Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The perspective of history
Construction risk case study
Construction risk case study
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The perspective of history
St. Francis Dam was a 1924 project that was supposed to provide water for the people of California. It was engineered by William Mulholland. The project, however, ended up being a disaster as it killed 600 people. The dam collapsed due to poor engineering. From this incidence, we learn that we should give competent individuals responsibilities to execute projects. We also learn that we should not assume any slight sign of an impending danger.
Introduction
The St. Francis Dam was a concrete gravity dam. It was curved in shape. It was erected so as to provide storage and to regulate water. The dam was located along San Francis Quito canyon, 64 kilometres to the northwest of Los Angeles, California and 16 kilometres to the north of Santa Clarita. The dam was built from 1924 to 1926 by the Bureau of Water Works and Supply, currently known as Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. William Mulholland was the General Manager and the Chief Engineer of the entire project. On 12th march 1928, the dam failed. It flooded and killed 600 people. The catastrophe went down as one of the tragic civil engineering disasters in America. It marked the end of William Mulholland’s career as an Engineer. This research will give an insight look into the possible causes of the dam’s failure.
Data collection
In this research, I used both primary and secondary data as my sources of information. For primary data, I interviewed some relatives of people who, at one time, resided somewhere near San Francisquito Canyon which is close to the site. I wanted to find out if they knew any history about the St. Francis Dam’s catastrophic collapse. I noted some of their theories and opinions on a notebook as a way of data collection. I also visited the site on a tou...
... middle of paper ...
...uld never be taken for granted. Just like the cracks and leakages on the walls of St. Francis dam were assumed and resulted to a catastrophic collapse, slight signs can be signals of great impending danger.
To conclude, St. Francis dam was a water storage project that ended up being a disaster. It was engineered by William Mulholland who many people say was a great man with great sight and drive. Unfortunately, in my opinion, he solely went in his own and did not have enough trust in his fellow engineers. I also think he took lightly the signs that showed the dam was not strong enough to hold the pressure of water. This led to the collapse of the dam’s walls killing 600 people. From this incidence, we learn that we should to take other people’s opinions carefully while executing projects. We also learn that we should not assume any slight sign of an impending danger.
There was a massive earthquake in San Francisco during the year of 1906. The country of United States went through great loss because of this massacre. Nearly 250,000 people had become homeless as the result of this great earthquake. Winchester pointed out the question: How unprepared was America when this disaster hit? He compared the San Francisco earthquake to the Katrina hurricane in 2005.
The primary purpose of Friend dam is to help regulate the flow of San Joaquin into available uses of its environmental, wildlife, and farmer’s impacts. The dam controls the flow of water delivery where it needs authorization first before the schedule can release any delivery waters into canals, steam, and wild life habitats. There will be agreements and many protocols to do with it first to avoid unnecessary spilling. There are 5 release schedules which include quantity of water available, time water, flood control requirements, release schedules from storage reservoir above Millerton Lake, and water user requirements. These benefits of flood control, storage management, modification into Madera and Friant-Kern Canals, to stop salty water from abolishing thousands of lands in Sacramento and throughout San Joaquin Delta, as well as deliver masses of water into agricultural lands in 5other counties in the San Joaquin Valley.
Federal Emergency Management Agency’s article, “Benefit of Dams” (2012) analyzes how dams prevent flooding by releasing the excess water in controlled amounts through floodgates (¶ 3).
The one feature common to the Hoover Dam, The Mississippi river and the three gorges dam is that they all tried to control nature’s swings, specifically in the form of flooding. Before the Hoover dam was built, the Colorado river “used to flood spectacularly…but after 1900 the Colorado provoked a vehement response” (Pg 177). The response was simple, but large. The U.S. built several large dams, including the Hoover dam, on the Colorado to decrease its flooding and increase power and irrigation. Unfortunately, just as human control of the Colorado’s flooding increased, its organisms and habitats were detrimentally influenced, and the water became more and more salinated.
The negative aspects of Glen Canyon Dam greatly exceed the positive aspects. The dam’s hydroelectric power supply is only three percent of the total power used by the six states that are served by the facility. There is a surplus of power on the Colorado Plateau and with more and more power-plants being created in the western hemisphere, Glen Canyon Dam’s power is not needed (Living Rivers: What about the hydroelectric loss). Although the ‘lake’ contains twenty seven million acre feet of water, one and a half million acre feet of water are lost yearly due to evaporation and seepage into the sandstone banks surrounding the ‘lake’ (Living Rivers: What about the water supply?). The loss of that much “water represents millions, even billions of dollars” (Farmer 183). If the government were to employ more water efficient irrigation practices, as much as five million acre feet of water per year could be saved.
The South Fork Dam collapsed and unleashed 20 million tons of water from its reservoir. A wall of water, reaching up to 70 feet high, swept 14 miles down the Little Conemaugh River Valley, carrying away steel mills, houses, livestock and people. At 4:07 p.m., the floodwaters rushed into the industrial city of Johnstown, crushing houses and downtown businesses in a whirlpool that lasted 10 minutes. (New York Times, 1889).
Over the years Glen Canyon Dam has been the spark for hundreds of debates, rallies, and protests. These debates have been going on for almost forty years now. The fact is that the dam created a huge lake when it was built, this is what bothers environmentalists. This lake is called Lake Powell and thousands of people depend on its tourists for income. The lake also filled up a canyon called Glen Canyon, some people say it was the most beautiful place on earth. The anti-dam side of the debate has its basis in the fact that Lake Powell is currently covering Glen Canyon. It was very remote so few people got to witness its splendor. This is probably the reason the dam was built in the first place, ignorance.
The state offered to sell the canal, the railroad company bought it for the right of ways yet had no need to maintain the dam, which due to neglect, broke for the first time in 1862. McCullough stresses that man was responsible for the dam and its weaknesses nearly thirty years before the great flood as he explains how the initial repair work was carried out by unqualified people and how the discharge pipes were blocked up.... ... middle of paper ... ... McCullough makes a firm argument for the responsibility of man, and asserts the blame on the necessary people, therefore I feel he makes a fair and accurate assertion which I would agree with.
Most of the destructions from the events of August 29th 2005, when Katrina Hit the City Of New Orleans, were not only caused by the storm itself; but also, by failure of the engineering of the levee system protecting the entire infrastructure of the city. The years of poor decision making and avoidance of the levee system led to one of the most catastrophic events in the history of the United States. Throughout our research, we have identified three key players in charge of the levee system design, construction and maintenance. These three organizations are the Unites States Corps of Engineers, the New Orleans Levee District and the Louisiana Department of Transportation. The consequences of the hurricane showed the organizations negligence in the design, construction and maintenance of the protective walls. Later independent sresearch showed that more than 50 levees and food walls failed during the passage of the hurricane. This failure caused the flooding of most of New Orleans and all of ST. Bernard Parish. The Unites States Corps of Engineers had been in charge of the of the levee system and flood walls construction since the 1936 flood act. According to the law, the Louisiana Department of Transportation is in charge to inspect the overall design and engineering practices implemented in the construction of the system. Once the levee systems were finished, they were handed over to the New Orleans Levee District for regular maintenance and periodically inspections. The uncoordinated actions of these three agencies resulted in the complete failure of a system that was supposed to protect the people of New Orleans. The evidence is clear that this catastrophic event did not happened by chance. The uncoordinated response of these...
...o something that could be safe and withstand the wanted forces of future hurricanes. The delays also served as a problem in the decision because it added to the overall cost and set back the construction of the levees. I studied the levee break during Katrina because I wanted to find out why the engineers decided to design for smaller hurricane forces so that my reader can better understand that the engineers may have underestimated the potential harm to public. I believe that the decisions made about the levee design could have been different and that the changes in design could have possibly prevented some, or most of the damage caused by Katrina in 2005.
Dams made from dirt are very weak and the South Fork dam was built entirely with dirt. From an engineering standpoint dams made with dirt needed to be built ...
Starr, Kevin. “The Great Earthquake and Firestorms of 1906: How San Francisco Nearly Destroyed Itself.” University of California Press. 83:3 (2006): 45-61. Web. 16 April. 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25161821
When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans with its fierce intensity, the lives of its inhabitants was forever changed. The winds rose and the waves crashed upon the only security system this, below sea level, city had against the many water systems surrounding it. Most people think that the waves simply rose up over the banks and levees of the city; however, evidence proves this thought wrong. The actual reason New Orleans was flooded was due to poor engineering. According to experts, two thirds of the tragic flooding could have been prevented. Thousands of homes could have been saved if the engineers responsible for building New Orleans’s levees had followed regulatory guidelines.
In the early twentieth century, San Francisco, a bustling city full of people with diverse cultures, stood in the midst of the Second Industrial Revolution. At this time, the brilliant inventions of airplanes, automobiles, and radios were changing the everyday lives of many. San Francisco had just recovered from the four-year burden of the bubonic plague (“Bubonic”). However, right when things were getting back to normal, a destructive earthquake hit the city on April 18, 1906. Although the shaking lasted for less than a minute, the devastated city had crumbled buildings and a substantial loss of lives. The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 had a lasting effect on the city and its people, and it proved to be one of the most catastrophic disasters in history.
Houston, home to two major water reservoirs, now grapples with the task of safely releasing water from these dams. Because of Harvey, they are at a dangerously high level that poses many safety concerns. If the water continues to rise, the reservoirs could break, and release a tidal wave of water into the already flooded city. However, some residents don’t agree with the releasing of water, even in controlled portions, because it adds to the flooding. “The Addicks and Barker dams hold back the reservoirs’ collective 410,000 acre-feet of water and if the dams fail, half the city could be underwater” (Planas, Satlin, et al, 2). The release of water could be a major threat to nearby homes as well while causing more flooding on the major roads, perpetuating the issue of transportation. The Army Corps of Engineers ultimately decided that waiting and praying that the reservoirs didn’t fail would be a poor decision, and came out with a statement saying they would be releasing rationed portions of water. The overflowing of the reservoirs and the possible increase of flooding is a direct impact of Harvey on Houston, and this continues to perpetuate issues they will face in the months to