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

By Ir. Tee Horng Hean, B.Eng. (Hons), MSc (Eng.), MBA, M.I.E.M.
Failure Of Structures
M
any young engineers have never witnessed
structural failure. A structural failure may
have adverse consequences on the parties
involved in the construction of the structure.
For instance, a former school bus driver brought up a
negligence suit against a contractor who constructed a
unipole tower, which collapsed on his bus while he was
driving at the junction of Jalan Segambut and Jalan
Kuching (NSTP, March 6 2001). According to the findings,
the unipole could only withstand a wind speed of 19.2
metres per second and in Kuala Lumpur, wind speeds of
as high as 35.5 metres per second have been recorded
(NSTP, March 6 2001). The best remedy for young
engineers, if in doubt of their design criteria and to avoid
any structural failure, is to ascertain the facts from reliable
sources.
What Is A Structure?
Basically, a structure is a system for transferring loads
from one place to another and nature can show examples
of structures that support loads (Seward, 1998, p.2).
Professor Harry H. West also noted that structure describes
much of what is seen in nature such as a fern leaf, an oak
tree, shrub with ribbed branches, spider webs, etc. (West,
1993, p.4). A tall tree in a rainforest, for instance, forms
buttresses (see Photo 1). A structural engineer would
definitely know that by forming these buttresses, the huge
moments (a form of force that causes bending) induced at
the base of the tree can be resisted, and as such, this
cantilever-tree can grow to a considerable height to resist
the force imposed by winds.
Engineers do make use of this phenomenon and it is
quite common to see them adopting stiffeners to resist
certain amounts of moment at a stanchion base, for
instance (see Photo 2). If engineers adopt structural
engineering knowledge, why is it that there is still failure
of structures? Some of the causes of structural failure are
discussed in the following topics.
A structural engineers dream is to design structures which are fit for their intended uses. No engineer
would want to see a structure collapse or fail, unless that engineer is an engineer researching in
causes of failure. Some common causes of structural failure are discussed in this paper. This paper is
not intended to discredit any parties (architects, engineers, developers, advertisers, etc.) and as such,
some photographs may appear doctored to protect the anonymity of the parties involved. The intention
of writing this paper is to jog the young engineers memory on the importance of engineering
fundamentals, and failure to observe these engineering fundamentals taught in school could be disastrous.
Photo 2: A stanchion with a stiffener
Photo 1: A tall tree with buttresses

c
o
v
e
r

f
e
a
t
u
r
e
B U L E T I N I N G E N I E U R 15
Underestimating Loads
Sometimes, designers may underestimate the load that
would be imposed upon their structure when the structure
is in operation. A good example is the unipole structure
that collapsed as described earlier. The unipole structure
could only withstand wind pressures of not exceeding q
= 0.613 x 19.2
2
= 226N/m
2
but in the area where the
collapse of the unipole occurred, wind pressures of as
high as q = 0.613 x 35.5
2
= 773N/m
2
have been recorded.
Various structural elements are likely to be overstressed
when designers underestimate the load that would be
imposed on their designed structure. Consequently, their
structure is susceptible to collapse.
Connections
Surprisingly, research has shown that 30% of structural
failures are caused by defective detailed design of the
joints between structural members (Seward, 1998, p.232).
For instance, a simple system of hoarding with structural
elements being connected with undersized bolts may look
perfectly sturdy (see Photo 3). However, due to the use of
undersized bolts (see Photo
4 and Photo 5), connecting
the horizontal and vertical
structural members, the bolts
were sheared off, causing the
horizontal elements to be
disconnected and resulting in
the cantilever effect (see
Figure 1). Bearing in mind
that in a cantilever system,
the stress intensity
experienced by the structure
can be as large as four times
of that of the continuous
system.
This is precisely what
happened to this hoarding
and since the bolts were
sheared off, the domino
Photo 3: A typical continuous hoarding system
Photo 4: A sheared off bolt with the size of ones
thumbnail
Photo 5: A small bolt used to connect structural elements
Figure 1: Change of structural system due to sheared bolt

c
o
v
e
r

f
e
a
t
u
r
e
B U L E T I N I N G E N I E U R 16
effect of excessive
bending of the steel
hoarding sheet (see Photo
6), the structural members
being subjected to
excessive bending and the
footing being pulled off
the ground (see Photo 7)
occurred.
In short, failure of
connections can lead to a
change in the structural
system, and in turn, have
adverse domino effects.
Photo 6: Failure of a
simple hoarding
structure
Inconsistent Design, Detailing And Construction
A structural engineer deals with numbers in his
structural design, which may be Greek to a layman, a
draughtsperson or even the contractor. In order to
communicate his design to the contractor, structural
drawings are produced. At times, the structural engineer
may not be the one producing the structural drawings
but his draughtsperson would be the one drafting it.
Somehow or rather, miscommunication may occur and
designs do not tally with the drawings. There may be
times when young engineers may draft the drawings but
drafted them incorrectly. It is quite common to note
that engineers analyse a reinforced concrete structure
as a pin-joint or simply supported but in his or her detail,
a fixed support is being provided. The consequence of
proceeding with construction would be similar as that
of the hoarding where a change of structural system may
occur.
A good example of a pin-joint can be seen in a see-
saw (see Photo 8).
Photo 8: A pin-joint
Photo 7: A footing being
pulled off the ground
For instance, a lamppost when properly fixed to the
ground (see Photo 9), is perfectly sturdy and most
engineers would analyse the lamp-post as a fixed

c
o
v
e
r

f
e
a
t
u
r
e
B U L E T I N I N G E N I E U R 17
Not Considering Elements In Contact With Structure
When columns are supported by relatively small
footings and the soil surrounding the footings is of
compressible soil, a structural engineer should analyse
the columns as pin-jointed (Winter & Nilson, 1979, p.392).
Similarly, if the soil surrounding the footings is stiff and
incompressible, then the structural engineer should analyse
the columns as fixed.
Photo 9: A lamp-post
Photo 13: Close-up view of footing of Photo 12
Photo 10: A collapsed lamp-post
Photo 11: Lamp-post not properly fixed to the ground
(Close-up of Photo 10)
Photo 12: A collapsed signboard
cantilever. But due to improper detailing or construction,
this lamp-post behaved like a pin-joint (similar to the
see-saw) and some lateral force had induced the collapse
of the lamp-post (see Photo 10 and Photo 11).
Structural engineers would analyse a signboard,
assuming it to be fixed but sometimes, due to the soil
conditions, it is not possible to have a fixed joint. For
instance, one would analyse this signboard as fixed (see
Photo 12), but due to the fact that the soil is soft and
compressible, after a heavy shower and due to strong wind
forces the footing of this signboard can easily be pulled
out when the post is not adequately penetrated into the
ground (see Photo 13). The strong wind has imposed a
stress that is higher than that allowed by the soil, and
consequently, the footing behaved as a pin-joint.

c
o
v
e
r

f
e
a
t
u
r
e
Photo 15: Soft and compressible soil (Close-up of Photo 14)
Photo 14: A deflected signboard
Similarly, the following signboard was erected in soft
and compressible soil and consequently, excessive
deflection is experienced and one could easily pull down
the whole signboard without much effort (see Photo 14
and Photo 15).
Following the above argument, we can deduce that if
a structural element were to be anchored into a brick-
wall, it is considered fixed so long as the stresses
transferred to the brick-wall at the joint do not exceed
the stress of the brick. On the other hand, if the applied
force on the structural element is excessive, causing the
stresses transferred to the brick-wall at the joint to exceed
the allowable stress of the brick, this element now behaves
like a pin-joint (similar to the see-saw). This is one of
the aspects often overlooked and has to be taken into
consideration in structural engineering designs. metres collapsed after a gust of strong wind (see Photo
16). A rough free body diagram of this structure is shown
in Figure 2.
After running a simple structural analysis on the above
structure by applying a wind force with a speed of 35.5
metres per second, it was noted that the structure would
not have collapsed if undersized angles were not used.
From the site condition, it was observed that the angles
gave way and experienced excessive twisting and buckling
(see Photo 17).
Photo 16: Collapse of a signboard
Providing Undersized Members
Though it seldom happens, there are times when
undersized members are used. These undersized members
would most definitely experience excessive stress. When
certain structural members cannot withstand the forces
that are imposed upon them, the structure would be
imminent of collapse. For instance, the following
signboard measuring approximately 20 metres by 16.5 Figure 2: Free body diagram of signboard
Photo 17: Twisting and buckling of undersized angles
B U L E T I N I N G E N I E U R 18

c
o
v
e
r

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

c
o
v
e
r

f
e
a
t
u
r
e
Conclusion
The paper discussed only some of the common factors
as to why structures fail. There can be lots of other factors
including minor mistakes such as dimensioning a
structural member longer than it is supposed to be, using
the wrong units (imperial/metric), not following the
construction drawings, mixing of high tensile and mild
steel reinforcements for reinforced concrete structures,
reducing the lever arm of a reinforced concrete structural
element when workers step on the steel reinforcements,
providing inadequate anchorage length for reinforcement
bars, etc. which can lead to structural failure. The other
cause of possible failure in the structure is misuse of the
erected structure. One of the best ways for young engineers
to avoid making the mistakes discussed in this paper is to
ascertain the facts from reliable sources.
The fundamentals of engineering should be applied in
the design of all engineering structures. Overlooking the
design of even a minute part of a structure such as
connections can be disastrous.
Photo 21: Roofing
sheets installed to
timber frame
REFERENCES
Harry, H. West, 1993, Fundamentals of Structural
Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
NSTP, 6 March 2001, New Straits Times Press,
March 19 Decision by Court on Negligence Suit,
[Online], Available from URL: http: //www.lexis-
nexis.com/universe [Accessed: 18 November
2003]
Seward, D., 1998, Understanding Structures
Analysis, Materials, Design, Second Edition,
MacMillian, Hampshire.
Winter, G. & Nilson, A. H., Design of Concrete
Structures, Ninth Edition, McGraw Hill, New
York.
Photo 20: An unstable
timber truss structure
without proper
triangulation system
Photo 22: Collapse of
timber structure
BEM
B U L E T I N I N G E N I E U R 20

c
o
v
e
r

f
e
a
t
u
r
e