Question.4226 -
Answer Below:
PHPWord body {font-family: 'Arial'; font-size: 12pt;} * {font-family: 'Arial'; font-size: 12pt;} a.NoteRef {text-decoration: none;} hr {height: 1px; padding: 0; margin: 1em 0; border: 0; border-top: 1px solid #CCC;} table {border: 1px solid black; border-spacing: 0px; width : 100%;} td {border: 1px solid black;} p, .Normal {margin-bottom: 8pt;} h1 {font-size: 20pt; color: #2F5496;} h1 {margin-top: 18pt; margin-bottom: 4pt;} h2 {font-size: 16pt; color: #2F5496;} h2 {margin-top: 8pt; margin-bottom: 4pt;} h3 {font-size: 14pt; color: #2F5496;} h3 {margin-top: 8pt; margin-bottom: 4pt;} h4 {color: #2F5496; font-style: italic;} h4 {margin-top: 4pt; margin-bottom: 2pt;} h5 {color: #2F5496;} h5 {margin-top: 4pt; margin-bottom: 2pt;} h6 {color: #595959; font-style: italic;} h6 {margin-top: 2pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;} h7 {color: #595959;} h7 {margin-top: 2pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;} h8 {color: #272727; font-style: italic;} h8 {margin-bottom: 0pt;} h9 {color: #272727;} h9 {margin-bottom: 0pt;} .Normal Table {table-layout: auto;} .Heading 1 Char {font-size: 20pt; color: #2F5496;} .Heading 2 Char {font-size: 16pt; color: #2F5496;} .Heading 3 Char {font-size: 14pt; color: #2F5496;} .Heading 4 Char {color: #2F5496; font-style: italic;} .Heading 5 Char {color: #2F5496;} .Heading 6 Char {color: #595959; font-style: italic;} .Heading 7 Char {color: #595959;} .Heading 8 Char {color: #272727; font-style: italic;} .Heading 9 Char {color: #272727;} .Title {font-size: 28pt;} .Title Char {font-size: 28pt;} .Subtitle {font-size: 14pt; color: #595959;} .Subtitle Char {font-size: 14pt; color: #595959;} .Quote {color: #404040; font-style: italic;} .Quote Char {color: #404040; font-style: italic;} .List Paragraph {margin-left: 360in; margin-right: 0in;} .Intense Emphasis {color: #2F5496; font-style: italic;} .Intense Quote {color: #2F5496; font-style: italic;} .Intense Quote Char {color: #2F5496; font-style: italic;} .Intense Reference {color: #2F5496; font-weight: bold; font-variant: small-caps;} .header {margin-bottom: 0pt;} .footer {margin-bottom: 0pt;} body > div + div {page-break-before: always;} div > *:first-child {page-break-before: auto;} @page page1 {size: A4 portrait; margin-right: 1in; margin-left: 1in; margin-top: 1in; margin-bottom: 1in; } Engineering Failure Analysis: The Boston Molasses Tank Disaster (1919) In 1919, January 15th experienced a catastrophic structural failure, the molasses Tank failure resulting in the release of around 2.3 million gallons of molasses, taking away 21 lives, injuring over 150 people, and causing extensive property damage – diving into this event reflects on the critical deficiencies in engineering designs, inappropriate use of material, alongside poor-quality control, poor regulatory oversight and inadequate risk mitigation particularly when large-scale industrial projects are dealt with (Boston Legal History: The Great Molasses Disaster, n.d.). Firstly, considering structural deficiencies in the molasses tank, which was built with inadequate wall thickness since the tank was constructed in 1915 by the Purity Distilling Company, it had walls that were too thin to withstand the hydrostatic pressure exerted by the stored molasses, after the event structural engineers who examined site determined that the steel utilized in the tank was thick enough to support the pressure and weight of the molasses, putting immense stress on the walls; it was later notified that the team had failed to do a stress test or even calculate the capability of the tank’s integrity, a basic test at a cost unbearable (100 years ago today: Molasses crashes through Boston’s North End, 2021). Secondly, it was observed that the steel composition utilized for the tank walls had a higher concentration of carbon, making it more brittle and susceptible to cracking, particularly under colder temperatures, the composition had a lack of manganese in the steel that in turn lowered its ability to withstand temperature fluctuations increasing the likelihood of brittle failure; adding to that there was no sufficient reinforcement like riveted seams with robust sealing enabling the cracks to propagate rapidly causing ruptures (Boston Legal History: The Great Molasses Disaster, n.d.). Third, substandard construction and lack of testing – it was found that the tank was never properly tested after the construction instead of filling it with water to check for leaks and test the weight pressure it could withstand, the company relied on molasses storage directly without prior integrity assessment, it was found that leaks were evident even before the disaster with molasses seeping from the seams, instead of addressing the structural flaws the company painted the tank brown to conceal the leaks (100 years ago today: Molasses crashes through Boston’s North End, 2021). Adding to the joints welded were not reinforced with rivet holes for stress handling, which was another adding factor to the tank’s instability. Within the scope of environmental and operational factors contributing to the failure, it was observed due to unseasonable warmth during the day in Boston, with a rapid temperature increase from freezing conditions, the molasses experienced thermal expansion when combined with the stress induced by temperature fluctuations likely exacerbated existing structural weaknesses in the steel walls, and the new shipment of warmer molasses was added to the tank that increased internal pressure accelerating the likelihood of rupture (Boston Legal History: The Great Molasses Disaster, n.d.). From the hydraulic pressure standpoint molasses being a denser and viscous liquid puts hydrostatic pressure on the walls of the tanks, while the force due to weight exerted near the base of the 50-foot-tall tank exceeded the calculated safety limits that material could take, and as mentioned earlier due to the lack of reinforcement or load redistribution mechanism enabled the weaker points in the structure fail under increases pressure. Within the scope of legal and regulatory impact, the United States Industrial Alcohol Company – being the parent company of Purity Distilling had initially blamed anarchists for sabotaging the tank, but forensic investigations revealed structural negligence as the primary cause, later a class-action lawsuit ensued, where the company was found liable due to engineering failure and lack of proper maintenance after a six year legal battle and settlements amounted to $600,000 were paid to victims and their families (Boston Legal History: The Great Molasses Disaster, n.d.). After the event, there was a significant reform in industrial safety regulation in structural engineering practice with new laws that mandated engineers to sign off on large-scale industrial designs and that building inspectors must verify construction quality, establishing standardized engineering codes, including requirements for pressure testing and material quality standards. References 100 years ago today: Molasses crashes through Boston’s North End. (2021, January 15). Boston.gov. https://www.boston.gov/news/100-years-ago-today-molasses-crashes-through-bostons-north-end#:~:text=On%20January%2015%2C%201919%2C%20a,about%2035%20miles%20per%20hour. Boston legal history: the Great Molasses Disaster. (n.d.). Chambers Associate. https://www.chambers-associate.com/where-to-start/commercial-awareness/regional-insights/boston-legal-history-the-great-molasses-disasterMore Articles From Engineering
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
