On April 23, 1987, the
L’Ambiance Plaza Building in
Bridgeport, Conneticut, collapsed
during construction. . This collapse
spurred a large scale, eight day,
rescue attempt and ultimately left 28
workers dead.(Moncarz, 1992) This
16 story building, 13 apartment levels
over 3 parking levels, was being
constructed using the lift-slab method.
The lift-slab method consists of
casting post-tensioned floor slabs,
one on-top of another, at ground level
and then hydraulically jacking each
level into place. At approximately
1:30pm on April 23rd a loud bang was
heard and within the next 2-10
seconds the entire building crashed to
the ground. The collapse launched
several investigations but was quickly
settled out of court ending all
investigations and leaving the exact
cause of the collapse unknown.
Although the exact cause of the
collapse remains unknown, five viable
theories have been proposed in the
years since the collapse by various
experts on building failures.
CASE STUDY ON POSSIBLE
CONSTRUCTION FAILURES THAT CAUSED
THEORY 1:
Instability of the wedges THE COLLAPSE
supporting the 12th floor and roof package
-Thornton Tomasetti Engineers
Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers' concluded the epicenter of the collapse was a core column, 3E, of
the west building. Wedges supporting the 12th floor and roof package at the column were unstable and
started the collapse. They state in their "Collapse Scenario" that a wedge supporting the 12/R package rolled
out leaving the shearhead at this level supported by a single wedge. The horizontal load from the jack used to
plumb the building caused the remaining wedge to roll slightly as evidenced by rounding and bending in the
west weld block of the shearhead. Additional movement of the slabs may have caused the remaining wedge to
roll completely out.
THEORY 2:
Jack rod and lifting nut slipped out due to a deformation of an overloaded steel angle
welded to a shear head arm channel
-National Bureau of Standards (NBS
The NBS concluded in their investigation that the failure began at the building's most heavily
loaded column, E4.8 or the adjacent column, E3.8, as a result of a lifting assembly failure. At each column the
shearhead reinforces the concrete slab, transfers vertical load from the slab into the column, and provides a
place of attachment for the lifting assembly. Steel channels are cast in the slab, allowing room for the lifting
angle. Lifting rods, raised by hydraulic jacks above them, are passed through holes in the lifting angle and
fastened with lifting nuts. (Scribner, 1988)
THEORY 3:
Improper design of post-tensioning tendons
-Schupack Suarez Engineers, Inc
The Schupack Suarez Engineers examined the unusual layout of the post-tensioning tendons in the
west building. The east building's tendons were run in a typical two-way banded layout, uniform tendons
running North - South carry the slab load to the East- West Column line, where the E-W banded tendons then
"pick up" the load and transfer it to the columns. However, at column 4.8E in the west building, the E-W
tendons split around the column line. The absence of tendons in Line E due to the split at the column added
increased load into the structure. The design details also did not include the location of the shear walls or the
openings for the walls at Columns 11A, 8A, and 2H. Finite-element analysis determined that the tensile
stresses along Column Line E, east of Column 4.8E, exceeded the cracking strength of the concrete. By this
reasoning once a crack was initiated it would spread immediately to Column 4.8E. The finite-element analysis
also showed that even under ideal lifting circumstances column 2H would have had unsuitably high
compressive and punching shear stresses.
THEORY 4:
Substandard welds and questionable weld details
-Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
OSHA stated that two weld design details were questionable. These welds were the 1/2 in. single-
bevel-groove weld between the arm channel and the lifting angle in the shearheads, and the one-sided
square-groove weld connecting the header bar and header channel at the shearhead. Both welds were of
unknown and unspecified penetration depth and therefore had an unpredictable strength. The single-bevel-
groove weld could also have been further weakened from flush grinding. The one-sided square-groove welds
are even more questionable due to the fact that they were not among the American Welding Society
prequalified joints.
THEORY 5:
Global instability caused by lateral displacement
-Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. (FaAA)
FaAA consultants focused on the response of lateral loading and overall torsional instability. The shearhead
connection is rotationally stiff when the concrete slab is temporarily resting on the wedges and when it is
fully welded in its final position it becomes a rigid connection. However, when the slab is lifted off the wedge
it can rotate freely. In the absence of lateral loading the building would be completely stable. In the presence
of lateral loading or displacement, such as that from the horizontal jacking just after lunch, the slab could be
lifted off a wedge and the building would become laterally flexible. FaAA used 3D computer modeling (ANSYS)
and nonlinear stability modeling to investigate this possibility. Upon analysis of their modeling FaAA
concluded that lateral instability was the cause of collapse for both the west and east buildings.