proposed New Provisions for the
ACI 318 Building Code, Vol. 31, No.12,
Dec. 2009, pp.41-38.

EPSTEIN, H.I. and THACKER, B. Effect

of Bolt Stagger for Block Shear Tension
Failures in Angles, Computers and
Structures, Vol.39, No.5, May 1991,
pp.571-76.

[11] FELD, J., and CARPER, K., Construction

The Bridge and Structural Engineer

Failures,
Second
Edition,
WileyInterscience, New York, 1997, 528pp.
[12] FEMA 426, Reference Manual to
Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks
Against Buildings, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Dec. 2003, 420 pp.
[13] FEMA 427, Primer for Design of
Commercial Buildings to Mitigate Terrorist
Attacks: Providing Protection to People
and Buildings, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Dec. 2003,108 pp.
[14] FEMA 428, Primer to Design Safe School
Projects in Case of Terrorist Attacks and
School Shootings, 2nd Edition, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Jan.
2012, 317 pp
[15] FEMA 430, Site and Urban Design for
Security- Guidance Against Potential
Terrorist Attacks, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Dec. 2007,272 pp,
[16] FEMA 439A, Blast-Resistance Benets
of Seismic Design, Phase 1 Study:
Performance Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Strengthening Systems Applied
to the Murrah Federal Building Design,
Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Dec. 2005,296 pp.
[17] FEMA P-439B, Blast-Resistant Benefits
of Seismic Design, Phase 2 Study:
Performance Analysis of Structural
Steel Strengthening Systems, Federal
Emergency Management Agency Nov.
2010, 130 pp.
[18] KAMINETZKY,
D.,
Design
and
Construction Failures: Lessons from
Forensic Investigations, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1991, 600 pp.
[19] LEYENDECKER, E.V., and FATTAL, S.G.,
Investigation of the Skyline Plaza Collapse
in Fairfax County, Virginia, Center for
Building Technology, Institute for Applied
Technology, National Bureau of Standards,
Washington DC 20234, Report No. 94,
Feb. 1977, 91 pp.
[20] LUBELL, A., SHERWOOD, T., BENTZ,
E.C. and COLLINS, M.P., Safe Shear
The Bridge and Structural Engineer

Design of Large, Wide Beams, Concrete

International, ACI, Vol. 26, No. 1, Jan 2004,
pp. 66-78.
[21] MARTIN, R., L'Ambiance Plaza Collapse,
Bridgeport, Connecticut, April 23, 1987
(http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/
analysis/compare/enguab_ambiance.htm),
Assessed on 16th July 2014
[22] NIST GCR 10-917-7, Program Plan for
the Development of Collapse Assessment
and Mitigation Strategies for Existing
Reinforced Concrete Buildings, NEHRP
Consultants Joint Venture, National
Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD, Aug. 2010, 100 pp.
[23] PCA-IS
184,
Structural
Integrity
Requirements for Concrete Buildings,
Portland Cement Association, Skokie,
Illinois, 2006, 6pp.(www.cement.org)
[24] PETROSKI, H., To Engineer is Human:
The Role of Failure in Successful Design,
Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1985, 272 pp.
[25] PRABHAKAR, N., "Building Collapses and
Remedies", The Indian concrete Journal,
Vol. 72, No.8, Aug. 1998, pp.391-393.
[26] RATAY, R.T., Changes in Codes,
Standards and Practices Following
Structural Failures, Part 1: Bridges,
Structure Magazine, ASCE, Dec.2010,
pp.16-19, and Part 2: Buildings, Structure
Magazine, ASCE, Apr.2011, pp.21-24
[27] SCHELLHAMMER, J., DELATTE, N.
J. and BOSELA, P. A. Another Look
at the Collapse of Skyline Plaza at
Bailey's Crossroads, Virginia, Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities,
ASCE, Vol. 27, No. 3, June 2013, pp. 354361.
[28] SEIM, C. "Why Bridges Have Failed
Throughout History", Civil Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 78, No.5, May 2008, pp: 64
71, 8487.
[29] SMITH, E. and EPSTEIN, H., Hartford
Coliseum Roof Collapse: Structural
Collapse and Lessons Learned, Civil
Engineering, ASCE, April 1980, pp. 59 62.
Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014 43

[30] SMITH, A.B., and KATZ, R.W., U.S. Billiondollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Data
Sources, Trends, Accuracy and Biases,
Journal of Natural Hazards, Vol. 67, No.
2, June 2013, pp 387-410. (http://www1.
ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/papers/smithand-katz-2013.pdf )
[31] SRINIVASAN, D., Case Study of a
Building Failure, The Indian Concrete
Journal, Vol. 49, No. 6, June 1975, pp.164165,178. Discussions by Subramanian,
N., The Indian Concrete Journal, Vol. 50,
No.3, Mar. 1976, pp. 69.
[32] SUBRAMANIAN, N., Failure of Congress
Hall, Berlin, The Indian Concrete Journal,
Vol.56, No.11, Nov. 1982, pp. 290-291.
[33] SUBRAMANIAN, N., Collapse of WTC
Its Impact on Skyscraper Construction,
The Indian Concrete Journal, Vol. 76, No.
3, Mar. 2002, pp.165-179.
[34] SUBRAMANIAN, N., I-35W Mississippi
River Bridge failure-Is it a Wakeup Call?,
The Indian Concrete Journal, Vol.82, No.2,
Feb 2008, pp.29-38.
[35] SUBRAMANIAN, N., Bridge Collapse
Averted, The Indian Concrete Journal,
Vol.82, No.6, June 2008, pp.33-38.
[36] SUBRAMANIAN, N., Rare Foundation
Failure, New Building Materials &
Construction World, Vol. 16, No.2, Aug
2009, pp.100-105.
[37] SUBRAMANIAN, N., Pre-qualified Seismic
Moment Connections, New Building
Materials & Construction World, Vol. 17,

44 Volume 45

Number 4 December 2014

No.2, Aug 2010, pp. 160-171.

[38]
SUBRAMANIAN,
N.,
Design
of
Confinement Reinforcement for RC
Columns, The Indian Concrete Journal,
Vol. 85, No.8, Aug. 2011, pp.25-36.
[39] SUBRAMANIAN N., Design of Reinforced
Concrete Structures, Oxford University
Press, New Delhi, 2013, 880 pp.
[40] SUBRAMANIAN, N., Alternative Punching
Shear Reinforcement for RC Flat Slabs,
The Indian Concrete Journal, Vol. 88, No.
1, Jan. 2014, pp. 33-44.
[41] SUBRAMANIAN, N. and MUTHUKUMAR,
D., Leaning Tower of Pisa - will it be
reopened for tourists?, Bulletin of the
Indian Concrete Institute, No.63, AprilJune 1998, pp. 13-16.
[42] WALLACE, J.W., Behavior, Design, and
Modeling of Structural Walls and Coupling
Beams Lessons from Recent Laboratory
Tests and Earthquakes, International
Journal of Concrete Structures and
Materials, Vol.6, No.1, March 2012, pp.318.
[43] WARDHANA, K. and HADIPRIONO, F.C.,
Analysis of Recent Bridge Failures in the
United States, Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, Vol. 17, No. 3, Aug.
2003 pp. 144-150.
[44] WARDHANA, K. and HADIPRIONO, F.C.,
Analysis of Recent Bridge Failures in the
United States, Journal of Performance
of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, Vol.17,
No.3, Aug. 2003, pp.144-150, 2003.

The Bridge and Structural Engineer