To: Dr.

Cavalline
From: Henry Cole Baxter
Date: 12/7/16
Subject: Kemper Arena Collapse (1979)

Kemper Arena Collapse (1979)

This collapse occurred on June 4, at 6:45 p.m. The collapse was provoked by a
storm that occurred during that evening that had 110 km/h (70 mph) winds and
heavy rains. Many failures such as this involve loss of property which is financially
devastating but luckily, the arena was empty and no one was injured during this
collapse. The shocking part of this collapse is that this arena was known for hosting
very big events in the past, such as NHL games, NBA games, and also the 1976
Republican national convention where Gerald Ford bettered Ronald Reagan. This
arena also won an architectural award of honor in the 1970s which is also why it
was such a shock to the architectural world. This arena was built in 18 months and
was looked at as and called revolutionary due to its simple design. The roof had
steel space frame trusses, that had hangers coming down to hold the ceiling panels
with joist supports, that were to hang from three portals that were reinforced by the
concrete roof and were designed to have the roof adjust to heavy winds such as the
70mph winds that affected the collapse. There were multiple factors that lead to the
collapse of the roof and the blowing out of the walls in the arena. The roof was
designed to release rainwater into sewage systems but the sewage systems during
this storm were being blocked from the overflowing of the Missouri river and the
Kansas river. This created a large collection of water on top of the concrete roofing.
Also, the bolts on the hangers were proposed to be large enough and strong enough
to handle the strength of the winds but the engineers did not think about the
possibility of the buildup of water on top of the roof that occurred due to blockage of
the drains used to take in the runoff water from the roof. Now since the roof was
built to swing back and forth during winds like this, the architects did not intend for
there to be water built up on top of the roof while the roof swung back and forth.
This caused one of the steel bolts to bust loose in one of the hangers which led to a
domino effect with the other bolts on the south side of the roof [1]. 200 feet by 215
feet of the roof on the south side collapsed due to this domino effect of the bolts
breaking on the hangers, which is about an acre of roofing. After this collapse of the
roof occurred, the walls falling caused some of the walls to blow out as well. The
roof had no redundancy after one hanger failed, they all failed. There was no backup
support to hold up the rest of the hangers after one failed due to one of the bolts
busting. The main reason for this collapse is believed to have been time dependent
fatigue. The bolts used in the hangers were A490 high-strength bolts and after 6
years of fatigue, they could not hold that kind of tension anymore [2].
A large reason why this failure happened is because of the faith put into the
computer analysis programs by the engineers that created the design and picked
the components that should be proficient in strength to build the structure. There
were many lessons learned due to this collapse and that is just one of the lessons.
Design error is another lesson learned. Not all factors and elements were considered
when designing the roof to withstand ponding. After investigation, some believed
that a few of the eight drains on the roof had been blocked which lead to excessive
ponding. All eight drains were working just as designed, but the interference of the
drainage systems by the Missouri river and the Kansas river had taken up too much
space in the drains and so excessive ponding began to occur on the roof. Part of the
design was to allow for ponding to occur on the roof of this structure but only
temporarily. This is known as flood control design [3]. This was designed to
prevent overloading of the entire citys sewage system. The amount of ponding that
occurred on the roof before failure was actually within the limits of the design
originally, but due to time dependent fatigue of the hangers, and the winds on top
of that fatigue, the bolts were not strong enough anymore and broke. An example of
the engineers putting too much faith in the computer generated analysis of the
structure is that there was bowing in some of the chord members of the trusses.
This means that the trusses were too flexible but the engineers insisted that the
trusses still contained the strength requirements even with noticeable deflections in
the trusses, basing this information off of the computer generated system of the
structure. Due to this flexibility of the trusses, the roof had additional flexibility
which allowed for excess ponding. An example of a lesson learned for human error
is that the owner and contractor, knew about the bowing of the trusses and in fact
did notify the engineers, but the engineers just told them that they still had the
required strength needed and did not change the flaw due to blind reliance on the
computer generated analysis. The lesson learned here is that it is not acceptable to
put complete and total trust in a computer generated system. There was also a
construction error which leads to a lesson learned in this area as well. On the roof,
the contractor made a roofing material change without discussing it with the
structural engineer. This change increased constructability but added five pounds
per square foot on the roof which made the roof even heavier which in turn added
to the reasoning for the roof to fall in. Communication between contractors, owners,
builders, and engineers is essential for a successful and long lasting structure and
can prevent failures such as the Kemper arena failure [4].
These lessons learned can be easily implemented in the future to prevent
failures such as this. No matter what, an engineer should not blindly trust a
computer generated analysis of a structure to be one hundred percent correct.
When the owner and contractor contacted the engineer about the excess flexibility
and deformations of the trusses, he could have looked into it himself instead of
putting his faith in the programming of the structure. If he would have looked into it,
he could have realized that due to the excess flexibility, the entirety of the roof
would have that same excess flexibility which led to excess ponding. He could have
corrected this error and could have possibly prevented the roof from collapsing. Also
this could push engineers to update their systems used to create schematics and
analysis of structures to apply all possible elements and possible obstacles to the
design and strength in order to make a solid, long lasting structure. For the
communication aspect of this failure, this should be an example to remind everyone
in this field that communication and cooperation is the most important aspect when
it comes to successfully completing a project to its fullest potential. Everyone
working on the same project or job should make it a priority to be on the same page
for the entirety of the building process so that simple mishaps such as changing the
roofing material, which added 5 extra pounds per square foot does not happen
without everyone knowing about it and having the ability to veto or deny the idea.
The Kemper Arena failure was not only the result of technical issues but also
it was the result of professional issues, and ethical issues. The main errors of this
failure occurred through lack of communication, faulty design, deficient materials,
cutting corners just to save a little money, and the reliance on the faulty design and
materials. The pressing technical issues were that The computer analysis
implemented faulty design which included the trusses that were too flexible and the
analysis did not process the effect that would have on the entirety of the roofing.
Also deficient materials were used when implementing the steel A490 bolts.
Although the ponding on the roof was within the designed load capacity, the time
dependent fatigue was overlooked. Although initially, the A490 bolts were sufficient
for the load applied during failure, after six years, they had fatigued and this was
overlooked. Stronger bolts should have been used to overcompensate due to
acknowledgment of time dependent fatigue. The professional issues at hand during
this project were mainly based around the lack of proper communication between
the owner, contractor and engineers. There was communication but it was not
sufficient because even after the owner and contractor brought up the flaws in the
trusses, the engineer discarded these complaints because he believed that the
computer analysis was not wrong without really thinking about the possible
problems that the flexibility could cause in the future. The ethical issues of this
failure occurred when the roofing was redesigned without telling the engineers. The
roofing was made heavier in order to save money. They should have not been
thinking about the money in this situation, but instead about the reliability and
result that a heavier roof may have on the entirety of the project. The societal
impact of this failure was embarrassment. This structure had won awards in the
past for stellar architecture and when it collapsed, the world of architecture was
shocked.
I chose this particular failure study from the list of ten options we were given
because it truly intrigued me. I went through all the options and did a little research
on each of them to really see which want I wanted to write about and learn more
about and this was my favorite option. I also found that this failure case study had
very detailed and well explained research sources compared to the other options
and that made it a whole lot easier to really retain and be able to explain this case
study. Another reason that this case study caught my eye is that it was such a well-
respected and awarded structure and I was very curious to find out how such a
great structure could fail.
I started off my research with a simple google search of the event. This led
me to my first resource which was Wikipedia. I know Wikipedia is not always the
best and most trustful source for information but I only used it for the most basic
information. It was used just to get a big picture idea of what really happened
during this failure and the basis of how it happened. After that I decided to dive
deeper and really figure out the details of how this failure occurred. As I searched
for a new source I found my second resource which was very informative. This
source explained every step of the failure in detail and explained all the
components and how they effected this failure. After this source I began to search
other sources just to make sure that the information from my past two sources was
correct. The information was correct but I really did not find any better sources than
the ones I had already found.
After examining and researching all aspects of this case study, there are a lot
of things that became a lot more evident to me when it comes to importance of a
successful project. After really looking into the reasoning behind a failure, especially
when a structure as prestigious as this fails, it helps reiterate on what components
of construction are the most important for success. After looking at the reasoning
for failure, it was made evident that communication, consistency, high ethical
values, and overcompensation are essential for construction of a structure.
Everyone needs to be on the same page because if not then one little change in the
design can ruin the whole thing. The contractor changing the roofing design which
added five pounds per square foot is an example of why this is important. That also
applies to high ethics. Overcompensation was made evident because if they had
used even stronger bolts then I do not believe that this failure would have
happened. Consistency is also important because if the engineer would have
realized that the trusses abnormal flexibility would affect the flexibility of the
roofing, he should have looked into it and made sure that it would not affect the
structure in any kind of negative way instead of just putting all his faith into the
computer generated analysis.
Structural failure does not occur because of the decisions made after
construction. They occur because of the lack of communication, ethics, consistency,
and full hearted work. The decisions made during construction can decide the fate
of the structure in the near or far future. Looking into the reasoning behind the
failure of these structures, it has implemented in my mind the importance of these
factors during construction.
After researching these failures and the reasons why they failed, I have
formed a few questions about the construction and prevention of failure for modern
day construction. The Kemper arena failure occurred in 1979 and was due to
multiple factors, but one of these factors was that the engineer had put complete
faith into the computer generated analysis he created. I would like to know what
changes have made to safety factors when it comes to modern day construction.
Also, I am curious about how all elements that may affect the failure of a structure
are calculated nowadays. By all the elements I am talking about winds, rain,
drainage, any form of weather, load and by how much the strength of the
components used to build is enhanced compared to minimal strength needed to
support such load.

References:

[1] "Kemper Arena." Wikipedia. Accessed December 07, 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemper_Arena.

([2],[3],[4]) "Kemper Arena, Kansas City, Missouri." Failures - Kemper Arena, Kansas
City, Missouri. Accessed December 07, 2016.
https://failures.wikispaces.com/Kemper Arena, Kansas City, Missouri.