Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGregory Fehr
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-08T21:54:18Z
dc.date.available2017-05-08T21:54:18Z
dc.date.copyrightJanuary 2012
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.other%28asce%29lm%2E1943-5630%2E0000192.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/65990
dc.description.abstractAll failure analyses have the implicit message that the discovered root cause will somehow be mitigated. A few even suggest the direction one might take for the fix—for example, “Consider substituting Type 316 stainless for Type 304.” This paper emphasizes what might be done to avoid recurrence of the failure. Engineers in managerial positions must lead the corrective action process. Consideration is given to classes of failures for which the fixes can similarly be applied by category. There is little new in this arena of application, but in practice the misapplication of these principles is seen daily. The information presented may provide seasoned engineers some leverage when constrained by budgets and can serve as a tutorial for younger engineers on how to avoid these pitfalls as they take over managerial jobs. The applications considered include low stress–low cycle fatigue, weldments, stress concentrations, and corrosion.
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
dc.titleHow to Avoid Future Problems Based on Previous Failure Analyses
dc.typeJournal Paper
dc.journal.volume12
dc.journal.issue1
dc.journal.titleLeadership and Management in Engineering
dc.identifier.doi10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630.0000156
dc.treeLeadership and Management in Engineering:;2012:;Volume ( 012 ):;issue: 001
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record