WHY DO STRUCTURES FAIL?

IR. DR. LIM CHAR CHING

Cawangan Jalan
Ibu Pejabat JKR Malaysia
Kuala Lumpur 1

Total Length = 1,810 m

Midspan (longest) = 850 m
Construction began in 1938

Tacoma Narrows Bridge (USA)

Bridge deck gallops at wind

speed 65 km/h

1
 Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse (1940)
Failure of the bridge has led to significant advances in
wind engineering and design of lightweight structures

New Tacoma Bridge Original Tacoma Bridge

(1950) (1940)
3

New Tacoma Narrows Bridge

2007
1950

1950 2007

2
5

3
Ferry Tragedy At Pulau Tioman
(NST 17/10/2007)

The “Culture” of Learning from Mistakes?

4
 LESSONS LEARNT (1)

CKASJ
9

WHY DO STRUCTURES FAIL?

Lack of structural redundancy, design
assumptions, support/joint models, poor
Design Issues detailing, connection details, software
1
GIGO, etc

Construction None compliance with drawings or spec,

premature removal of shoring, inadequate
2 Issues in-situ cover, etc

Material Inconsistencies in material quality resulting

from manufacturing or fabrication defects.
3 Deficiencies

Operational Temporary structure on bridge, change in

use, inadequate maintenance, etc
4 Issues

10

5
 WHY DO STRUCTURES FAIL?
Lack of structural redundancy, design
assumptions, support/joint models, poor
Design Issues detailing, connection details, software
1
GIGO, etc

Construction None compliance with drawings or spec,

premature removal of shoring, inadequate
2 Issues in-situ cover, etc

Material Inconsistencies in material quality resulting

from manufacturing or fabrication defects.
3 Deficiencies

Operational Temporary structure on bridge, change in

use, inadequate maintenance, etc
4 Issues

11

12

6
Blok Pentadbiran, ILKAP

13

Settlement of Ground Floor

Slab at Blok Pentadbiran,
ILKAP

Cavity = 90mm 14

7
SETTLEMENT OF GROUND FLOOR
SLAB OF BUILDING
The Findings:

Non-suspended ground floor slab on 7m -

12m thick of filled ground
Inadequate compaction to the filled material
Presence of boulders and voids in the filled
material

15

SETTLEMENT OF GROUND FLOOR SLAB

OF BUILDING
The Repair :
Underpinning the ground floor slab with injection piles
(89mm diameter API pipe and 20 metre long)
Re-construction of 125mm flat slab on piles

16

8
 1. Due to low headroom in
building, steel frame was
used to jack in piles.
2. Existing slabs used to
provide reactions to frame.
3. Demolition of existing slabs.
1 2 4. Concreting new slabs.

3 4
17

18

9
2 Units of Single Storey Semi-D House
19

Symmetrical at
centreline No Ground Beams!

1 Unit Semi-D 1 Unit Semi-D

Plan of Semi-D Units

20

10
 21

35 mm Gap

Wall and Column Separation

22

11
20 mm

20 mm

Cracks on internal walls

23

24

12
Dewan Serbaguna di Sek.
Men. Sains Kuantan

25

26

13
 Support Modelling Issue
Computer modelling of support conditions for
cold-formed steel roof truss

steel truss
2.16 m

Detail A
3.2 m

roof beam
21.57 m

column

27

Drawing details of truss

connections to roof beam

4 No. of Cleats on
both sides
10 No. of teks
screws/cleat
28

14
Detail A
Truss to Roof
Beam Connection Roof
beam

Original
Support
Model

LEFT RIGHT
Re-Model
Support

29

D
2.16 m
C a b c
c
a b
A 3.2 m

B
21.57 m

Design Review (Re-Model Support) Construction

Axial Drawings
Location Capacity Number of
Forces (Original
(kN) fastener Support Model)
(kN)
A Top Chord – Vert. Chord 23.6 4.19 6 3
Top Chord – web 13.5 3.62 4 3
B Bottom Chord 18.5 4.19 5 3
C Top Chord – web a 0.0 3.62 1 3
Top Chord – web b 1.3 3.62 1 3
Top Chord – web c 13.6 3.62 4 3
D Top Chord – web a 3.2 3.62 1 3
Top Chord – web b 1.2 3.62 1 3
Top Chord – web c 13.1 3.62 4 3 30

15
 31

Elevated Highway Between North Port

and West Port, Selangor

Copyright © 2015 Dr. Lim Char Ching 32

16
 Crack Mapping of Pier Structure

Copyright © 2015 Dr. Lim Char Ching 33

Cracks on Pier Cross-Head Beam

Copyright © 2015 Dr. Lim Char Ching

17
 Poor
Detailing

Y32-05-150

Poor Detailing of Reinforcements at

Column-Beam Junction

2D Finite Element Analysis

0.8D
Tension
Zone

Copyright © 2015 Dr. Lim Char Ching 36

18
PIER – 10A (During Repair)

Copyright © 2015 Dr. Lim Char Ching

PIER – 10A (After Repair)

19
39

40

20
 8m 8m

A B C
(∆1)
primary beam

G HH J J 8m

(∆1)
primary beam

F (∆1) E D

Typical Floor Layout Plan

41

8m 8m

A B C
X
(∆1)
primary beam

G HH J J 8m
(∆2) (∆2)
(∆1) + (∆2)
primary beam

F (∆1)
X E D

∆M due to ∆2 Typical Floor Layout Plan ∆M due to ∆2

primary beam secondary beam

cracked cracked
(∆1) (∆1)
(∆1 + ∆2)
42

21
 cracks

Cracks on slabs above steel beams

43

LESSONS LEARNT (2)

1. Computer software should be performed by
experienced user and checked by senior
engineer. Computer outputs shall be verified by
manual calculations (GIGO).
2. Where computer analysis cannot reliably predict
the behaviour of a structure accurately,
laboratory-based experiment (prototype or
scale-down model) becomes necessary.

Copyright © 2015 Dr. Lim Char Ching 44

22
 LESSONS LEARNT (3)
3. Engineering assumptions are usually made to
simplify analysis and design. A good computer
model is one that could predict the behavior of a
structure with high degree of accuracy. Don’t
make WILD ASSUMPTIONS!
4. All reinforcements shall be correctly and
adequately detailed. Structure may fail due to
POOR DETAILINGS though design is sufficient.

Copyright © 2015 Dr. Lim Char Ching 45

WHY DO STRUCTURES FAIL?

Lack of structural redundancy, design
assumptions, support/joint models, poor
Design Issues detailing, connection details, software
1
GIGO, etc

Construction None compliance with drawings or spec,

premature removal of shoring, inadequate
2 Issues in-situ cover, etc

Material Inconsistencies in material quality resulting

from manufacturing or fabrication defects.
3 Deficiencies

Operational Temporary structure on bridge, change in

use, inadequate maintenance, etc
4 Issues

46

23
 47

The Star 22/5/2013

48

24
 The Star 30/9/2013

49

Dewan Kuliah
UIA, Kuantan (2005)

50

25
As-built Drawing Versus Site Details

Minimum edge distance ??

51

Drawing details of a splicing joint

52

26
 Web members at
splicing joint ??

As-built splicing joint details

53

As-built splicing joint

54

27
 Different member
sizes used for top
chord

55

Aftermath of a collapse:
Condition of wall plugs
of a truss connection to
the roof beam
56

28
 Locations of
wall plug on
roof beam

Wall plugs dislodged Typical failure mode of

from the roof beam a wall plug in tension
without damage to the
concrete
57

58

29
 DBKL

Jejambat Jalan
Kuching

Built: 1970s
Designed and
supervised by JKR

Jejambat Jalan Kuching Di Depan Bank Negara 59

Durability Issue: SK Pasir Gudang, Johor

60

30
SK Pasir Gudang: Material Test Results
DESCRIPTION SLAB BEAM COLUMN

Avg. carbonation depth (mm) 37 32 23

Total cover measured 96 53 72

Avg. cover (mm) 13 29 27

No. of cover less than avg.

90 31 22
carbonation depth
% Cover less than avg.
94 58 30
carbonation depth
<0.01% by wt. of cement at depth
Chloride content
15mm, 30mm & 50mm.

Core strength (MPa) 13.5 13.0 -

Sek. Men. Sains Miri: Blok Asrama

31
 Pengupasan Konkrit Di Blok Asrama

SLAB SLAB

COLUMN

Blok Asrama: Sekolah Menengah Sains Miri

SLAB

TESTS S1
S2 S3 S4
Avg. Cover
27 17 32 24
(mm)
Av. Carbonation Depth
54 67 56 72
(mm)
Av. Chloride content
(% by mass of cement) at 0.58 0.57 0.60 0.6
outer reinforcement region

Half-Cell - Percentage
of steel being P(>50%) 100%
corroded

OK NOT GOOD

32
 Kajian JKR
“Tahap Pematuhan
Penutup Konkrit Bagi
Struktur Jeti”
(2004)

65

Site Locations of Jetty

Passenger Jetty at
Dungun (7 years)

Fishery Jetty at
Kuantan (5 years)

Fishery Jetty at
Lumut (11 years) Jetty Kuantan
(10 years)

Passenger Jetty at Tg.

Belungkor (11 years)
66

33
 Design Criteria of Maritime Structure:
(a) BS 6349 : Design life = 50 years
(b) Cover to beam = 75 mm
(c) Cover to slab = 60 mm

67

CONDITION ASSESSMENT (1)

Cracks + rust stains

spallings

Passenger Jetty at Tg. Belungkor

(11 years)

68

34
 CONDITION ASSESSMENT (2)

cracks

spallings

Fishery Jetty at Kuantan

(5 years)
69

CONDITION ASSESSMENT (3)

cracks

Rust stains
Passenger Jetty at Dungun
(7 years)

70

35
 Summary of Defects on Jetty
No. Jetty Age Observed defects

1. Fishery Jetty at Lumut, 11 yrs Minor cracking and rust stains on

Perak. soffit of deck slabs and beams
2. Passenger Jetty at Tg. 11 yrs Minor cracking, spalling and rust
Belungkor, Johor. stains on soffit of deck slabs,
beams and dolphins
3. Marine Department Jetty at 10 yrs Minor cracking, spalling and rust
Kuantan, Pahang. stains on soffit of deck slabs,
beams and piers
4. Fishery Jetty at Kuantan, 5 yrs Serious cracking, spalling and rust
Pahang. stains on soffit of deck slabs,
beams and piers
5. Passenger Jetty at Dungun, 7 yrs Serious cracking, spalling and rust
Terengganu. stains on soffit of deck slabs,
beams and piers 71

Why would deterioration of jetty

occurred within 5 – 10 years after
completion when the specified cover
was between 60 – 75 mm?

72

36
 Summary of In-Situ Cover Measurements
Measured Cover (mm) Spec.
Jetty Compt Total Cover
No Min Max SD Av CV (mm)

Fishery Jetty at Beam 46 53 68 5.1 62 75

Lumut, Perak. (11 yrs) Slab 54 52 71 3.7 64 7% 60
Passenger Jetty at Beam 100 40 88 11.5 60 75
Tg. Belungkor, Johor. 19%
(11 yrs) Slab - - - - - 60

Marine Department Beam 24 35 82 11.6 66 75

Jetty at Kuantan, 15%
Pahang. (10 yrs) Slab 66 40 70 6.8 55 60

Fishery Jetty at Beam 42 23 69 13.4 44 75

Kuantan, Pahang. 25%
(5 yrs) Slab 54 31 71 10.0 51 60

Passenger Jetty at Beam 56 24 80 12.6 60 75

Dungun, Terengganu. 18%
(7 yrs) Slab 51 31 58 6.0 42 60
73

Summary of In-Situ Cover Measurements

Measured Cover (mm) Spec.
Jetty Compt Total Cover
No Min Max SD Av CV (mm)

Fishery Jetty at Beam 46 53 68 5.1 62 75

Lumut, Perak. (11 yrs) Slab 54 52 71 3.7 64 7% 60
Passenger Jetty at Beam 100 40 88 11.5 60 75
Tg. Belungkor, Johor. 19%
(11 yrs) Slab - - - - - 60

Marine Department Beam 24 35 82 11.6 66 75

Jetty at Kuantan, 15%
Pahang. (10 yrs) Slab 66 40 70 6.8 55 60

Fishery Jetty at Beam 42 23 69 13.4 44 75

Kuantan, Pahang. 25%
(5 yrs) Slab 54 31 71 10.0 51 60

Passenger Jetty at Beam 56 24 80 12.6 60 75

Dungun, Terengganu. 18%
(7 yrs) Slab 51 31 58 6.0 42 60
74

37
 Predicted “Service-Life” (corrosion-free period)
Versus Specified Cover of Jetty
Chloride diffusion coeff, Dc

45 years

19 years

75

LESSONS LEARNT (4)

1. Do not trust any System Provider. JKR should
conduct construction audit for compliance with
drawings and specification.
2. JKR should migrate from the traditional
“Prescriptive-based Specification” to the state-of-
the-art “Performance-based Specification” which
has gained worldwide acceptance today.
3. PB Spec is a MUST for concrete structure
designed to Eurocode 2 to ensure in-situ cover
compliance to the required “50-year or 100-year
service-life design”
Copyright © 2015 Dr. Lim Char Ching 76

38
 WHY DO STRUCTURES FAIL?
Lack of structural redundancy, design
assumptions, support/joint models, poor
Design Issues detailing, connection details, software
1
GIGO, etc

Construction None compliance with drawings or spec,

premature removal of shoring, inadequate
2 Issues in-situ cover, etc

Material Inconsistencies in material quality resulting

from manufacturing or fabrication defects.
3 Deficiencies

Operational Temporary structure on bridge, change in

use, inadequate maintenance, etc
4 Issues

77

WHY DO STRUCTURES FAIL?

Lack of structural redundancy, design
assumptions, support/joint models, poor
Design Issues detailing, connection details, software
1
GIGO, etc

Construction None compliance with drawings or spec,

premature removal of shoring, inadequate
2 Issues in-situ cover, etc

Material Inconsistencies in material quality resulting

from manufacturing or fabrication defects.
3 Deficiencies

Operational Temporary structure on bridge, change in

use, inadequate maintenance, etc
4 Issues

78

39
 79

The Star 13/10/2014

8
0

40
✓ Pedestrian footbridge at Pasir Gudang Highway, Johor Bahru
(Before failure)
✓ Total span length = 50m. Reinforced concrete structure.
✓ 2 Nos. Billboards. Size 4.5m x 40m.

✓ 12/10/2014 (Sun): Jam 4.30 ptg, struktur bumbung jejantas dan papan
iklan runtuh dari jejantas semasa hujan dan ribut kencang.

41
Sehari selepas kejadian (Isnin, 13/10/2014):
(a) Kesan keruntuhan telah dibersihkan. Lebuhraya Pasir
Gudang dibuka kepada lalulintas. Jejantas masih
ditutup.

42
 Billboard

Wind Force

Bridge Deck OVERTURNING

BillBoard Structure & Footbridge Roof

Failed by Overturning

86

43
Aquatic Complex: Maintenance Issue

87

Corrosion of Steel Structure (1)

88

44
Corrosion of Steel Structure (2)

89

Corrosion of Steel Structure (3)

90

45
Corrosion of Steel Structure (4)

91

Corrosion of Steel Structure (5)

Structure Collapsed

92

46
 LESSONS LEARNT (5)
1. Temporary structure (billboards, etc) shall not be
put on JKR bridges UNLESS approval has been
obtained.
2. Proper access for maintenance shall be designed
and constructed.
3. For inaccessible structure, how is maintenance
done? Waiting for disaster to happen?

CKASJ
Copyright © 2015 Dr. Lim Char Ching 93

CKASJ
94

47