Historical Recalls/Design problems

[rootX]

As stated below, Toyota will lose over 2 billion dollars due to their car pedal/brake design problem.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8502894.stm

Were there any disasters in the past occurred solely in the engineering design process? Tacoma bridge could be one but I do not know the losses involved in it.

 

[mgb_phys]

Big expensive recalls tend to come in the food/drug industry where you have to recall and destroy all the stock of an item at once.

Engineering recalls generally aren't that costly, the $2Bn figure for Toyota is mostly from the drop in share price - not the actual cost of fixing the parts.

What can really cost you is denying there is a problem and fighting a recall like Intel with the Pentium bug or Ford's tire issue.
Something like that can destroy a product or even the company, the DC10's cargo door is one example

 

[edward]

There have been a number of devastating dam and bridge failures over the years.

Here is a link to an interesting drilling incident that took place in Louisiana. I doubt that it could be called an engineering design problem because the origin of the failure could never be found.

 

[russ_watters]

The question is awfully broad - certainly there have been a host of engineering failure-caused disasters. I can give a bunch off the top of my head (and near misses, too). The most famous would have to be the Challenger, but second would probaby be the Pinto. There was also the walkway of the Kansas City Hayatt, which had a very simple engineering error that caused the support stress to be double what was calculated.

Until engineering became a real profession instead of a trade, boiler explosions were common and many were engineering failures. Here's a list of a couple dozen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boiler_Explosions

 

[rootX]

The question is awfully broad - certainly there have been a host of engineering failure-caused disasters. I can give a bunch off the top of my head (and near misses, too). The most famous would have to be the Challenger, but second would probaby be the Pinto.

I was thinking of ones that caused large loss of life and/or resources, and were not due to negligence or incompetence. Units problem could be one also (NASA).
I never heard of boiler explosions before.

 

[MotoH]

The M4 Sherman. The thing was a death trap.

 

[rewebster]

The Radium Dial Company

Hooker Chemical dump site

Agent Orange

mercury thermometers

 

[brewnog]

The three which came to my mind:

- Ford Pinto
- De Havilland Comet
- The walkway Russ mentioned (the name had escaped me but the story hadn't, it's a good lesson in getting even the most simple engineering designs correct!)

Henry Petroski's books are pretty good for anyone genuinely interested in this.

 

[rootX]

- Ford Pinto
.

4. Therefore, a human life was mathematically proven to be worth less than an $11 part.

http://ca.dummies.com/WileyCDA/how-to/content/true-conspiracy-the-ford-pinto-memorandum.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The St. Francis Dam failure is claimed to be the worst US civil engineering failure of the 20th century. The Dam was designed by William Mulholland, a name that most people would recognize from the famous Mulholland Drive. As I understand it, Mulholland never recovered from this event. He was personally devastated and remained so for the rest of his life.

http://www.semp.us/_images/biots/Biot376PhotoA.jpg
http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=376

Another failure that comes to mind is the double-deck fwy collapse in the Bay Area Quake. I don't know if any fault was ever found with the engineering, but it was certainly ugly.

 

[MotoH]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans

Don't build a city under water. It never works out right.

 

[russ_watters]

I was thinking of ones that caused large loss of life and/or resources, and were not due to negligence or incompetence. Units problem could be one also (NASA).

Do you mean operator neglegence? Because obviously, an engineering flaw is a matter of negligence.

 

[leroyjenkens]

http://ca.dummies.com/WileyCDA/how-to/content/true-conspiracy-the-ford-pinto-memorandum.html

That sounds like something a movie villain would do.
I hope a bunch of people went to prison for that, because that's evil.

 

[Cyrus]

That sounds like something a movie villain would do.
I hope a bunch of people went to prison for that, because that's evil.

Go reread the very last sentence in that link.

 

[russ_watters]

...setting aside the possibility that the Pinto thing wasn't real, the general concept of attaching a dollar value to human life is often seen as evil, but that view is quite simply wrong. There are always decisions attaching dollar values to human life that must be made (and I'm sure everyone here has made some). What Ford did wrong is simply that they miscalculated the dollar value of not fixing the (supposed) design flaw.

 

[russ_watters]

Another example: the Titanic sinking was due to at least one design flaw.

 

[Doug Huffman]

Challenger's o-rings, SSN-593 USS Thresher's Emergency Ballast Tank blow system, SL-1 accident, RBMK 1000 (Chernobyl #4 disaster)

 

[BobG]

4. Therefore, a human life was mathematically proven to be worth less than an $11 part.

That sounds like something a movie villain would do.
I hope a bunch of people went to prison for that, because that's evil.

...setting aside the possibility that the Pinto thing wasn't real, the general concept of attaching a dollar value to human life is often seen as evil, but that view is quite simply wrong. There are always decisions attaching dollar values to human life that must be made (and I'm sure everyone here has made some). What Ford did wrong is simply that they miscalculated the dollar value of fixing the (supposed) design flaw.

Not to mention the fact that a $70 million savings divided by 180 deaths is almost $390,000 per human life. If we're castigating Ford for attaching a value to human life, let's at least provide a more accurate value.

That memorandum and the "human life being worth less than an $11 part" did obscure some of the facts, such that the Pinto wasn't actually more dangerous than other cars.

The same thing was true of the Corvair, which was blasted in Nader's book, "Unsafe At Any Speed". In reality, the Corvair's handling was typical for rear engine cars of the time, including Mercedes and Volkswagen (they all had a swing axle suspension design). I wouldn't say a design that required the front tire pressure to be 11 psi lower than the rear was a great design by today's standards, but I wouldn't call it negligence, either.

 

[russ_watters]

I worded that last sentence wrong. The cost of fixing the flaw is the easy part: what they messed up on is the cost of not fixing it. They calculated only the legal expenses and didn't figure the loss of sales.

 

[rewebster]

Halogen torchiere floor lamps

tylenol recall

 

[MotoH]

tylenol recall

A major recall no doubt, but not killing serious.

The swine flu epidemic!

 

[BobG]

A major recall no doubt, but not killing serious.

Which one? Tylenol recalled all of its products in 1982 when users started turning up dead. The cause turned out to be a person (or persons) buying/stealing Tylenol from Chicago stores, poisoning the contents, and then sneaking the tampered bottles back onto store shelves. (The person doing the tampering was never caught) The incident is why just about all products use safety seals to prevent tampered products being passed off as original.

Since it obviously took time to pinpoint what the problem was, Tylenol quickly recalled all of its products, fearing the deaths might be their fault. Tylenol was praised as a model of social responsibility for the way it handled the situation. They took an initial hit moneywise on the recall, but it gave them a rock solid reputation in the long run that probably far outweighed the cost of the recall.

The current recall is for a problem a lot less serious than the 1982 situation, but it took a lot longer for the company to react (20 months vs. 6 days). The current situation is one that will probably hurt Tylenol a lot more than the 1982 incident did.

 

[Kenneth Mann]

The question is awfully broad - certainly there have been a host of engineering failure-caused disasters. I can give a bunch off the top of my head (and near misses, too). The most famous would have to be the Challenger, but second would probaby be the Pinto. [/url]

- - And we should not forget the fine hand of politics. In the case of the Shuttle solid boosters, there were four original bidders, three in California and one in Utah - - the one in Utah initially ranked lowest. Naturally, all the Representatives and Senators from Utah pushed NASA heavily for their candidate. The California politicians pushed for theirs too, but they were divided - - between the three from California, or just for their representative bids in general. The result, the one with the most concentrated backing in Congress got the bid.

KM

 

[rewebster]

Which one? Tylenol recalled all of its products in 1982 when users started turning up dead. The cause turned out to be a person (or persons) buying/stealing Tylenol from Chicago stores, poisoning the contents, and then sneaking the tampered bottles back onto store shelves. (The person doing the tampering was never caught) The incident is why just about all products use safety seals to prevent tampered products being passed off as original.

Since it obviously took time to pinpoint what the problem was, Tylenol quickly recalled all of its products, fearing the deaths might be their fault. Tylenol was praised as a model of social responsibility for the way it handled the situation. They took an initial hit moneywise on the recall, but it gave them a rock solid reputation in the long run that probably far outweighed the cost of the recall.

The current recall is for a problem a lot less serious than the 1982 situation, but it took a lot longer for the company to react (20 months vs. 6 days). The current situation is one that will probably hurt Tylenol a lot more than the 1982 incident did.

yeah---thanks, BobG---I should have looked up to see if there were others besides that one early one:

"Tylenol made a hero of Johnson & Johnson : The recall that started them all"

---"Before 1982, nobody ever recalled anything," said Albert Tortorella, a managing director at Burson-Marsteller Inc., the New York public relations firm that advised Johnson & Johnson. "Companies often fiddle while Rome burns."


"What set apart Johnson & Johnson's handling of the crisis from others? It placed consumers first by recalling 31 million bottles of Tylenol capsules from store shelves and offering replacement product in the safer tablet form free of charge. "



http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/23/your-money/23iht-mjj_ed3_.html?pagewanted=1

 

[Kenneth Mann]

The M4 Sherman. The thing was a death trap.

The Sherman tank was not so much a faulty design in itself, it was just greatly over-matched by the Panther and Tiger tanks. The German tanks had far more firepower and armor and, as result, were a lot heavier and less maneuverable, and they were far less reliable. The great advantage of the Sherman tank, however, was the fact that they far outnumbered their foes tanks. The result - - the Shermans usually prevailed.

The simple comparison is somewhat similar to the armor and firepower disadvantages of the T84s in Iraq to the M1-A1s. The difference there was the fact that the T84s didn't have the compensating advantages, so they were wiped out. In a head-to-head battle they lit up just as the Shermans did when Tigers got them head-to-head.

KM

 

[Kenneth Mann]

The same thing was true of the Corvair, which was blasted in Nader's book, "Unsafe At Any Speed". In reality, the Corvair's handling was typical for rear engine cars of the time, including Mercedes and Volkswagen (they all had a swing axle suspension design). I wouldn't say a design that required the front tire pressure to be 11 psi lower than the rear was a great design by today's standards, but I wouldn't call it negligence, either.

Not true, as you yourself pointed out at the end. Nader was an ambulance chaser whose engineering knowledge was zero! His recent years have shown just how kooky he can get. I personally like the fellow, but I wouldn't rely upon him as an expert in anything. His whole argument stems from a PR film (which he somehow got) made at Ford, but wisely shelved by higher management. It showed three cars being driven around a test track. The Ford Falcon and the Plymouth Valiant (both front engine - rear drive) went around without trouble, but the Corvair flipped over in the turn. Later, close microscope examination by the University of Arizona showed that the test driver in the Corvair made a quick violent turn maneuver. Can you imagine where that would have gone if it had ever aired to the public and had then gone to court?


KM

 

[rootX]

Do you mean operator neglegence? Because obviously, an engineering flaw is a matter of negligence.

Both the OP and response were not well thought. Yes, I agree it is a very broad question and I couldn't improve it.

 

[MotoH]

The Sherman tank was not so much a faulty design in itself, it was just greatly over-matched by the Panther and Tiger tanks. The German tanks had far more firepower and armor and, as result, were a lot heavier and less maneuverable, and they were far less reliable. The great advantage of the Sherman tank, however, was the fact that they far outnumbered their foes tanks. The result - - the Shermans usually prevailed.

The simple comparison is somewhat similar to the armor and firepower disadvantages of the T84s in Iraq to the M1-A1s. The difference there was the fact that the T84s didn't have the compensating advantages, so they were wiped out. In a head-to-head battle they lit up just as the Shermans did when Tigers got them head-to-head.

KM

It was a decision by the US gov. to make more transportable tanks, at the cost of human lives. No sherman driver wanted to even get near a panther or a tiger tank. Which in my opinion is the design flaw, because they went quantity over quality (quality being bore size and armor). Sure if you get enough tanks out there, they will take down a panther, but having 5 US tanks destroyed in the process is no good.

A relevant story. My dads friend (my friend also somewhat. . ) was an artillery gun repairman. He repaired the howitzers. Well one time he saw a tank battle take place. I believe he said it was 15 or so shermans versus 4 or 5 tigers. He said it was the most amazing and depressing thing seeing the shermans rounds bounce off of the tigers armor. That has to be real disheartening, sitting in a tank and watching your rounds bounce off!

 

[BobG]

It was a decision by the US gov. to make more transportable tanks, at the cost of human lives. No sherman driver wanted to even get near a panther or a tiger tank. Which in my opinion is the design flaw, because they went quantity over quality (quality being bore size and armor). Sure if you get enough tanks out there, they will take down a panther, but having 5 US tanks destroyed in the process is no good.

A relevant story. My dads friend (my friend also somewhat. . ) was an artillery gun repairman. He repaired the howitzers. Well one time he saw a tank battle take place. I believe he said it was 15 or so shermans versus 4 or 5 tigers. He said it was the most amazing and depressing thing seeing the shermans rounds bounce off of the tigers armor. That has to be real disheartening, sitting in a tank and watching your rounds bounce off!

1) The Germans weren't using Panthers when the M4 first came out. In fact, the US was a little surprised to find out the Germans already had so many after the Normandy invasion (the Germans used them in the East against the Soviets first).

2) The M4 was better than the M2 or the M3 - and the M3 was very much a rush job. What was the alternative? Not fight German tanks until the US had a tank to match them?

3) The Panthers weren't so invincible themselves. They were great on an open battlefield - if they made it to the battlefield without breaking down. They were a rush job, themselves, and very unreliable. During their early days, the Germans lost more Panthers to mechanical breakdowns than they did to enemy fire. They were also vulnerable to attacks on their flanks, especially at close range fighting in obstructed terrain (city fighting, for example).

Before saying something was a design failure, you have to look at what it replaced and how much pressure there was to replace the old as quick as possible. War is especially notorious for creating so much pressure both sides wind up taking the attitude that "perfect is the enemy of good".

 

[MotoH]

1) The Germans weren't using Panthers when the M4 first came out. In fact, the US was a little surprised to find out the Germans already had so many after the Normandy invasion (the Germans used them in the East against the Soviets first).
Panzer IV sorry!
2) The M4 was better than the M2 or the M3 - and the M3 was very much a rush job. What was the alternative? Not fight German tanks until the US had a tank to match them?
Create a HAT weapon that was more reliable and harder hitting than the M1a1. A tank with more armor and a larger gun (essentially the Pershing) without sacrificing a great deal of mobility would have been ideal. Something like a mixture between the Sherman and the Tiger II

3) The Panthers weren't so invincible themselves. They were great on an open battlefield - if they made it to the battlefield without breaking down. They were a rush job, themselves, and very unreliable. During their early days, the Germans lost more Panthers to mechanical breakdowns than they did to enemy fire. They were also vulnerable to attacks on their flanks, especially at close range fighting in obstructed terrain (city fighting, for example).
Hard to argue with this, but at the end of the day I would rather be on the inside of a German tank.

Before saying something was a design failure, you have to look at what it replaced and how much pressure there was to replace the old as quick as possible. War is especially notorious for creating so much pressure both sides wind up taking the attitude that "perfect is the enemy of good".
Always is easier to say we shouldn't have done that after the fact. At the time I suppose it made a good deal of sense to be able to produce something quickly and efficiently.

tenchar