The Structural Engineer > Archive > Volume 72 (1994) > Issues > Issue 2 > Structural Failures and Design Philosophy
Name of File 5727-72-02.pdf cached at 18/12/2017 16:26:36 - with 5 pages. pdfPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\a8\a88a8c2c-d3d9-4dde-a32e-5865d8b67be9.pdf. thumbPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\a88a8c2c-d3d9-4dde-a32e-5865d8b67be9_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: a88a8c2c-d3d9-4dde-a32e-5865d8b67be9_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

Structural Failures and Design Philosophy

Popper has argued that the growth of scientific knowledge takes place as a result of the falsification of theories. Some of his ideas can be applied to engineering knowledge as well, but the falsification of the calculation procedure model (CPM) cannot actively sought. When engineering failures do occur, therefore, they provide invaluable opportunities for the growth of engineering knowledge, provided that we can isolate the component of the CPM that has been falsified. The two cases of failure discussed in this paper indicate that the design philosophy component of the CPM has been falsified. The two resulting suggestions for changing the CPM are (i) to control the progression of collapse in a structure so that greater warning given and (ii) to take into account the sensitivity to deviations from specifications when selecting structural alternatives. W.P.S. Dias

Author(s): Dias, W P S

Keywords: design;failures;philosophy;suspended floors;theories;roofs;ductility;worked examples;slabs;cracking