Analysis of Roller Coaster Failure at Carowinds

[97K15004WD]

"This is considered god practice" . I've never heard welding described this way. Obviously a typo, but wow.

All reports released below:

Fury 325 inspection report - Google Drive

drive.google.com

 

[benjamming]

ATS report (included in links above) concluded fracture under cyclic loading which I don't think is too surprising.

 

[dnewton3]

An obvious typo; what's "wow" about that? Let's not let that degrade the thread and get it locked.

The report itself is interesting.

 

[mk378]

Thus the conclusion was that the materials and workmanship were as specified by the designers, but the design itself was inadequate to withstand the number of fatigue cycles during the coaster's lifetime?

That would mean that all of the towers are about to crack, and very extensive modification / repair or even a total rebuild will be necessary.

 

[97K15004WD]

An obvious typo; what's "wow" about that? Let's not let that degrade the thread and get it locked.

The report itself is interesting.

I was not clear in my "wow". Here is why I said that.

My thought on this is that this report is dealing with a life threatening failure. The report starts out with the purchaser's name and PO number.

Clearly went to the low bidder out of state (Carowinds is in SC and NC with lot's of great engineering firms in Charlotte, Raleigh, Columbia, and Greenville).

They could of at least used a proofreader to make sure the report was totally accurate.

In my previous employments as an engineer, details matter. This is a typo, but what else was overlooked?

A report that has such a glaring error makes me question the other parts of the report's accuracy as well. I didn't pay for this report so I have no stake in it at all. But if I did, that would stand out as a bright red flashing light.

My error for not explaining better in the beginning.

 

[benjamming]

"The report starts out with the purchaser's name and PO number."
I work in engineering & review reports like this quite often. This is not uncommon for a report. And yes, this typo would be cause for a report to be kicked back & corrected but there ya go.

It is regrettable that a typo was let by. But frankly, it's quite silly to throw the baby out with the bath water because of it.
I didn't review it in detail, but was there some substantive fact that they missed or got wrong?
ATS is a known entity that provides reliable lab results in the nuclear industry. They have ISO 17025 accreditation & other positives. They are not perfect, of course, as well all live in a cursed world.

The fact that it went to a company in a different state is not even close to an indicator of lowest bidder.

 

[97K15004WD]

To benjamming's points, I would not allowed a report like that to be published. I was trained different I suppose, but the point was driven home that details matter - all details.

I am older, so maybe it's that. Nonetheless, if I had paid for that report, I would question whether it's accurate.

I would ask for calibration data on the equipment now and at the time of the testing. I would also ask for a sit down with the two P.E.'s that wrote the report with a list of questions that I would want answered.

Otherwise, I would get a "second" opinion from a different firm.

This is a life safety issue and has no margin for error - none. As an example, I was asked to look over a roller coaster part at a Myrtle Beach location and "propose" a cheaper solution for a lift chain - clearly marked as "LS". I told them no and walked away.

 

[GMFan]

As can be seen on the cover letter it was reviewed by another engineer as is standard practice. I’m an engineer and not so good at spelling either. It’s common for engineers to be bad spellers. It’s like doctors and bad handwriting. Saying a typo means the analysis and conclusions are wrong is silly. We are human. In this case it wasn’t bad spelling but clearly a typo. It’s “embarrassing” but it happens. I promise you if you go through any set of engineering drawings you’d find a few misspelled words or typos. If the person in the field going off the drawings needs clarification they contact the engineer for clarification.

 

[SC Maintenance]

The typo is regrettable. I work with engineers from around the globe on a daily basis, so an occasional typo doesn't bother me. I skimmed the report, it looks pretty thorough, and as mentioned was done by a certified lab with a good reputation.

FWIW - there are amusement ride designers and builders are from around the world. Its very specialized. The firm that built this one is Swiss and has built 100 coasters around the world. I highly doubt they were low bidder. Even so, there likely isn't a roller coaster builder sitting around in Rock Hill waiting for a project.

 

[JimPghPA]

All right I report has been written, but what are they going to do with it?

Seriously, if this is an indication that there is a high probability that this is a repeatable problem that will repeat on other towers of that roller coaster, then are they going to continue running it until another crack happens? What good is spending money on a report if it throws a red flag that is ignored? Does the whole thing need to be taken down and rebuilt? Essentially scrapping the whole thing and starting over again.

From what I see this is not a problem isolated to one area of that roller coaster, but is systemic, and very likely will repeat. Will they be as fortunate if it repeats, and not have an actual collapse resulting in fatalities? No one knows the answer to that because it's something that can't be known. I know one thing, you won't catch me taking a ride on that thing.

Engineering of major things like that roller coaster is all about how many nines you're going to add to the reliability. And I don't think they had enough nines.

 

[JimPghPA]

Accidental duplication deleted.

 

[Pablo]

All right I report has been written, but what are they going to do with it?

Seriously, if this is an indication that there is a high probability that this is a repeatable problem that will repeat on other tires of that roller coaster, then are they going to continue running it until another crack happens? What good is spending money on a report if it throws a red flag that is ignored? Does the whole thing need to be taken down and rebuilt? Essentially scrapping the whole thing is starting over again.

From what I see this is not a problem isolated to one area of that roller coaster, but is systemic, and very likely will repeat. Will they be as fortunate if it repeats, and not have an actual collapse resulting in fatalities? No one knows the answer to that because it's something that can't be known. I know one thing you won't catch me taking a ride on that thing.

In loungeman's terms, there was some localized hardening/embrittlement/loss of ductility most likely from welding, unit as designed has/had a flex point at this same location. Bummer.