Carino, N J; Lew, H S and Stone, W C (1984) Investigation of East Chicago ramp collapse. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 110(1), pp. 1-18. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
A summary is presented of the investigation performed by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), at the request of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, to determine the most likely cause of the collapse of a portion of a highway ramp in East Chicago, Indiana. The investigative effort included an extensive field study to ascertain the conditions prior to and after the accident. In addition, the NBS performed physical tests on key components of the temporary support system used to build the ramp. A structural analysis was performed to compute the magnitude of the forces acting in various components of the support system prior to the failure. The calculated forces were compared with the expected strengths of the structural components. It was concluded that the most likely triggering mechanism of the collapse was the cracking of concrete pads supporting a shoring tower. It was further concluded that there were four deficiencies that contributed directly to the collapse. Had any of these deficiencies not existed, it is unlikely that the collapse would have occurred.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | occupational safety and health, investigation, structural analysis, field study |
| Subjects: | occupational health and safety management, structural engineering, research methods, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here