Posted: December 15th, 2022

The Collapse of the Quebec Bridge

The Collapse of the Quebec Bridge
ENGG 123, January, 2019
1
ENGG123
Assignment No. 2
Due date: Tuesday February 12
th
, 2019, 7:00 AM
Engineering Disasters
General instructions
Submissions
Submit your completed assignment via the Turnitin function on the ENGG 123 UR Courses
site (the assignments section) on or prior to the due date and time. Your submission should be
in one Turnitin-compatible file (.doc, .docx, .pdf, etc.).
Assignment 2 requires students to produce a brief formal paper that deals with an engineering
disaster. The minimum length of the paper is five-double spaced pages and the maximum
length is seven double-spaced pages (Times New Roman font size 11), NOT including
your title page and references page. An effective paper will pose and answer a number of the
questions listed below. (You do not need to answer all of these questions)
• How is it an engineering disaster?
• Which particular aspects of the disaster are the results of a poor engineering choice or
practice?
• How is it relevant to the study and practice of engineering?
• Who was at fault? What caused the accident?
• What future precautions are recommended?
• Were any new laws, practices, or regulations implemented as a result of the disaster?
• What was the overall impact on engineering practice?
• Did the accident change engineering practice?
In order to be able to answer the above questions about an engineering disaster, you should
prepare a brief literature review. And, you must complete the following four key tasks:
1. Select a disaster to assess which is NOT on the Banned Topics list.
2. Locate a minimum of three useful sources from the academic and/or professional literature
3. Compose a paper that conforms to the formatting guidelines presented in this document;
4. Employ the American Psychological Association (APA) citation and referencing system
presented on the Purdue Owl Writing Lab website, at:
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/05/
Task 1 Select an engineering disaster
You are required to select a real engineering disaster from history. The disaster’s cause should be
related to faulty engineering, a design flaw for example. This means that disasters related to
things such as ethical issues or corrupt practices are not suitable for your paper (e.g. a company
knowingly does not fully disclose information that ultimately causes danger and harm).
Banned Topics List
The list of disasters that you cannot write about is posted on our URCourses home page under
the heading Topic 3 Assignments.
Due date: Wednesday October 9, 2019, 7:00 AM
ENGG 123, January, 2019
2
Task 2 Locate a minimum of three sources
At least three of the sources you employ in your literature review must be from the academic
and/or professional literature. Acceptable sources include the following:
* peer reviewed academic journal articles;
* peer reviewed academic books;
* official publications of professional engineering associations;
*official government or judicial reports on the disaster; and,
*certain evidentiary documents such as company reports, and sometimes eyewitness reports.
How to locate sources
Our University of Regina Library provides instruction and Helpance in locating academic
sources. The university has a number of search engines available and can provide students with
free access to many academic journals and e-books. In addition, basic online searches (e.g.,
Google searches) can help you locate journal articles on many topics e.g., “peer reviewed articles
Three Mile Island,” would lead you to a series of academic journal articles on this topic.
Task 3 Formatting Guidelines
The items presented below describe the format and style you are to employ for this paper. Check
the details presented in the class about “Formal Paper” writing.
• Do not provide a Table of Contents for this paper.
• Be concise, do not make the mistake of using a narrative (literary story) style.
• Do not write in the first person (e.g., do not use I or me).
• If you employ tables, you do not require lists of tables and figures for a paper that is this
short.
• You must use the APA citation/referencing system in this paper.
Introduction
Your introduction should not be much more than 1 ½ pages in length. It should include the
following items:
Purpose: i.e., your research questions
Begin with a statement of purpose that identifies the name and date of the disasters and poses
your principal research question(s). Once you have read about the disaster you should feel
comfortable about the sorts of questions you can effectively answer. It is often useful to select
one main question along with two or three subsidiary questions. A suitable question for many
papers might be: What were the flaws in engineering design that led to this disaster?
Conceptual clarification
Your research questions should be followed by a section on concept clarification. What do you
mean by “disaster?” What is an engineering disaster? You should also define any technical
terms that feature prominently in the paper and may not be understood by your audience.
Methodological statement
You must include a statement indicating the methodology you employed to answer your research
question. In the case of this paper the methodology will be a brief assessment of the literature or
a literature review. If your paper focuses on a few sources, they should be cited in your
methodological statement.
Analysis section
The analysis section should be the longest part of your paper.
ENGG 123, January, 2019
3
Background statement
You can begin your analysis section with a very brief overview of the basic, undisputed facts that
describe the disaster. You might describe the structures involved, the date they were completed,
when they failed, how many people were killed or injured if any and perhaps the economic and
other social costs of the disaster. For a paper that is this short your background statement should
be no more than two paragraphs in length.
Argument points
The bulk of the analysis section involves your effort to present points which help to answer your
research question. Each of the points you make should be supported by evidence provided by one
of your sources and be supported by a citation and reference for the citation. You should
logically explain how the point you make helps answer your question(s). There should be one or
more points made for each of your questions.
Disputes and alternatives
If you run across disputed evidence or examples of alternative explanations for your questions,
you should indicate as much in the text of your paper. Some writers add a discussion section at
the end of their analysis to summarize their findings, assess alternative arguments and tie up
loose ends. Most writers leave the discussion tasks to their conclusion.
Conclusion
In your conclusion, you make direct reference to your original research questions. You can
simply summarize them, but can repeat them word for word if necessary. You should indicate
whether the analysis answered your questions and briefly summarize the key points of the
analysis if necessary.
You should honestly indicate whether a research question was effectively answered. If you failed
to answer a question you should try to explain why. You should indicate what might be done in a
future research effort to answer the question – more research, more data, more time?
At the very end of your conclusion you can include an optional “affective” statement. An
affective statement is where you can briefly state what the outcome of your research says about
the need to prevent similar disasters, or what the impact of studying this disaster is for you
personally. The affective statement is the one portion of the paper where the use of the first
person (I, me) is permitted.
References
Your paper ends with a references section which should be prepared based on the APA format.
You must have a reference for each of the sources cited in the text.
Task 4 use APA
As was already noted in these instructions you are required to employ the APA in-text citation
and referencing system as presented in the Purdue Owl writing lab and also available in
communication lecture notes.

The Collapse of the Quebec Bridge
Introduction
The disaster carried out in the research was the collapse of the Quebec Bridge. The disaster occurred in August 1907. The questions for research are as follows;
What were the possible engineering design issues that led to the collapse of the Quebec Bridge?
i) What are the specific results that indicate that the disaster was a result of poor design of the Quebec bridge disaster?
ii) What are the precautions that could have been put in place to prevent the collapse of the Quebec bridge disaster?
iii) What are the new laws and regulations that are implemented to curb such kind of disasters in the future?
A disaster is defined as a calamity that may result in damage or loss of life. However, there are shortcuts of engineering design that might result in engineering disasters. The shortcuts exist because of the need to reduce the cost of construction or fabrication. Engineering is both a science and technology that is integrated to meet different levels of demand. An engineering disaster is a calamity that occurs due to the flaws in the design, human error or even other phenomena or uncontrolled situations.
Bridges are designed to support certain loads. The causes of the collapse of bridges can be grouped under general headings for analysis. The causes are bad design, faulty construction, and unexpected load or combined causes. Design is defined as the failure to account for the loads the structure will carry, erroneous theories, reliance on inaccurate data among others.
The methodology outlines the design issues that led to the collapse by outlining the factors and possible failures in designs. The methodology is based on the precautions or measures that could have been put in place to prevent the occurrence of the collapse of Quebec Bridge. The next step involves the description of the laws and regulations and finally the impact and conclusions. The main source is the Pearson and Delatte (2006) which outlined the colipase of Quebec Bridge in 1907.
Analysis
The Quebec Bridge collapsed in August 1907. The bridge was constructed in the hash icy waters of the St. Lawrence River. It collapsed during its period of construction killing 75 workers. 11 workers on the site were recovered alive. However some bodies were never found. After the collapse of the initial construction, the second attempt was made and it eventually suffered collapse when the middle span fell in St. Lawrence River. The second collapse led to the loss of 13 workers. Finally, the bridge was completed in 1917 until today.
The collapse of the Quebec Bridge was noticed by one of the workers who were driving rivets into the southern span of the Quebec Bridge. The worker noted that the rivet had snapped into two after driven for almost an hour. Then it followed by the dropping out of the cantilever thereby crashing under the river. It hit the ground with a strong force such that people who were beyond 10 km from the incident could hear the sound. The entire half of the bridge which was approximately 189 MN (19000 t) fell into the water. By the time of collapse, a total of 86 workers were present at the site. The collapse is attributed to the bending of the A9L bottom compression chord. The bending was due to the increased weight of the bridge. The load of the bridge was also unevenly distributed since it was transferred to the opposite side of A9R. The piers were not affected during the collapse.
The collapse of the Quebec Bridge was attributed to the inappropriate use of materials due to poor design. Design is the core factor that should be adhered to in any engineering project. Any assumption made or which was not previously in the design documents is not allowed in the implementation process of the structure. In this case, the design process was not because it resulted in the failure of some materials. According to Pearson and Delatte (2006), the bridge collapsed due to the failure of the lower chords especially in the lower arm located near the main pier. The failure was attributed to the defective design of the system. The failure in the design process was pointed out by the Royal Commission which was mandated to conduct the report on the collapse of the bridge.
However, there are specific results from the system which indicated that the bridge was poorly designed. The indicators were revealed even before the collapse of the bridge but measures were not taken. According to Pearson and Delatte (2006), the bridge showed signs that were worrying. Pearson and Delatte (2006) wrote that the collapse of the bridge was linked to other technical factors. For instance, the top and the bottom chords of both the cantilever and the anchor were both designed as straight members. On the other hand, the bottom chords of the anchor, as well as the cantilever arm, were curved and not straight as per the design requirement. The curvature resulted in the secondary stretches on the members thereby reducing their bulking capacity. The disaster could have been avoided if the bridge was constructed according to the design process. The results indicate that the design was followed. Additionally, another concern was raised on how the bridge was erected. During the design process, the end of the chords was shaped to facilitate small directions to take place when the bridge is under full dead load. During the erection, the spaces were bolted to allow for the movement (Pearson and Delatte, 2006). The change of the construction which was not according to the design had a devastating effect on the final product.
On the other hand, during the implementation of the project, the original measurements as per the design were not maintained. According to Pearson and Delatte (2006), Cooper who was the engineer in charge altered the original allowable stress for the bridge. The new allowable stress was 145 Mpa for normal loading as well as 165 Mpa for the extreme loading condition. The change was questioned by some engineers but their concerns were not taken into considerations. The work is required to be done according to the original design of the project. However, if there are changes to be made, then it should be a consultative process among all the members.
Several measures or precautions could have been followed to avoid the collapse of the Quebec Bridge. The people who are entrusted to conduct projects of such magnitude must be qualified with appropriate and specialized skills in the field of engineering. According to Lockett (1987), the loss of life and financial loss could have been avoided if there could be better judgment on those who were responsible for the Quebec Bridge. The judgement could be in terms of the Assessment of the skills and competencies of the team members. Additionally, the monitoring of each stage of development and accommodating the views of other members form a critical part of the project. Also, the project lacked much of the supervision because it was assumed that a team of experienced engineering was mandated to run the project. The Quebec Bridge and Railway Company failed to appoint experienced engineering to take supervisory role which led to less supervision. The process resulted in the loss of efficient supervision of all the parts and the process of the project. Also, the team lacked technical skills especially in the use of materials. The bridge was supposed to be constructed according to modern technology and current skills in the structure of the materials.
Laws and policies could have regulated some of the issues for the collapse of the Quebec Bridge. In the period during which the disaster occurred, there was less number of laws and policies that controlled the construction and design of bridges. According to Devis (2017), there are new laws that have been enacted following the collapse of the Minnesota Bridge. The Oberster bill was introduced to reform the current standards of the construction of bridges. The new laws tightened the bridge and the inspection rules. The bills and other laws proposed for the increase in funding for bridges and proper management of funds. The process of introducing such laws is an important approach of dealing with several cases that result from poor design of bridges. Most of the current laws are aimed at increasing safety by outlining various safety measures that must be followed to the later. Other laws include the Commission plan and the Reauthorization proposals which are aimed at funding as well as outlining the safety measures of the bridges. It is important for the government of the United States and other countries to continue enacting policies and laws that guide the construction and maintenance of the bridges.
The collapse of the Quebec Bridge is not the responsibility of the contractors but the government. The Royal Commission Report entirely blame the Quebec Bridge Company and the Railway Company for the collapse of the bridges, this should not be the case. The government of the United States could have taken the responsibility of ensuring that safety and other design process are adhered to. Most of the issues for the collapse of the bridge were detected at the early stages. However, the contractor was not put to task to explain why there were such occurrences. For instance, the government could undertake supervisory roles by involving their engineers.
In conclusion, the factors that led to the collapse of the Quebec Bridge revolve around the design process. The issues considered were the possible engineering design issues that led to the collapse of the Quebec Bridge, the specific results that indicate that the disaster was as a result of poor design of the Quebec bridge disaster, the precautions that could have been put in place to prevent the collapse of Quebec bridge disaster and the new laws and regulations that are implemented to curb such kind of disasters in future. The prevention of the future occurrence of such disasters can be done by enacting laws and policies that focus on safety and design of the bridges. The government should channel more funds to sector for proper implementation of the projects.

References
Devis, J. (2017, December 15). How Has Federal Bridge Policy Changed Since the I-35W Collapse? Retrieved October 4, 2019, from https://www.enotrans.org/article/federal-bridge-policy-since-i35w-collapse/
Lockett, W. G. (1987). The Lesson of the Quebec Bridge. Scientia Canadensis, 11(2), 63-89.
Pearson, C., & Delatte, N. (2006). Collapse of the Quebec bridge, 1907. Journal of performance of constructed facilities, 20(1), 84-91.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: The Collapse of the Quebec Bridge