Virtually all undergraduate construction programs instruct students in the areas of construction methods and materials. In terms of accrediting guidelines for ACCE, successful accreditation requires meeting minimum credit hour requirements in the construction sciences area. Construction methods and materials instruction falls under the ACCE definition of construction sciences. A major trend in the construction industry towards design-build methods means that a sound knowledge of construction materials is ever more important. The design-build method typically encompasses both a faster construction process and less explicit designs. The combination of speed and less detail in plans and specifications means greater decision-making responsibility in the field. Many of these field choices can involve construction methods and materials. Other trends include adaptive reuse of existing facilities and facilities utilized beyond their original intended service lives. Constructors may find themselves involved in these reuse decisions or involved in maintenance management for extended service life facilities. Renovation and even daily construction situations can demand informed decision-making in these areas. In view of the above, failure analysis can be a key component in construction methods and materials education. Failure analysis education can help construction graduates make better quality decisions. As one of this writer’s late instructors once stated, "There are no bad materials just bad materials applications ("Poe, 1973). As has been noted, "Success is foreseeing failure" (Petroski, 1985).

At our institution students take one three-semester credit hour course in construction methods and materials combined with a one-semester credit two-hour laboratory. Before students complete this class they have had 30 semester credit hours of mathematics and sciences including calculus, computer science, chemistry, physics, and geology. They have also had coursework in construction management and construction equipment. After this class students complete another 26 hours in the construction sciences category for a total of 33 semester hours of construction sciences. These classes include structural design, soils and foundations and mechanical/electrical systems. Our construction program is an ACCE-accredited program. As can be seen from the above analysis it is similar in composition to a number of others across the country.

There is no question that many construction curricula are bursting at the seams between university mandates, accreditation body mandates, and industry demands. To add insult to injury, the requirements of these various constituencies at times are in conflict. Cantilevered on top of this, at least for public institutions, are requirements by some state legislatures to place upper limits on credit hours for a four-year degree. We don’t have room to add additional hours to the curriculum.

However, it is felt that failure analysis is a key topic area in construction methods and materials. The students coming into this course have the necessary background in mathematics and sciences to understand and apply failure analysis techniques. A high proportion of the laboratory time and some lecture time in this four-credit course at our institution has been infused with failure analysis material. Just as students learn more from wrong answers on tests so too it is felt that they can learn more about construction methods and materials from failure analysis. Failure analysis teaches students to think both critically and creatively.

There are several excellent construction methods and/or materials textbook available to construction faculty. If these texts have one weakness it is that they don’t talk about what happens when mistakes are made. A simple example is two dissimilar metals in contact, which will result in galvanic corrosion. A secondary weakness of these texts is typically their limited focus on testing for potential materials failures. There is usually strong coverage as an example on concrete testing but no information on welding testing or for other materials. Part of failure analysis should be some exposure to the wide variety of destructive and non-destructive tests that are used in construction failure analysis.

Due to the limitations of construction texts, the faculty member from other sources must research more complete textual material. Fortunately there are a wide variety of sources available particularly tailored around horrific natural and man-made disasters. Major natural disasters including Hurricane Andrew in Florida and the Northridge Earthquake in California have had major studies done on them concerning construction methods and materials. Major man-made disasters such as the Kansas City Hyatt Regency walkway collapse and the Hartford Civic Center roof collapse have also been the subject of extensive studies. Books also exist that are solely focused on construction disasters (Ross, 1984) and forensic engineering (Carper, 1989, Kaminstzky, 1991). Leading construction industry trade publications such as ENR frequently report on construction failures.

Some of the best examples for failure analysis can come from faculty consulting projects. Construction and engineering faculty at many institutions sometimes perform consulting assignments that involve failure analysis. Some of this work may involve litigation. Once the litigation is settled at mediation, arbitration or in court this material may be available for case study purposes including color pictures and examples. These faculty may also contribute by guest lectures. Consulting firms and materials testing firms may be able to supply failure examples such as weld test coupons and x-ray data. Construction programs are often resource poor when it comes to failure analysis test equipment but some of these outside firms may allow student tours and demonstrations. The particular institution may have some of this test equipment but located in another department. Partnering with other departments may be the best course of action in this case. As an example, at a previous institution of this author, the construction program had only soils and concrete testing equipment. The institution had no civil engineering department. However, mechanical engineering had extensive metals failure analysis equipment of which was utilized by the construction students.

Besides general lecture material in failure analysis, a series of case studies have been developed for the course. These studies include the aforementioned examples of Hurricane Andrew, Kobe Earthquake (Andreason, 1995), Northridge Earthquake (Andreason, Rose, 1994), Kansas City Hyatt Regency (Petroski, 1985 and Sweet, 2000), and Hartford Civic Center (Kaminstzky, 1991). Natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes cannot be prevented but they provide important failure analysis lessons. In the case of Hurricane Andrew a number of events took place. Substandard construction practices and code enforcement shortfalls led to extensive roof damage. Winds far in excess of design loads also led to roof damage. Ill-conceived and politically-motivated responses to this such as outlawing oriented strand board for roof sheathing in Miami Dade County provide further color to the interesting Hurricane Andrew case. In the Northridge Earthquake, man-made problems such as wood framing lapses and lax code enforcement again contributed to substantial failures. Students review case material pointing out the superior performance of older residences built under looser codes as contrasted to new residence’s performance under stricter codes. The differing performance in Northridge as illustrated is poor adherence to proper construction methods and the newer codes. Other case studies include concrete formwork deflection failure, glu-lam beam roof collapse, crane boom dismantling failure, EFIS curtain wall construction water intrusion issue, concrete/rebar chloride failure, premises liability issue, galvanic corrosion failure, wood framing/window installation issue, structural weldment failure, gypsum floor delamination, and paint coatings failure. Studies are selected to highlight a wide range of potential issues with a number of construction materials and methods.

Developing these case studies requires winnowing down a large amount of information. Original source material comprising these failure analysis cases is often hundreds or thousands of pages in length. To supply all of this material to students would require hundreds of pages and in some cases involving litigation thousands of pages. On a wood framing construction issue involving a condominium project as an example, the deposition of the framing contractor’s expert took two full days. Even with minu-scripts (four deposition pages per standard size page) this deposition material for various experts can run into hundreds of pages. The challenge is to reduce this material into a format that can be readily presented to students.

Litigation casework can prove particularly interesting for examples of failure analysis. As an example, one case had an owner’s expert, architect’s expert, contractor’s expert, manufacturer’s expert, and plaintiff’s expert. The plaintiff’s expert was representing the injured hotel patron. While experts should always be unbiased in their work, students find fascinating the differing conclusions of various experts on these failure issues. Another case involved failure analysis of an ornamental iron railing on a custom home. The railing was attached to the home’s wood siding and through the wood siding into four-by-four posts via steel lag screws. There were four lag screws at the top and bottom of each of the two ends (one lag screw at each attachment point). According to the case plaintiff’s testimony a 185-pound person while cleaning the balcony deck leaned against the railing and it gave way. No lag screws from this event could ever be found. The plaintiff’s expert report criticized the railing construction for not supporting the code-requisite loading. There are a number of failure analysis questions to answer in this case. The case is presented to the students with pictures and the brief fact set as outlined above. In this case both the builder of the custom home and their ornamental iron contractor were the defendants in the litigation. In lab the students test same-type 3/8-inch diameter lag screws in shear to failure. Four-by-four wood pieces are tested for pull out of the lag screws. Students are assigned in teams to build scale models of the balcony deck railing as seen in the photographs. Model testing and the other failure testing pinpoints the impossibility of the event with four lag screws failing as described by the plaintiff. There was no pull out evidence on the wood at the lag screw location. The builder expert’s conclusion was that the person was sitting on the railing and fell backwards. They concluded that the railing lag screws were removed to make this look like an accident. Students analyzing potential railing failure modes come to the same conclusion.

In contrast to the home railing, a case is given in conjunction with the above involving the failure of a hotel stairway railing. In this case a hotel guest stumbled and fell against the stairway railing. Two bolts held the railing at this location. Here one bolt sheared off and one pulled out. The differing explanation in this case is that continued heavy patron use of this busy staircase eventually led to metal fatigue of the failed bolt. Between the two cases students learn some basic failure analysis principles.

In addition, it is essential to leave enough extraneous material to force the students to think through important and unimportant issues on the way to understanding failure analysis techniques. An instructional difficulty is finding the time to develop this material into case studies that are neither too easy nor too difficult for undergraduate students at this stage.

Students are presented with the basics of a several cases with a PowerPoint presentation including embedded color photos in the lab session. There are brief handouts in three-slide per page format for this presentation. A physical sample may also be presented during the lab. More complete material for each case is placed on reserve in the campus library. Students are expected to analyze the material and develop a best solution with case assignment write-ups due at the start of the next lab. Assignments are collected and then case discussions proceed with a final wrap-up by the instructor on the actual real-world solution set. Students are also required to research recommended test methods. These may be test methods from diverse bodies as the American Society for Testing and Materials to the Ceramic Tile Institute. Periodic quizzes and a lab final are used to test student understanding of key concepts. Verbal presentations of technical material and case discussions provide important training for students. Over the semester all students are called upon to participate in discussions.

Besides these regular case studies, students are assigned in two-person teams and given case assignments on a random basis. These cases are the subject of an end-of-semester presentation by each team of approximately fifteen minutes with five minutes for instructor questions. Students find the verbal presentations their least favorite part of the class. However industry feedback indicates that employers value these abilities. Analyzing these examples of real-world failures via case studies give students an experience that would be difficult to replicate with a textbook or other lab exercise.

Students are exposed to a wide variety of destructive and non-destructive testing methods. Students learn the advantages and disadvantages of various aspects of these disparate methods. Destructive testing (DT) to failure includes tests for tensile, shear, and compressive properties on sample materials and fabrications. Another area here is adhesion tests to check for coatings failures and bonding failures. In some cases these testing methods can be very basic. On one project small hydraulic jacks were utilized on sample wood-frame wall sections to evaluate the racking ability of the wall assembly. Unfortunately at our location, neither our university nor nearby outside firms have a shake table apparatus to dynamically test items such as these wall sections. Other DT methods shown include the systematic examination of a window/wall assembly through stucco removal, wire lath removal, vapor barrier removal, along with interior examination through drywall and insulation removal.

Non-destructive testing (NDT) methods are more widely varied in our course. This non-destructive testing includes liquid penetrant, magnetic particle, impact hammer, thermographic camera, ultrasonic, coefficient of friction drag-sled, and acoustics testing. Students learn that they can do ultrasonic testing on practically any type of material that can conduct sound. The coefficient of friction analysis is especially important in premises liability issues. The author, as a consultant, has been involved in various legal cases over the years where contractors are sued due to pedestrian fall injuries on a surface. Some of these cases involved incorrect contractor application or incorrect contractor materials choices. Magnetic particle, thermographic camera and ultrasonic NDT equipment is not available at our institution. Therefore, we are fortunate to have outside firms demonstrate these techniques to our students. The ideal environment would be to have an environment where all this equipment was owned by our program. Unfortunately we, like many construction programs, don’t have the financial ability to make this dream a reality. We are heavily dependent on the generosity of others to assist us here in this educational endeavor. Time limitations, student sophistication, and practicality considerations forego the use of very sophisticated equipment. Therefore, students are not operating exotic equipment such as scanning electron microscopes.

An important part of this lab has been construction field trips. Furthering the construction failure analysis theme this instructor attempts to have sponsoring personnel discuss construction failure issues. Students have been exposed to field trips that have included concrete formwork failures, roof collapses, weldment failures, foundation settlement/underpinning work, curtain wall failures, and concrete slab delamination issues. In our immediate geographic area we are fortunate to have a continuing high level of construction activity. We have built up a high level of trust with many contractors over the years. Moreover since our construction program has been in existence for a number of years, some of those conducting the field trips are our program graduates. This has led to a level of rapport that is especially important when it comes to failure analysis issues in construction. With strangers students would not hear the honest stories about construction failures. Obviously the natural tendency is not to publicize problems and mistakes. We try to maintain contacts with those contractor personnel that have proved especially informative about project problems and challenges. Similarly we avoid for future considerations those individuals that for whatever reason cannot provide the students with a beneficial educational experience. Many readers have encountered the frustration of a field trip to a potentially interesting project site but due to the field trip conductor the result is an unsatisfactory experience. One finds the similar occurrence with guest speakers. A university does not hire/retain faculty that cannot inform students and we feel the same way about those conducting field trips and guest lectures. The ultimate result of this is providing a broad exposure to students especially as to failure analysis.

Every field trip and even most cannot be a case study in failure analysis. Our continuing roster of contractor personnel often point out during field trips important steps that are undertaken to avoid failure issues. Sometimes these failure avoidance steps involve extra steps or modified construction methods and materials to avoid future problems. As an example, one condominium developer due to window/flashing water intrusion issues went to a substantially more expensive primary flashing material. Failure analysis of past projects indicated previous methods/materials to be the culprit. The same criterion applied in selecting heavier roofing felt under concrete tile roofs and different roof flashing details. The condominium developer has given our construction program extensive slides of failures and the corrections. These provide invaluable lessons for the students.

A field trip to an aluminum fabricating shop illustrated to students the impact of missing one step leading to a construction failure. Adhesive bonding of aluminum fabricated parts was taking place for a construction contractor client. Mechanical bonding was not feasible due to finish surface considerations in a museum construction project. An eight-step process before adhesive bonding included alkaline degreasing, degreaser rinse, etching, etch rinse, phosphoric acid anodize, anodize rinse with a filtered air drying operation. This kind of care was necessary to prevent oxide growth leading to a weak aluminum bond. Students were then shown two samples both brought into failure. One sample was with the eight-step process and one where key steps had been shortchanged. Both samples looked the same to the students. The inferior sample failed under a very light load due to the failure to remove aluminum oxide growth. The properly-prepared fabrication failed under a shear load slightly in excess of 4,000 psi. Field trips are more feasible in these cases since liability with these chemical processing operations would be a problem. This instructor would rather avoid the headaches associated with acid etching work by students. This is besides the fact that we would not have the specialized anodizing equipment to demonstrate these issues.

As noted, construction programs face equipment and other resource constraints. Partnering with outside firms can expose students to equipment and processes beyond the financial abilities of the construction program. Contractors and fabrication shops can provide scrap materials for students in their failure analysis testing. These donated materials help to stay within generally frugal budget guidelines. Design and construction experts working in the failure analysis area including other faculty can also provide source material for case studies. Sophisticated equipment measuring forces to the nth degree is also not a requirement for educational purposes. Accuracy within 10% or even greater tolerances can still provide failure analysis lessons. Thus the aforementioned hydraulic jack and simple gauge can take the place of complicated testing equipment. Once when a testing machine was broken, load testing on a wood model proceeded with sandbags as an example for the students. If the model were of steel, the supply of sandbags would not have been sufficient! Service failures may involve forces so large or over time such as with corrosion that material is solely illustrative in nature. Paint failures and corrosion issues occur over significant time frames. In some cases it is practical to accelerate these processes such as with total salt water immersion on reinforcing steel.

This author has found that implementation of failure analysis takes significant time in developing cases, collecting samples, and other duties. These constraints mean that failure analysis has been gradually and steadily incorporated into construction methods and materials over the past four years. Fortunately the author has been able to "own" this course over the four-year time frame as a continuing faculty assignment. Like courses with high faculty turnover can make faculty members reluctant to commit to the higher work loads in course materials development. As sound case studies, failure samples collected, and labs are developed, other previous material has been replaced by the author. There has also been a learning curve experienced by the author due to continued contact with outside firms and their personnel. New information accumulates which makes this an interesting faculty experience.

Construction projects are increasing in complexity, which includes new construction methods and materials. Not only are there new materials but new combinations of materials. In some cases, particularly in design-build methods, constructors have more responsibility to make choices concerning construction methods and materials. Other trends such as facility use extending beyond design service life and adaptive re-use of buildings means the potential for problems. Contractors are also encountering products liability lawsuits including premises liability issues as a result of construction failures. In view of the aforementioned, failure analysis skills can prove a valuable part of the construction graduates’ toolkit. Curricula limitations prevent total immersion in these concepts but graduates require some background in failure analysis.

Andreason, K. (April, 1996). APA Report SP-1095 Kobe Earthquake: Report Of The Performance Of Residential And Commercial Structures (January 17, 1995). Tacoma, WA: APA The Engineered Wood Association.

Andreason, K., Rose, J., (March, 1994). APA Report T94-5 Northridge, California Earthquake: Structural Performance Of Buildings In San Fernando Valley, California (January 17, 1994). Tacoma, WA: APA The Engineered Wood Association.

Carper, K., (1989). Forensic Engineering. New York: Elseveir Science.

Kaminstzky, D., (1991). Design and Construction Failures: Lessons from Forensic Investigations. New York: McGraw-Hill. 220-275.

Petroski, H., (1985). To Engineer Is Human: The Role Of Failure In Successful Design. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 85-93.

Poe, A.D., (February, 1973). Building Materials Selection. Unpublished handout. Pullman, Washington: Washington State University.

Ross, S., (1984). Construction Disasters. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sweet, J. (2000). Duncan vs. Missouri Board For Architects, Professional Engineers And Land Surveyors in Legal Aspects Of Architecture, Engineering And The Construction Process, Sixth Edition. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole Publishing. 115-122.