Forensic Engineering Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Forensic Engineering 164 February 2011 Issue FE1

Volume 164 Issue FE1 Pages 1523 doi: 10.1680/feng.2011.164.1.15
Cracks in steel structures Paper 1000003
Received 22/06/2010 Accepted 20/10/2010
Mann Keywords: Failures/fatigue/steel structures

ice | proceedings ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Cracks in steel structures

Allan Mann CEng, FREng, FIStructE, MICE

Senior Consultant, Jacobs, Manchester, UK

Under overload, the mode of failure in any steel structure should ideally be ductile not brittle; the possibility of
cracking in steelwork should thus be actively guarded against. Historically, steel cracking has caused some spectacular
failures. Steel can fracture rapidly at low temperature and can crack during welding, in fatigue or as a result of stress
corrosion. Certain fabrication processes such as welding, flame cutting and punching exacerbate the risks, especially if
the steel is thick. Galvanising can also be a risk factor. Design engineers should understand potential cracking
mechanisms and risk factors to minimise the likelihood of in-service failure. This paper discusses the historical
background of cracking, explains causes and suggests avoidance measures.

1. History
The Tsar bell, situated at the Kremlin in Moscow illustrates that
cracking in metals has long been a problem. During a fire in
1737, a massive portion (weighing some 11 t) of the bell cracked
while it was in the casting pit (Figure 1). It might be argued that
the modern steel industry owes much to a fear of cracking: in the
nineteenth century, when cast iron was the most widely available
structural metal, tensile performance was an unpredictable
quality and safety was sought by deploying large safety margins.
However, the cracking risk was not controllable and several
examples of bad structural failure occurred. All failures are
intolerable, but failure by fracture is especially intolerable since
it violates the key safety attribute of ensuring a visible collapse
warning by means of prior distortion.
The danger of cracking/brittle fracture of cast iron has long been
recognised, at least empirically, as most early bridges such as that
at Ironbridge (1779) had arches as their structural form (although
the bridge still has cracks within it). Longer bridges supported by
chains (e.g. the Menai suspension bridge (1826)) used wrought
iron (at least for the chains) for better reliability. Nevertheless,
cast iron continued to be used for beams for a time. In 1847,
Robert Stephensons cast iron girder bridge over the River Dee
near Chester collapsed as a train crossed over; the collapse may
have been precipitated by fracture of the girders bottom flange.
In 1891, a cast iron bridge at Norwood Junction collapsed due to
fracture emanating from a large blowhole in the flange. This was
a key event in the decline of cast iron. After an inquiry into the
Norwood crash, the Board of Trade recommended that all cast
iron bridges be replaced. Steel became the preferred material, as
used for construction of the Forth railway bridge in 1890.
This use of steel continued more or less until the Second World
War. Up to then, most structures and their connections were
made by riveting fairly thin plates of steel together. This had
two benefits the steel was thin so the materials tensile
reliability was better than that of thicker steel and failure of
one part in a multiple riveted assembly did not necessarily spell
disaster for the whole unit.
The 1920s1930s, however, heralded the start of a new era when
the Journal of the Institution of Structural Engineers published a
series of papers on welding. In 1932 the journal published a
report by the Steel Structures Research Committee that high-
lighted some welding tests with the comment A discussion and
description of tests on the welding of steel structure, a subject
which is of the greatest interest as offering perhaps one method
whereby the intolerable noise associated with riveting may be
avoided. The demand for rapid production throughout the
Second World War gave welding technology a strong impetus.
However, the new technology brought new problems, the most
spectacular of which were full fractures of the all-welded
American Liberty ships (Boyd, 1970) (Figure 2). At the time,
this was a mystery: the failures were extensive and could occur
apparently spontaneously while the ships were in calm waters. A
new phenomenon clearly existed and required urgent investiga-
tion. To some extent, cracking and crack propagation had
always been a design issue even with the steels used in riveted
boats, but at least in those structures the various overlapping
plates and riveted-on stiffeners offered some crack arrest
features. Gordon (1978) describes some significant crack
incidences in transatlantic liners.
After the war, the Liberty ship fractures generated intense
research into the cause of failure. It had, of course, been known
for a long time that steel possessed properties of both strength
and toughness, with the two being separate qualities.
Toughness had been formally investigated in 1905 by

15
Forensic Engineering
Volume 164 Issue FE1
Figure 1. Tsar bell
Charpy, a French scientist who gave his name to the standard
test that defines toughness by a measure of the energy a
particular steel specimen can absorb while fracturing: the test is
still used today. The test can be used to demonstrate change in
steel toughness with temperature, the toughness magnitude
dropping off dramatically below a value known as the
transition temperature (Figure 3). Although the Charpy test
demonstrated toughness variation, it did not in itself explain
the fast fractures observed in ships. This was investigated by
navy engineers and eventually led to greater understanding of
cracking and fracture mechanics (Boyd, 1970).
Figure 2. Dramatic brittle fracture of a Liberty ship
16
Cracks in steel structures
Mann
Cleavage fracture Fibrous fracture
Fracture transition
Energy absorption
Brittle failure Shear
failure
Easy crack
initiation and Crack propagates but Crack arrest
propagation initiation difficult zone
zone
Temperature
Figure 3. Ductile/brittle transition curve
Underlying all this, a puzzling problem in the strength of
materials had been identified in about 1914 when Inglis looked
at stress concentrations and showed that, theoretically, the
localised stress that must exist linked to flaws/notches could be
many times the known tensile capacity of steel (Gordon, 1978).
Yet patently, despite these localised stress concentrations, most
steel structures were able to cope with such stresses in service
and not only from flaws introduced by design (such as sharp
re-entrant corners) but also from flaws that were intrinsic to
the basic manufactured material. The plausible explanation
relied on the ability of steels ductility to yield locally without
the high stress causing fracture.
A milestone in the understanding of cracking came about in
the 1920s when Griffiths (Gordon, 1978) pondered the
phenomenon, speculated on cause and deduced that there
was such a thing as a tolerable crack length that could exist in a
tensile stress field. This led to the definition of a critical crack
length marking the transition point between stability on the
one hand and rapid instability via crack growth on the other.
Griffiths thought in terms of energy rather than stress. This
was the birth of modern fracture mechanics, which is a
complex subject seeking to address questions of stability for
cracks of a given length in a given material in a given stress
field.
Another cracking phenomenon was first investigated by
Wohler around the 1850s. Wohler was a German railway
Forensic Engineering
Volume 164 Issue FE1
engineer charged with investigating the continuing failures of
axles on rolling stock. It was Wohler who first produced SN
curves and showed that metals had a finite life brought about
by crack propagation when subjected to repeated loading that
generated stress levels very much below known yield values.
This was the birth of our understanding of fatigue.
2. Failures
Fatigue failures remain common in certain industries and the
failures can be serious. A series of rail cracking problems in the
1990s led to some dreadful accidents (Mann, 2008). Several
major oil rig collapses have been put down to fatigue, notably
the Sea Gem in 1965 and the Alexander Kielland in 1980. In
both cases, cracks rapidly propagated through the rig legs,
leading to total leg loss and subsequent capsize. In both cases,
the initiation sites for crack propagation were linked to welding
and associated defects, possibly exacerbated by lamellar
tearing in the base material. Generally, faulty fabrication/
welding processes can increase the risk of cracking and the
performance of welded joints under high strains imposed
during seismic action has highlighted this. Cracking failures in
both the Kobe and Northridge earthquakes (Maranian, 1997;
1998) revealed the sensitivity of a whole frames integrity to the
quality of the welding deployed at joints. Certain cracking
problems occur in certain environments. One of these is stress
corrosion cracking that, while not normally presenting a
problem for structural engineers working in carbon steels, has
led to building failures when stainless steel has been used
(Mann, 1993).
Fortunately, failures are comparatively rare. However, rarity
should not lead to complacency because the very nature of
rarity brings its own problems: as failure occurrence will be
outside the experience of most engineers, the chance that risk
factors may be overlooked is increased. Given that cracking
failures can be instant and catastrophic it is incumbent on all
design engineers to understand the importance of recognising
potentially hazardous operating conditions, to be knowledge-
able in the selection of appropriate materials and to be skilled
in controlling fabrication quality so as to minimise the risk of
cracking developing in service.
3. Basic metallurgy
Steels can be purchased in a variety of strength grades and a
variety of sub-grades that offer enhanced toughness values
such that steel can be used in low temperatures. The first
protection against low-temperature fracture (very rapid crack
propagation) is to specify a steel with the appropriate
toughness properties. Design codes and other advice offer
guidance as to the grade required (Swann, 2005). The standard
definition of toughness is a designated Charpy value (usually
27 J) achieved at a designated temperature. It should be noted
that 27 J is just an arbitrary value (it derives historically from a
Cracks in steel structures
Mann
pass/fail criteria (20 ft lbs) developed when investigating ship
failures. Moreover, the designation of a Charpy value at a
defined low temperature does not mean that the steel is only
suitable for use at that temperature. The phenomenon of low-
temperature brittle fracture is more complicated, and other risk
factors are material thickness (Burdekin, 1999) and whether or
not the steel has been welded (TWI, 1971).
A second, and separate, property that can be defined and
selected by a designer is to use steel with guaranteed through-
thickness properties to avoid lamellar tearing. Such steel is
designated as having Z quality ductility and steels are available
with various amounts of ductility. Codes such as BS EN 1993-
1-10: 2005(E) (BSI, 2005) give guidance on requisite risk
factors and grade selection but a key factor is the application of
high stress, or strain, in a direction normal to the steel rolling
direction. Lamellar tearing is characterised by a plate of steel
splitting along its length. Application of high stress might be
due to in-service loading but is more commonly associated with
high shrinkage strains imposed during welding (i.e. when the
cooling shrinkage is restrained). Risk factors include the use of
thick steel. Other risk factors include the presence of a large
number of non-metallic inclusions within the steel; Z quality
steels are clean steels with very low sulphur content.
In manufacture, steel toughness is achieved by a number of
means, two of which are control of hardness and control of
microstructure. A hard steel is one that has low resistance to
crack growth and so hardness needs to be carefully controlled.
In everyday engineering, hardness can be increased by the
application of high heat followed by rapid cooling, such as may
occur in uncontrolled welding or flame cutting.
Overall, a designers first responsibility is the selection of a steel
that is appropriate to the service conditions and the method of
fabrication. In normal design this is straightforward, but
selection becomes specialised when casting is involved. In those
circumstances more care is required. This follows partly
because the steel is thicker and partly because there is a more
direct responsibility on the parties involved to assign appro-
priate ductility and toughness values. The dangers are real, as
illustrated by press reports on the failure of certain cast cable
anchorages on the Glasgow Clyde arc bridge in 2008. The
Standing Committee on Structural Safety has issued a topic
paper on castings (Scoss, 2010).
4. The role of thickness
The risk of cracking in thick steel is higher than in thin steel
for a variety of reasons (Burdekin, 1999). In the late 1980s
there were some spectacular fracture problems in the USA
(ENR, 1986; 1987a; 1987b) when welded jumbo sections were
used in tension (flanges 125 mm, webs 75 mm). In one truss,
the tension boom spontaneously cracked right through while in
17
Forensic Engineering
Volume 164 Issue FE1
service. Forensic examination proved the material to have low
toughness and the investigation concluded there were inherent
problems with the way the jumbo sections were produced
leading to excessive grain size and particular weakness in the
centre of the thick sections (where the cooling was too slow)
and at the flange/web junction (where grain refinement by
rolling was weakest). The initiation point (certainly for one
fracture) was the hardened edge of a flame-cut mousehole
utilised for completing the butt weld across the flange. These
failures led to recommendations to not weld jumbo sections
and for controlling the cooling rate when flame cutting.
5. Effects of fabrication
The failure example of the jumbo sections shows how faulty
fabrication can exacerbate the risk of in-service cracking.
Given that stress concentrations and brittleness are risk
factors, anything that promotes either feature is best avoided.
However, in practical structures, eliminating these features is
not possible. It is certainly not possible to eliminate all stress
concentrations since they exist at every re-entrant corner and
around every bolt hole.
In many cases, observed failures under service conditions have
been associated with welding, which is clearly one of the most
common joining technologies. While most welds perform
perfectly well, it still remains important to comprehend what
problems welding may introduce. Welding can be a root cause
of failure for several reasons.
(a) Many welds contain a defect of some sort (albeit they
might be at microscopic level and have no effect on static
strength) and those defects might be sharp: given the right
orientation in the stress field they may thus generate
extremely high stresses at their tips. In effect, such defects
might be the seed for future crack development.
(b) Welding requires the application of great heat and
subsequent cooling. A hard and therefore brittle micro-
structure results if cooling is too rapid. Conversely, if
cooling is too slow, the grain size might be too large and
this lowers the inherent toughness. Thus, even with sound
parent metal, an inappropriate welding procedure may
degrade the basic material properties and this may
coincide with a crack-like feature.
(c) Differential cooling post-welding leaves a residual stress
field, which will be of yield value, in the material.
In short, welding can simultaneously add the three risk factors
most feared: a crack, a susceptible microstructure and a built-
in high tensile stress (it is those same residual stresses that
explain welding distortion or the lower buckling capacity of
welded columns). It is thus vitally important to make all welds
to a proper qualified procedure and to carry out post-weld
18
Cracks in steel structures
Mann
non-destructive examination (NDE) to a degree proportionate
with the welds service function.
It is these same factors that explain the failure of the Liberty
ships: the basic material had poor toughness; the welds
probably had defects; the driving energy for the crack (in
apparently low external stress conditions) was the internal
residual stress left over from welding. The continuity provided
by the all-welded structure allowed the crack to propagate a
considerable distance without arrest. These risk factors can
now be controlled by appropriate steel selection, application of
proven weld procedures and post-weld NDE. In unusual
circumstances, post-weld heat treatment can additionally be
used to enhance fracture toughness (Berenbak et al., 2001).
In the aftermath of the Northridge earthquake of 1994, it was
observed that a great many welded joints of the steel rigid
frames used in the region had cracked (Maranian, 1997; 1998).
This was put down partly to poor material and partly to faulty
welding procedures whereby large welds had been laid down
but allowed to cool too quickly, thus creating a local hardened
microstructure. While the welds might have possessed ade-
quate strength, they lacked ductility. Thus, in the distortion
imposed under seismic conditions, the welds cracked (and the
cracks propagated into parent material).
6. Punching
Punching is commonly employed as a cheap means of making
holes. However, cold working increases both the strength and
hardness of steel and if the working is too great (e.g. in trying
to punch through thick steels) micro-cracks can be generated
around the hole edge. Such cracks have been known to
propagate explosively in zones of plastic stress and hence
seismic codes forbid punching in regions of anticipated
ductility demand. Likewise, trying to bend steel through too
tight a radius can create cracking; crack avoidance thus
requires the specification of minimum radii and/or application
of heat.
7. Fabrication control: welding
Properly controlled welding procedures should prevent the
Northridge effect. Given a particular steel chemistry, its carbon
equivalent value (CEV) a measure of the steels ability to
harden under a heating/cooling cycle can be evaluated. For
steel with CEV . 0?41, weldability is decreased, meaning that
the risk of cracking in the heat-affected zone (HAZ) increases.
HAZ cracking can occur if the hardness exceeds about 350 HV
and if sufficient hydrogen is present. Welding procedures (for
example BS EN 1011-1 (BSI, 2009)) take account of the CEV
and the amount of heat applied during the welding process.
They also account for the thickness of the steel (which governs
heat flow away from the weld) collectively to assure that the
weld and its local HAZ have appropriate engineering properties.
Forensic Engineering
Volume 164 Issue FE1
Depending on the various factors, it may be a requirement to
apply pre-heat or post-weld heating to control the rate of weld
cooling and so assure adequate weld/HAZ ductility.
A further measure of protection is to specify post-welding
NDE and the amount required is typically covered by
specifications such as the National Structural Steelwork
Specification for Building Construction (NSSS) (BCSA/SCI,
2010). All welds should be examined visually and to an extent
determined by the designer but it is normally not commercially
viable to examine every weld by NDE and it is not possible to
examine fillet welds internally at all. Hence, control of the
welding processes is the first line of defence. In assessing NDE
scope and allied acceptance criteria, the design engineer has to
have regard to the service conditions of the weld, especially if
these in any way involve fatigue loading. The NSSS standards
for weld inspection are inadequate for cases where fatigue
loading operates since much higher standards are required to
guard against the existence of a flaw that can grow in length
under alternating stresses (fatigue). In all circumstances, the
objective is to ensure that no weld goes into service having a
built-in crack-like defect.
There are certain types of cracking that can occur during the
welding process itself; again, these ought to be eliminated by an
appropriate procedure. A root cause of weld cracking during
welding is hydrogen entrapment. To avoid this, certain steels
require the use of low-hydrogen electrodes and the elimination
of all moisture (by baking the electrodes) that might be a
source of hydrogen. Because hydrogen cracking can be
delayed, specifications such as the NSSS (BCSA/SCI, 2010),
define cooling times in hours before any NDE can be carried
out.
Overall, although potential risk factors promote cracking, this
is not a real issue in the vast majority of structural applications
provided that the basic steel is of adequate quality and proper
weld procedures are applied and appropriate NDE is specified
as a quality control measure. Nevertheless, more caution is
required for thicker steels, especially if there is any form of
fatigue loading.
8. Fabrication control cutting
Another process that requires heat is thermal (flame) cutting. If
the cutting is uncontrolled then, just as in welding, the local
microstructure next to the cut can be hardened and so
embrittled (as in the failure of the jumbo sections noted in
Section 4). Worst still, the cuts will not be uniform and can
leave notches. Figure 4 shows a crack propagating from a
standard connection re-entrant corner of a beam end. The
loading conditions and asymmetrical shape of the T section at
the end of the long stalk provide a high tensile stress at the re-
entrant corner. This would be further enhanced locally by
Cracks in steel structures
Mann
Figure 4. Example of fracture at a re-entrant corner
stress concentrations, and the internal edge can be hard and
notched giving the classic conditions for fracture.
It is for these reasons that the NSSS requires control of cutting
procedures. Codes such as BS EN 1090 2: 2008 defined edge
hardness standards to be achieved (BSI, 2008). Modifications to
edge hardness are possible by altering the cutting speed (slower
speeds are beneficial) and possibly by pre-heating (to slow the
cooling rate or cut down thermal gradients (mandatory in rail
cutting)) or the application of post-weld heat.
9. Cracking in fatigue
Perhaps the most likely form of cracking to be encountered by
engineers is that from fatigue. For a crack to progress there has
to be an initiation site and it can be assumed one will always
exist, certainly where there has been welding or thermal cutting.
There also has to be an alternating tensile stress, preferably with
some kind of stress concentration, to provide the frequent input
of energy required for crack progression. Figure 5, which is not
unlike Figure 4, shows a fatigue crack growing from a very
badly cut edge. The fracture surface is also shown in Figure 6.
Note the part of the crack starting from the steel edge has the
characteristic beach marks of a fatigue progression then, after a
certain length, the crack has propagated rapidly; this is shown
by the change to cleavage in the fracture surface appearance.
It is not difficult to show the effect of crack length on rates of
progression: adding a nick into the side of a sheet of paper will
provide ample demonstration. In the example shown in
Figures 5 and 6, the alternating stress was linked to a
supported structure enduring wind oscillation.
A problem with fatigue is that the worst failures often occur
when the designer has not spotted that a fatigue condition
19
Forensic Engineering
Volume 164 Issue FE1
Figure 5. Fracture at a re-entrant corner
exists. In the case of the oil rig failures mentioned earlier, the
varying loads were linked to varying sea states. Oscillation
from wind-induced vibration might be quite hard to anticipate
but a number of failures have occurred in this way. It is not the
frequent application of wind that counts so much as the
possibility of a large number of cycles from harmonic
oscillations such as may be generated by vortex shedding or
other wind dynamic response phenomena.
Historically, repeated loading from human footfall has rarely
presented a structural problem. However, it has become more
Figure 6. Fracture surfaces
20
Cracks in steel structures
Mann
of an issue in recent years simply because floor spans are
getting longer and these lengthened spans have moved floors
into the realms where there can be dynamic response to
imposed human loading. Cases to be concerned about are
crowd loading from dancing or aerobics, or perhaps stadia
response. Cases are known of where cracking has developed
under these conditions from beam re-entrant corners.
Technical issues that increase the risks from fatigue loading
(and thence cracking) are as follows.
(a) There is a low stress limit below which fatigue cracking
will not occur; however, at higher stresses, fatigue life is
finite. Life is determined not so much by the maximum
stress but by the stress range acting on a component.
Moreover, life is inversely proportional to the cube of the
applied stress range. Thus, any enlargement in stress
range has a dramatic effect on life, shortening it
considerably. In fatigue-designed structures, the stress
range has to be kept low. It should be obvious that if
secondary stresses or stress concentrations are neglected,
a structure can easily be subjected to a high stress range
when under fatigue loading. The consequences then are
that structural lives might be measured in hundreds of
cycles rather than thousands or millions.
(b) It is unfortunate that secondary stresses, which can be
mostly ignored in statically loaded structures, really
count in fatigue-loaded structures; such stresses are
almost impossible to compute with accuracy yet fatigue
cracks respond to the true stress state. Cracks can thus
develop in all sorts of surprising circumstances.
(c) There has to be a tensile stress state. But if there is a
residual tensile stress in the structure yet that part is in the
compressive range of external loading, then an applied
compressive stress will merely cycle the tensile stress from
high to low rather than the other way around. Thus fatigue
failures can occur in apparently compressive zones.
(d) An added complication occurs when corrosion and
fatigue combine. Where there is corrosion (or fatigue in a
corrosive environment) lives can be shortened even more
and there may be no endurance limit even at low stress.
The uncertainty of stress conditions leading to cracking was
illustrated by Senior (1963; 1964), who reported on fatigue
cracks developing in crane girders due to imperfect fit between
flanges and webs or between rails and their supports. Likewise,
fatigue cracks have developed on the underside of bridge decks
when stiffeners have not been forced into full contact prior to
welding (Mann and Morris, 1981). Fretting fatigue is a
phenomenon of fatigue crack growth generated simply by two
parts rubbing together. Mann (2008) described a complex
mechanism that caused fatigue crack generation and cracking
(with subsequent train derailment) in a railway track.
Forensic Engineering
Volume 164 Issue FE1
Checking for fatigue is an obvious condition on structures
carrying traffic. This is very pronounced in tracks carrying
rollercoasters where down forces can be linked to accelerations
up to 4g and where there are multiple cycles of load applied
through the many train wheels and with trains passing every
few minutes all day long. The condition is so onerous that
track design is dominated by the need to consider fatigue
loading and such tracks have a defined life as a consequence
(Figure 7).
10. Avoidance of fatigue damage
Experience suggests that prediction of fatigue damage is far
from certain: the stress loading conditions are just not
predictable with sufficient accuracy because secondary stresses
and stress concentrations play such a significant role. Any
defined life in terms of cycles that may be endured should
therefore be treated as an estimate. The first defence is to be
aware that a fatigue loading regime exists and to define joints
to suitable codes. There must also be appropriate NDE before
joints are put into service. Finally, an inspection monitoring
regime with the objective of detecting cracks before they
progress far enough to become dangerous must be carried out
throughout the service life. In advanced structures such as
aircraft components, certain parts are time limited in use
because of the dangers of fatigue crack propagation.
11. Materials
The risk of low-temperature brittle fracture is controlled by
specification of a steel with adequate toughness. The risk of
weld-promoted cracking is partly controlled by reference to the
steels chemistry. The risk of fatigue cracking is not related to
the material per se; indeed, the risk is the same for all steels
since the rate of crack propagation is not much influenced by
steel type.
Figure 7. Fatigue failure on a rollercoaster
Cracks in steel structures
Mann
Stainless steels used for structural purposes (generally auste-
nitic grades) have strengths comparable to normal structural
steels. Beneficially, they are ductile and extremely tough even
at low temperatures. In fact, the toughness can be so high that
certain grades can be used for cryogenic applications.
Nonetheless, stainless steel is not immune to problems if the
wrong grade is used. One reported problem is stress corrosion
this occurs if an inappropriate grade is used in the presence of
warmth and chlorides. High stress is required, but this can be
just from residual stress or from stress concentrations. Failures
have been reported from structures above swimming pools.
Problems have been known in the UK (in wire hangers). Page
and Anchor (1988) report on a failure (with fatalities) in
Switzerland in 1985 when, after 13 years of service, a heavy
concrete ceiling fell over a swimming pool. The collapse
resulted from the failure of austenitic stainless steel ceiling
supports. In 2005, Scoss issued a fresh alert about this type of
failure (Scoss, 2005). Avoidance involves the identification of
risk environments and the use of an appropriate stainless steel
grade.
Problems associated with galvanising have also been reported.
The spontaneous fracture of four galvanised Macalloy bars in
a post-tensioned bridge in 1968 caused a major alert (NCE,
1990), with the problem being put down to hydrogen
embrittlement. More recently, a worldwide investigation has
been carried out on Liquid Metal Assisted Cracking (Figure 8).
This is an apparently rare phenomenon (Moore, 2005), or at
least one not yet widely recognised, where for some reason
steelwork cracking occurs while a part is in a galvanising bath.
A significant worry is that the cracks may become filled with
zinc and thus not be apparent until load is applied in service
Figure 8. Liquid metal assisted cracking
21
Forensic Engineering
Volume 164 Issue FE1
and the cracks open up. Scoss has issued two advisory notes
about this danger (Scoss, 2004; 2006) and the British
Constructional Steelwork Association, in conjunction with
the Galvanisers Association, has issued guidelines for inspec-
tion and identification of risk factors (BCSA/GA, 2005).
Further guidance is available from the Steel Construction
Institute (SCI, 2006).
12. Summary
For the vast majority of structures, the risk of steel cracking is
very low. But if it does occur, the consequences can be
catastrophic. To protect structures, the first line of defence is
always to use steel with the right ductility and toughness
values. This might be overlooked since these attributes do not
appear in the calculations. Other risk factors are welding and
fatigue loading. Thick steel is an added risk factor, as is the
case if a structure needs to operate in cold conditions. Where a
combination of these risk factors exists, a prudent designer will
also consider the consequences of component failure and try to
build in a measure of structural robustness.
In everyday structural work, designers are faced with two main
lines of work design of new structures and appraisal of
existing structures. For new structures, in the absence of
fatigue loading, selection of a grade of steel appropriate to the
operating conditions will suffice as an adequate precaution
provided that control of fabrication procedures is maintained
(welding, cutting and punching) so as not to degrade material
properties or introduce cracks.
For existing structures (both relatively new and ageing
structures) the biggest risk is one of degradation through
fatigue crack propagation, the danger being that cracks
progress slowly to a critical length and then propagate
extremely rapidly with little warning. Even if structures are
designed against fatigue loading, experience shows that there is
considerable uncertainty in life prediction. Safety therefore
depends on in-service inspection with this perhaps focusing on
locations identified by the designer as potential crack initiation
points and with NDE techniques appropriate to the location
and type of cracking that might develop.
Old structures may well not have known Charpy values or
indeed may contain material with no specified Charpy value.
Assessing their capability in low-temperature environments is
highly specialised and appropriate expert advice will need to be
sought. All assessments should be guided by knowledge of
what forms of failure are possible and this paper has described
the major ones along with influencing factors.
REFERENCES
BCSA/GA (British Constructional Steelwork Association and
Galvanisers Association (2005) Galvanising Structural
22
Cracks in steel structures
Mann
Steelwork: An Approach to the Management of Liquid
Metal Assisted Cracking. BCSA, London, Publication 40/
05.
BCSA/SCI (British Constructional Steelwork Association and Steel
Construction Institute) (2010) National Structural Steelwork
Specification for Building Construction, 5th edn. BCSA,
London, Publication 52/10.
Berenbak J, Lanser A and Mann AP (2001) The British Airways
London Eye Part 2: Structure. The Structural Engineer
79(2): 1928.
Boyd GM (1970) Brittle Fracture in Steel Structures.
Butterworths, London.
BSI (British Standards Institution) (2005) BS EN 1993-1-
10:2005(E): Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures.
Material toughness and through-thickness properties. BSI,
London.
BSI (2008) BS EN 1090-2: 2008: Execution of steel structures
and aluminium structures. Technical requirements for the
execution of steel structures. BSI, London.
BSI (2009) BS EN 1011-1: 2009: Welding. Recommendations
for welding of metallic materials. General guidance for arc
welding. BSI, London.
Burdekin FM (1999) Gold medal address: Size matters for
structural engineers. The Structural Engineer 77(21): 2329.
ENR (Engineering News Record) (1986) Cracks, fractures spur
study. Engineering News Record, 21 August, pp. 1011.
ENR (1987a) John W Fisher. Pressing for research to advance
technology and prevent failures. Engineering News Record,
19 February, pp. 4050.
ENR (1987b) Engineer-fabricator cooperation a must.
Engineering News Record, 7 May, pp. 1011.
Gordon JE (1978) Structures or Why Things Dont Fall Down.
Pelican, London.
Mann AP (1993) The structural use of stainless steel. The
Structural Engineer 71(4): 6068.
Mann AP (2008) Learning from failures at the interface.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Civil
Engineering 161(2): 815.
Mann AP and Morris LJ (1981) Lack of Fit in Steel Structures.
Construction Industry Research and Information
Association, London, Report no. 87.
Maranian P (1997) Vulnerability of existing steel framed
buildings following the 1994 Northridge (California USA)
earthquake: considerations for their repair and
strengthening. The Structural Engineer 75(10): 165172.
Maranian P (1998) Correspondence. The Structural Engineer
76(11): 227228.
NCE (New Civil Engineer) (1990) Stressing success. New Civil
Engineer, 26 April, pp. 18.
Moore D (2005) Technical note: rare problem can be easily
solved. New Steel Construction 13(8): 2829.
Page CL and Anchor RD (1988) Stress corrosion cracking of
Forensic Engineering
Volume 164 Issue FE1
stainless steel in swimming pools. The Structural Engineer
66(24): 416.
SCOSS (Standing Committee on Structural Safety) (2004) Liquid
Metal Assisted Cracking of Galvanised Steelwork: A Rare
but Important Issue. SCOSS, London, SC/T/04/02.
SCOSS (2005) A Reminder of the Risk of Failure due to Stress
Corrosion Cracking in Swimming Pools. SCOSS, London,
SC/05/69C.
SCOSS (2006) Liquid Metal Assisted Cracking. SCOSS, London,
SC/06/59.
SCOSS (2010) Major Cast Metal Components. SCOSS, London,
SC/10/029.
Senior AG (1963) The design and service life of the upper part
Cracks in steel structures
Mann
of welded crane girders. The Structural Engineer 41(10):
301312.
Senior AG (1964) Discussion of The design and service life of
the upper part of welded crane girders. The Structural
Engineer 42(3): 8793.
SCI (Steel Construction Institute) Steel Industry Guidance Notes.
SN10 11/2006: Galvanising Structural Steelwork
Guidance for Engineers on how to reduce the Risk of
Liquid Metal Assisted Cracking. SCI, Berkshire.
Swann W (2005) Is your steel tough enough? (specifying steel to
BS 5950-1: 2000). The Structural Engineer 83(21): 2427.
TWI (The Welding Institute) (1971) Brittle Fracture of Welded
Structures. TWI, Cambridge.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu-
dents. Papers should be 20005000 words long (briefing
papers should be 10002000 words long), with adequate
illustrations and references. You can submit your paper
online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
23