references and bibliography978-1-84628-… · · 2017-08-25tunnelling and underground space...

Introduction, Background History and the StockholmSyndrome

Cassidy, J.P. (2002) The Stockholm syndrome, battered woman syndromeand the cult personality: An integrative approach, Dissertation AbstractsInternational: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 62(11-B): 53–66.

Franzoi, S. (2002) Psychology: A Journey of Discovery, Cincinnati, OH:Atomic Dog Publishing.

Kihlstrom, J.F. (2004) An Unbalanced balancing act: blocked, recovered,and false memories in the laboratory and clinic, Clinical Psychology:Science & Practice, 11(1): 34–41.

Kuleshnyk, I. (1984) The Stockholm syndrome: Toward an understanding,Social Action & the Law, 10(2): 37–42.

MacLachlan, P.P. (Gilespie, C.C. ed., 1974) Papin, Denis: Dictionary ofScientific Biography, Vol. X, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Munich Re(2000) 100 Years of Engineering Insurance at Munich Re,302–02590_en.pdf, Munich Reinsurance Group.

Robbins, R. (1987) Machine tunnelling in the twenty-first century,Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2(2): 147–145.

Rothenberg, B. (2003) “We don’t have time for social change”: culturalcompromise and the battered woman syndrome, Gender and Society,17(5): 771–787.

Stack, B. (1982) Handbook of Mining and Tunnelling Machinery,Chichester, UK: Wiley.

United States Patent 4932550 (1990) Pressure cooker interlock, Moucha,W. M.

United States Patent 6523459 (2003) Safety device for opening a pressurecooker with lug-bayonet type closure, Chameroy et al.

United States Patent 6708837 (2004) Locking system and method for rotaryclosure assembly, Smith, B., General Signal UK Limited.

323

References and Bibliography

Note: Due to the great variety of material presented in this book,this bibliography is pre-sented under headings that identify the bibliographic material and its association with theseveral chapters of the text.

Ethical Issues for the Expert WitnessBoatright, J.R. (2007) Ethics and the Conduct of Business, Upper Saddle River,NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.De Fina, A.A. (2004) Guidance for expert witnesses, Engineers Australia,76(9): 59.

Fienberg, S.E. (1997) Ethics and the expert witness: statistics on trial,Journal of the Society of Dyers and Colourists, 160(2): 321.

Fleddermann, C.B. (2004) Engineering Ethics, Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Education.

Grover, J.L. (2003) Ethical considerations for expert witnesses in forensicengineering, Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering, Oct19–21, San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 441–452, .

Gutheil, T.G., Hauser, M., White, M.S., Spruiell, G., Strasburger, L.H.(2003) “The whole truth” versus “the admissible truth”: An ethics dilem-ma for expert witnesses, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and theLaw, 31(4): 422–427.

Kardon, J.B., Schroeder, R.A., Ferrari, A.J. (2003) Ethical dilemmas of tech-nical forensic practice, Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering,Oct 19–21, San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 453–461.

King, W.J., with revisions and additions by Skakoon, J.G. (2001) TheUnwritten Laws of Engineering, New York: ASME Press.

Pope, K.S., Butcher, J.N., Seelen, J. (2000) The MMPI, MMPI-2 & MMPI-A In court: a Practical Guide for Expert Witnesses and Attorneys, Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Unger, S.H. (2000) Examples of real world engineering ethics problems,Science and Engineering Ethics 6(3): 423–430.

Data Mining

Berry, M. and Linoff, G. (2000) Mastering Data Mining, New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

Fayyad, U., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., Smyth, P., Uthurusamy, R. (eds. 1996)Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Cambridge, MA:AAAI/MIT Press.

Giudici, P. (2003) Applied Data Mining: Statistical Methods for Business andIndustry, New York: John Wiley.

Hand, D.J., Mannila, H., Smyth, P. (2000) Principles of Data Mining,Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Han, J. and Kamber, M. (2000) Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques, SanFrancisco CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

324 References and Bibliography

325References and Bibliography

Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J. (2001) The Elements of StatisticalLearning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, New York: Springer Verlag.

Nemati, H.R. and Barko, C.D. (2003) Organizational Data Mining:Leveraging Enterprise Data Resources for Optimal Performance, Hershey PA: IdeaGroup Publishing.

Rud, O.P. (2001) Data Mining Cookbook, Modeling Data for Marketing, Risk,and CRM, New York: Wiley.

Weiss S. M. and Indurkhya, N. (1997) Predictive Data Mining: A PracticalGuide, San Francisco CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Witten, I. and Frank, E. (1999) Data Mining, Practical Machine Learning Toolsand Techniques with Java Implementations, San Francisco CA: MorganKaufmann.

Potential Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

Eley, C. (1992) Compliance audit checklist for hazardous chemicals,Hydrocarbon Processing, 71(88): 97–104.

Goble, W.M. and Brombacher, A.C. (1999) Using a failure modes, effectsand diagnostic analysis (FMEDA) to measure diagnostic coverage in pro-grammable electronic systems, Reliability Engineering and System Safety,66(2): 145–148.

Goossens, L.H.J. and Cooke, R.M. (1997) Applications of some riskassessment techniques: Formal expert judgement and accident sequenceprecursors, Safety Science, 26(1-2): 35–47.

Grassick, D.D., Kallos, P. S., Jardine, L.J.A., Deegan, F.J. (1990) Risk analy-sis of single- and dual-string gas-lift completions, Journal of PetroleumTechnology, 42(11): 1364–1369

Hendershot, D.C. (2000) Was Murphy wrong? Murphy's Law in operationand design of chemical plants, Process Safety Progress, 19(2): 65–68.

Huang, G.Q., Nie, M., Mak, K.L. (1999) Web-based failure mode andeffect analysis (FMEA), Computers and Industrial Engineering, 37(1–2):177–180.

Hunt, J.E., Price, C.J., Lee, M.H. (1993) Automating the FMEA process,Intelligent Systems Engineering, 2(2): 119–132.

Hunt, J.E., Pugh, D.R., Price, C.J. (1995) Failure mode effects analysis: apractical application of functional modelling, Applied ArtificialIntelligence, 9(1): 33–44.

Kato, Y., Shirakawa, T., Taketa, K., Hori, K. (2003) An approach to discov-ering risks in development process of large and complex systems, NewGeneration Computing, 21(2): 163–176.


Lee, B.H. (2001) Using FMEA models and ontologies to build diagnosticmodels, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis andManufacturing: AIEDAM, 15(4): 281–293.

Lee, M.H. and Ormsby, A.R.T. (1993) Qualitatively modelling the effectsof electrical circuit faults, Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 8(4):293–300.

Lehtela, M. (1990) Computer-aided failure mode and effect analysis ofelectronic circuits, Microelectronics and Reliability, 30(4): 761–773.

Linton, J.D. (2003) Facing the challenges of service automation: An enablerfor e-commerce and productivity gain in traditional services, IEEETransactions on Engineering Management, 50(4): 478–484.

Marchant, D.D. and Stangle, T.K. (1995) Using failure mode and effectsanalysis in new glaze introduction, Ceramic Engineering and ScienceProceedings, 16(3): 159–164.

Pennington, J.N. (1994) Engineering history database helps caster speeddesign development, Modern Metals, 50(8): 34B–34G.

Price, C.J., Snooke, N., Pugh, D.R., Hunt, J.E., Wilson, M.S. (1997)Combining functional and structural reasoning for safety analysis of elec-trical designs, Knowledge Engineering Review, 12(3): 271–287.

Su, Kuo-Wei, Hwang, Sheue-Ling, Liu, Thu-Hua (2000) Reliability-cen-tered maintenance management: A case study on a public bus system,International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Theory Applications and Practice,7(3): 232–241.

Vliegen, H.J.W., Van-Mal, H.H. (1990) Rational decision making:Structuring of design meetings, IEEE Transactions on EngineeringManagement, 37(3): 185–190.

Willis, G. (1992) Failure modes and effects analysis in clinical engineering,Journal of Clinical Engineering, 17(1): 59–62.

Wirth, R., Berthold, B., Kramer, A., Peter, G. (1996) Knowledge-based sup-port of system analysis for the analysis of failure modes and effects,Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 9(3): 219–229.

Mechanics, Materials and Non-Destructive Testing

Carlson, R.L. and Kardomateas, G.A. (1995) Introduction to Fatigue in Metalsand Composites, New York: Springer.

Dimentberg, M.F., Frolov, K.V., Menyailov, A.I. (1991) Vibroacoustical diag-nostics for machines and structures, New York: Wiley.

Eberhart, M. (2003) Fracture mechanics: Understanding the World by the Way itComes Apart, Material Science, G-9, New York: Harmony Publishing.

Gordon, J.E. (1976) The New Science of Strong Materials, or Why You Don’t FallThrough the Floor, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Gordon, J.E. (1979) Structures or Why Things Don’t Fall Down,Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Grandt, A.F. (2004) Fundamentals of Structural Integrity: Damage TolerantDesign and Nondestructive Evaluation, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Jabbour, Z.J. and Yaniv, S. L. (2001) The kilogram and measurements ofmass and force, Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards andTechnology, 106: 25–46.

Kutz, M. (1998) Mechanical Engineers' Handbook, Hoboken NJ:John Wileyand Sons.

Mix, P.E. (2005) Introduction to Nondestructive Testing: A Training Guide,Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Neale, M.J. (ed. 1995) Tribology Handbook (2nd Edition), London: Elsevier.

Rahrig, P.G. (2002) Zinc coatings on handrail tubing: a comparative analy-sis, Materials Performance, July.

Sachse, W., Roget, J., Yamaguchi, K. (eds. 1991) Acoustic Emission: CurrentPractice and Future Directions, Philadelphia, PA : ASTM.Samuel, A.E. and Seow, L.P. (1984) Force measurements on full face tun-neling machine, Int. J. Rock Mech. and Min. Sci.- Geomech. Abstr., 21(2):83–96.Samuel, A.E. and Weir, J.G. (1999) Introduction to Enginering Design:Modelling, Synthesis and Problem Solving Strategies, London: ElsevierButterworth.Schweitzer, P.A. (1996) Corrosion Engineering Handbook, Marcel Dekker.

Shigley, J., Mischke, C., Budynas, R. (2004) Mechanical Engineering Design,McGraw Hill.

Stanley, R.K., Moore, P.O., McIntire, P. (eds. 1995) Nondestructive TestingHandbook: Special Nondestructive Testing Methods (Nondestructive TestingHandbook, Vol. 9), 2nd edition, American Society for NondestructiveTesting.

Timoshenko, S.P. (1983) Strength of Materials, Vol. 1, 3rd edition, Krieger.

Timoshenko, S.P. and Goodier, J.N. (1983) Theory of Elasticity, London:McGraw Hill.

Timoshenko, S.P. and Woinowski-Krieger, S. (1959) Theory of Plates andShells, London: McGraw-Hill.

Young, W. C. (1989) Roark’s Formulas for Stress & Strain, McGraw Hill.


Design, Risk and Liability

Ackerman, F. and Heinzerling, L. (2004) Priceless: On Knowing the Price ofEverything and the Value of Nothing, New York: The New Press.

AS 1924.1-1981, Playground equipment for parks, schools and domestic use - Part1: General requirements, Standards Australia.

AS 1924.2-1981, Playground equipment for parks, schools and domestic use - Part2: Design and construction — Safety aspects, Standards Australia.

AS 2518-1992, Fusion-bonded low density polyethylene coating for pipes and fit-tings, Standards Australia.

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (2005) Public Liabilityand Professional Indemnity Insurance: Fifth monitoring report, July 2005, 77 pp.,Commonwealth of Australia Publication.

Bicheno, J. (1994) Cause and Effect JIT: the Essentials of Lean Manufacturing,Buckingham, UK: PICSIE Books.

Chukwu, E. and Bowers Jr., C.G. (2005) Instantaneous multiple-depth soilmechanical impedance sensing from a moving vehicle, Transactions of theAmerican Society of Agricultural Engineers, 48(3): 885–894.

Correll, J.G. and Edson, N.W. (1999) Gaining Control: Capacity Managementand Scheduling, New York: John Wiley.

Curtin, M. (1998) Snake Oil Warning Signs:_Encryption Software to AvoidCopyright, 1996-1998_Matt Curtin [email protected]: www.inter-hack.net/people/cmcurtin/snake-oil-faq.ps

Danzon, P.M. (1991) Liability for medical malpractice, Journal of EconomicPerspectives, 5(3): 51–69.

Dunker, R.E., Hooks, C.L., Vance, S.L., Darmody, R.G. (1995) Deep tillageeffects on compacted surface-mined land, Soil Science Society of AmericaJournal, 59(1): 192–199.

Elling, M.R. (2003) All-Mountain Skier: The Way to Expert Skiing, New York:McGraw Hill.

Evans, J.W. and Evans, J.Y. (eds. 2001) Product Integrity and Reliability inDesign, Springer.

Gunasekaran, A. (2001) Agile Manufacturing : the 21st Century CompetitiveStrategy, New York : Elsevier.

Gupta, S.C., Schneider, E.C., Swan, J.B. (1988) Planting depth and tillageinteractions on corn emergence, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 52(4):1122–1127.


Hales, C. (2005) Large loss investigations and engineering design forensics,Keynote address, Proceedings International Conference on Engineering Design(Samuel, A.E. and Lewis, W.P. eds.), ICED2005, Melbourne, August.

Hart, C. and Kinzie, M. (2001) Product Liability for the Professional, ThomsonDelmar Learning.

Hawkins, P.G. and Woollons, D.J. (1998) Failure modes and effects analy-sis of complex engineering systems using functional models, ArtificialIntelligence in Engineering, 12(4): 375–397.

Hepple, B. A., O'Sullivan, J., Matthews, M. H., Howarth, D. A. (eds. 2000)Hepple, Howarth and Matthews’ Tort: Cases and Materials, UK: LexisNexis.

Hoang, Pham (ed. 2003) Handbook of Reliability Engineering, Springer.Isermann, R. (2006) Fault-Diagnosis Systems: An Introduction from FaultDetection to Fault Tolerance, Springer.Lee, J., Yamazaki, M., Oida, A., Nakashima, H., Shimizu, H. (2000 a)Electro-hydraulic tillage depth control system for rotary implementsmounted on agricultural tractor: Design and response experiments of con-trol system, Journal of Terramechanics, 35(4): 229–238.Lee, J., Yamazaki, M., Oida, A., Nakashima, H., Shimizu, H. (2000 b) Fieldperformance of proposed foresight tillage depth control system for rotaryimplements mounted on an agricultural tractor, Journal of Terramechanics,37(2): 99–111.Lienhard, J.H. IV and Lienhard, J.H.V (2004) A Heat Transfer Text Book,Phlogiston Press.

Lind, D.A. and Sanders, S.P. (2004) The Physics of Skiing: Skiing at the TriplePoint, Springer Logsdon, S.D., Kaspar, T.C., Cambardella, C.A. (1999) Depth-incrementalsoil properties under no-till or chisel management, Soil Science Society ofAmerica Journal, 63(1): 197–200.

Lunney, M. and Oliphant, K. (2000) Tort Law Text and Materials, 2nd edition,Oxford University Press.Moran, M.J. and Shapiro, H.N. (2000) Fundamentals of EngineeringThermodynamics, New York, Chichester: Wiley.Morrison, J.E. and Gerik, T.J. (1985) Planter depth control: II–Empiricaltesting and plant responses, Transactions of the ASAE, 28(6): 1744–1748.Nottage, L. (2002) Product Safety and Liability Law in Japan, Routledge. OECD (1995) Product Liability Rules in Oecd Countries, Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development.


Pelaez, C.E. and Bowles, J.B. (1996) Using fuzzy cognitive maps as a sys-tem model for failure modes and effects analysis, Information Sciences, 88(1):177–199.Petras, R. and Petras, K. (1993) 776 Stupidest Things Ever Said, RandomHouse.Poesnecker, G.E. (1996) It’s Only Natural, Humanitarian Pub. Co.

Prosser, W. L., Keeton, W. P., Dobbs, D. B. (eds. 1984), Prosser and Keeton onTorts, 5th Edition, Dobbs Keaton and Owen West Publishing. Raines, M., Swift, K.G., Booker, J.D. (2001) Designing Capable and ReliableProducts, Elsevier.Rossmanith, H.P. (1996) Failures and the Law, Spon Press.Swan, J.B., Shaffer, M.J., Paulson, W.H., Peterson, A.E. (1987) Simulatingthe effects of soil depth and climatic factors on corn yield, Soil Science Societyof America Journal, 51(4): 1025–1032.Tischler, C.R. and Moore, G.A. (1992) Predictive model for the contourfollowing ability of broadacre tillage equipment, National ConferencePublication – Institution of Engineers, Australia, 92(11): 7–11.Uicker, J.G., Pennock, G.R., Shigley, J.E. (2003) Theory of Machines andMechanisms, Third Edition, New York: Oxford University Press.

Weir, T. A.(2004) Casebook on Tort, Sweet & Maxwell, ISBN: 0421878800

Wheelchair Safety and Transport

ANSI/RESNA-WC-19, Wheelchairs: Wheelchairs Used as Seats in MotorVehicles, April 2000.

Fitzgerald, S.G., Collins, D.M., Cooper, R.A., Tolerico, M., Kelleher, A.,Hunt, P., Martin, S., Impink, B., Cooper, R. (2005) Issues in maintenanceand repairs of wheelchairs: A pilot study, Journal of Rehabilitation Research &Development, 42(6): 853–862.

Hobson, D.A. (2000) Wheelchair transport safety–the evolving solutions,Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 37(5): Guest editorial.

ISO/AWI 16840-4: Wheelchair Seating: Seating for Use on Motor Vehicles,Approved Work Item, 1999.

ISO /DIS 10542-1: Technical Systems and Aids for Disabled and HandicappedPersons – Wheelchair Tiedowns and Occupant Restraint Systems – Part 1:Requirements and Test Methods for All Systems, Draft International Standard,1999.

ISO/DIS 10542-2: Technical Systems and Aids for Disabled and HandicappedPersons – Wheelchair Tiedowns and Occupant Restraint Systems–Part 2: Four PointStrap Type Tiedown Systems, Draft International Standard 1999.


ISO/DIS 10542-4: Technical Systems and Aids for Disabled and HandicappedPersons – Wheelchair Tiedowns and Occupant Restraint Systems– Part 4: ClampingSystems, Working Draft, 2000.

ISO/DIS 10542-3: Technical Systems and Aids for Disabled and HandicappedPersons – Wheelchair Tiedowns and Occupant Restraint Systems – Part 3: DockingTiedown Systems, Working Draft, 2000.

ISO/DIS 7176-19: Wheelchairs – Part 19: Wheeled Mobility Devices for Use inMotor Vehicles, Draft International Standard, 2000.

Rentschler, A.J., Cooper, R.A., Fitzgerald, S.G., Boninger, M.L., Guo, S.,Ammer, W.A., Vitek, M., Algood, D. (2004) Evaluation of selected electric-powered wheelchairs using the ANSI/ RESNA standards, Arch. Phys. Med.Rehabil. 85(4): 611–619.

SAE-J2249: Wheelchair Tiedown and Occupant Restraint Systems (WTORS) forUse in Motor Vehicles; Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, Issued October1996/Revised January 1999.

SAE-J2252: Surrogate Wheelchair Drawing Package and Maintenance Manual,2000.

Insurance Fraud and Crime

Artis, M., Ayuso, M., Guillen, M. (2002) Detection of automobile insur-ance fraud with discrete choice models and misclassified claims, Journal ofRisk and Insurance 69(3): 325–340.

Crocker, K.J. and Tennyson, S. (2002) Insurance fraud and optimal claimssettlement strategies, Journal of Law & Economics 45(2): 469–507.

Morley, N.J., Ball, L.J., Ormerod, T.C. (2006) How the detection of insur-ance fraud succeeds and fails, Psychology Crime & Law, 12(2): 163-180.

Tennyson, S. and Salsas-Forn, P. (2002) Claims auditing in automobileinsurance: Fraud detection and deterrence objectives, Journal of Risk andInsurance 69(3): 289–308.

Viaene, S. and Dedene, G. (2004) Insurance fraud: Issues and challenges,Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice 29(2): 313–333.

Intellectual Property and Cybercrime

Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (1988)Technology In Australia 1788 – 1988: A condensed history of Australian technologi-cal innovation and adaptation during the first two hundred years, Compiled byFellows of the Academy: Australian Academy of Technological Sciencesand Engineering.


Bailey, E.G. (1949) Inventions and sifting out engineering facts, JamesClayton Lecture to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Proc. I. Mech.E. (160):196–207.

Baldwin, P. and Baldwin, R. (2003) The Motorway Achievement, Vol. 1,Thomas Telford.Briggs, J. (1997) Multimedia and technology licensing, Law Report (4): 2. Eligehausen, R. (2001) Connections between steel and concrete,International Symposium on Connections Between Steel and Concrete, Stuttgart,Germany, 10–12 September.High Court of Australia Decisions (2001), Gleeson, Chief Justice,Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan, Justices, Maggbury Pty Ltd v HafeleAustralia Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 70 (13 December).Jewkes, J., Sawers, D. and Stillerman, R. (1969) The Sources of Invention,New York: Norton and Co.Kahn, D. (1967). The Codebreakers, Macmillan.Marks, L. (1998) Between Silk and Cyanide: a Codemaker's Story, 1941–1945,HarperCollins.Matthew, A. (2002), Ascertaining the dimensions of a reasonable restraintof trade in an intellectual property context – an analysis of the AustralianHigh Court’s decision in Maggbury v Hafele, Murdoch University ElectronicJournal of Law, (9): 3.Mensch, G. (1975) Das Technogische Patt (Stalemate in Technology),Frankfurt-am Main: Umschau Verlag.OECD (2003) Road safety : impact of new technologies, Paris: OECD.Ricketson, S. (1988) The Law of Intellectual Property, Third Impression, TheLaw Book Company.Shannon, C. (1949). Communication theory of secrecy systems, Bell SystemTechnical Journal, 28(4): 656–715.


Virtually all legal systems provide a code-of-conduct recommendation forthe expert witness. In Australia the Supreme Court of New South WalesCode of Conduct is commonly used by counsel briefing expert witnesses.It is a basic requirement of the court system that the expert report affirmsthat this code of conduct has been read and understood.

EXPERT WITNESS CODE OF CONDUCTSupreme Court of NSW: (Schedule K, Part 36 Rule 13C(1) and Part 39Rule 2(1))

Application of code

1. This code of conduct applies to any expert engaged to:

(a) provide a report as to his or her opinion for use as evidence inproceedings or proposed proceedings, or

(b) give opinion evidence in proceedings or proposed proceedings.

General duty to the Court

2. An expert witness has an overriding duty to assist the Court impar-tially on matters relevant to the expert’s area of expertise.

3. An expert witness’s paramount duty is to the Court and not to theperson retaining the expert.

4. An expert witness is not an advocate for a party.

The form of expert reports

5. A report by an expert witness must (in the body of the report or inan annexure) specify:

(a) the person’s qualifications as an expert, and

(b) the facts, matters and assumptions on which the opinions in thereport are based (a letter of instructions may be annexed), and

(c) reasons for each opinion expressed, and

(d) if applicable – that a particular question or issue falls outside hisor her field of expertise, and

(e) any literature or other materials utilised in support of the opin-ions, and

333

Appendix 1 — Expert WitnessCode of Conduct

(f) any examinations, tests or other investigations on which he or shehas relied and identify, and give details of the qualifications of, theperson who carried them out.

6. If an expert witness who prepares a report believes that it may beincomplete or inaccurate without some qualification, that qualifica-tion must be stated in the report.

7. If an expert witness considers that his or her opinion is not a con-cluded opinion because of insufficient research or insufficient data orfor any other reason, this must be stated when the opinion isexpressed.

8. An expert witness who, after communicating an opinion to the partyengaging him or her (or that party’s legal representative), changes hisor her opinion on a material matter must forthwith provide theengaging party (or that party’s legal representative) with a supple-mentary report to that effect which must contain such of the infor-mation referred to in paragraph 5 (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) as is appro-priate.

9. Where an expert witness is appointed by the Court, the precedingparagraph applies as if the Court were the engaging party.

Experts’ conference

10. An expert witness must abide by any direction of the Court to:

(a) confer with any other expert witness, and

(b) endeavour to reach agreement on material matters for expertopinion, and

(c) provide the Court with a joint report specifying matters agreedand matters not agreed and the reasons for any non agreement.

11 An expert witness must exercise his or her independent, profession-al judgment in relation to such a conference and joint report, andmust not act on any instruction or request to withhold or avoidagreement.

Supreme Court rules for expert witnesses – Part 36 rule 13C

(1) For the purposes of this rule and rule 13CA: “expert witness” means anexpert engaged for the purpose of:

(a) providing a report as to his or her opinion for use as evidence inproceedings or, proposed proceedings; or

(b) giving opinion evidence in proceedings or proposed proceedings;

“the code” means the expert witness code of conduct in Schedule K.

334 Appendix 1 – Expert Witness Code of Conduct

(2) Unless the Court otherwise orders:

(a) at or as soon as practicable after the engagement of an expert as awitness, whether to give oral evidence or to provide a report for useas evidence, the person engaging the expert shall provide the expertwith a copy of the code;

(b) unless an expert witness's report contains an acknowledment b ythe expert witness that he or she has read the code and agrees to bebound by it:

(i) service of the report by the party who engaged the expert witnessshall not be valid service for the purposes of the rules or of any orderor practice note; and

(ii) the report shall not be admitted into evidence;

(c) oral evidence shall not be received from an expert witness unless:

(i) he or she has acknowledged in writing, whether in a report relat-ing to the proposed evidence or otherwise in relation to the proceed-ings, that he or she has read the code and agrees to be bound by it;and

(ii) a copy of the acknowledgment has been served on all partiesaffected by the evidence.

(3) If an expert witness furnishes to the engaging party a supplementaryreport, including any report indicating that the expert witness haschanged his or her opinion on a material matter expressed in an ear-lier report by the expert witness:

(a) the engaging party must forthwith serve the supplementary reporton all parties on whom the engaging party has served the earlierreport; and

(b) the earlier report must not be used in the proceedings by theengaging party, or by any party in the same interest as the engagingparty on the question to which the earlier report relates, unless para-graph (a) is complied with.

(4) This rule shall not apply to an expert engaged before this rule com-mences.

335Appendix 1 – Expert Witness Code of Conduct

A2.1 Definitions and TerminologyIn this appendix I deal with technical matters relating to engineering analy-sis presented elsewhere in the book. The material is common to most engi-neering texts.A2.1 Probably the most common (and most commonly misun-derstood) concepts in mechanics are force and moment. In addition, there areconcepts that represent basic mathematical or geometric building-blocksfor mechanics and there are physical manifestations of these concepts. Asan example, patent attorneys should take special note of the differencebetween a geometric concept such as axis and its manifestation in somegeometric feature (e.g. a passageway) aligned with a specific axis.

Commonly used symbolsA, a area, cross-section area, accelerationD, d diameterE modulus of elasticity, (Young’s modulus)F, f force, friction factorg acceleration due to gravityIzz second moment of area, mass moment of inertia

k, K spring stiffness, kinetic energyl, L length dimension m massp pressurer, R radiusSU ultimate tensile strengthSY yield strengtht, T time, material thickness, temperaturev, V velocity, electric potential a thermal coefficient, angled small change in quantity, deflection of beame strain (fractional change in length)q, f, y angle, twist/unit lengthm Poisson’s ratio

337

Appendix 2 — A Primer onMechanics; Detailed CalculationsFrom Cases 2.3 and 2.9

A2.1 Readers wishing to refer to direct source material may do well to make use of Shigley et al.(2004), or Samuel and Weir (1999).

Give me but one firm spot to stand on and I will move the earth. Archimedes

Force, unaided by judgement, collapses through its own weight. Horace

r densityp ratio of circumference to diameter of circles direct stresst shear stress

A2.2 Basic Concepts and Their Measurable orObservable ManifestationsForce (F): A force is a fundamental concept in mechanics, yet it can not bemeasured directly. Its manifestation is the measurable accelertion (a) of anobject with a measurable mass (m), using Newton’s working hypothesis:

F = m x aThe unit of mass in SI is equal to the mass of the International Prototype of theKilogram, a platinum-iridium cylinder kept by the Bureau International desPoids et Mesures at Sèvres, France. The mass of this standard kilogram inImperial Units is about 2.2046 pounds avoirdupois. Even mass may not bemeasured directly without reference to this basic standard. Considerablecare is used in establishing and calibrating standard masses and forces at theNational Institute of Standards.A2.2 Once machinery is available for themeasurement and calibration of such basic concepts as mass and force,derived forms of measurements follow. Point, Line and Plane: These are the most fundamental of geometric con-cepts and they originate from the basic geometric axioms of Euclid.

Point is a geometric element that has position but no extension; a point isdefined by its coordinates.

Line is defined by two points it passes through.

Plane is defined by three noncolinear points.

Axis: This is a geometric concept usuallyrepresented by a line passing through aspecific point in a plane.

Moment: Moment M results from a force Fapplied at some distance l from an axis andrepresented by the form M = F x l. It isimportant to realise that moment is a vectorquantity, with magnitude, direction andsense. Its direction is normal to the planecontaining F and l and its sense is deter-mined by the right-hand screw rule inrotating from the direction of l to the direc-tion of F. Figure A2.1 illustrates the forma-tion of a moment schematically.

338 Appendix 2 – A Primer on Mechanics

A2.2 See for example Jabbour and Yaniv (2001).

Figure A2.1 A moment about an axis

Torque (T): This is the physical manifestation of a moment applied to somephysical object (e.g. a shaft).

Work (or Energy): A force F and a torque T are able to do work (or impartenergy to a system) by moving. force and torque are vector quantities associatedwith both magnitude and direction. The following equations apply:

Wlinear = F x l, where l is the distance the force moves its point of application in the direction of F.

Wrot = T x y, where y is the angle through which T rotates about its axis.

Area (A): This is a plane region defined by two lengths l1 and l2 so that

A = l1 x l2.

Pressure (P) = Force F per unit area A, viz. P = F/A.

A2.3 Material Behaviour Most commonly encountered engineering materials behave in predictableways. Predictions of this behaviour are based on laboratory tests on samplestaken from each material. Typically, material samples are tested for strengthand elastic/plastic behaviour. Figure A2.2 shows a typical test curve for anelastic material (e.g. steel). The specific mechanical properties of of interestto us are: • Ultimate tensile strength, defined as the load per unit area of the test spec-

imen (or stress with the units of pressure) when the specimen breaks.The symbol used for this property is su;

• Elastic tensile strength or morecommonly yield strength is the loadper unit area of the test specimenwhen the material reaches its elasticlimit and begins to deform plasti-cally. The symbol for this propertyis sy;

• Modulus of elasticity E.The relationship between these

properties in the elastic region of thematerial follows the well known formfor elastic materials (including springs)originally expressed by Robert Hooke(1635–1703), now known as Hooke’slaw,

339Appendix 2 – A Primer on Mechanics

Figure A2.2 Typical stress-strain curve forelastic materials

s = E x eFinally, a property associated with a

change in material volume when the adeformation occurs under load isPoisson’s ratio (with the symbol m). Themost common use of this particular prop-erty is to express the relation between thelinear elastic modulus of the material Eand its shear modulus G. The shear modu-lus G is the linear relation between theshear stress t and the shear strain experi-enced by the material under the appliedshear stress.

G = E/[2(1+m)]Rotational strain may be expressed as

g = rf/L with the symbols identified in Figure A2.3. The “rotational Hooke’s Law”then becomes (similar to the linear version)

t = Gg

A2.4 Stresses and Deformation in EngineeringComponentsTorsionShear stress t in a mechanical element (e.g. a shaft) varies in magnitudethroughout the section of the element. Referring to Figure A2.2 the torqueT (sense indicated by the arrow in the figure) is found from

T = F x l

tmax = (T x r)/Ip

where Ip is the polar moment of area of the shaft, a geometric measure associat-ed with the capacity of the shaft component to withstand the appliedtorque. The shear stress t varies linearly from zero at the shaft centre to amaximum value on the shaft surface (at radius r).

The angular rotation of the bar is (without proof)A2.3

f = 2TL/(Gpr4)

TensionFor a simple tensile situation where a force F is applied to a metal bar oflength L and cross-section area A, the stress in the bar is (refer to FigureA2.4)

s = F/A ,and the extension of the bar is (by simple application of Hooke’s Law)


A2.3 Interested readers may wish to consult Samuel and Weir (1999), Chapter 3 for derivationsof these equations.

Figure A2.3 A cylindrical componentwith an applied torque load

d = (sL)/E = (FL)/(EA)

BendingFigure A2.5 is a schematic sketch of a beam acted on by a centrally locatedconcentrated load W. The beam is resting on “simple” supports. The termsimple here implies that the reactions at the supports act, as indicated, ver-tically. It also implies that the supports do not impose any moments on thebeam under load. Hence R = W/2, and the maximum moment acting onthe beam is at the middle

Mmax = (W/2) x (L/2) = WL/4 Figure A2.6 shows schematically the simplified mathematical model used

to represent the stresses generated in the beam by the applied load and itsresulting bending moment. The stresses generated in the beam oppose themoment applied as indicated in the enlarged left-hand diagram in FigureA2.6. The right-hand diagram in Figure A2.6 is a “free body diagram” of thesection of the beam just to the right of the applied load W. The only loadacting here is the reaction R as indicated. The moment generated by thisload is M = R x L/2 = (as identified earlier) WL/4. As a result of this applied


Figure A2.4 Bar under tensile loading Figure A2.5 Beam under load W

Figure A2.6 Free body diagram of one half of the beam showing the externally appliedbending moment and the stress field developed internally to resist the external moment

moment the material in the beam generates an internal stress field as indi-cated in the left-hand diagram in Figure A2.6. This model is based on manysimplifying assumptions about material behaviour under this type of load-ing. Interested readers may wish to follow up the derivation of the modelin Samuel and Weir (1999).

The stress field generated is one of compression (conventionally assigneda negative sign) in the upper part of the beam section and tension in thelower part. The two parts of the beam are divided by a neutral plane wherethe stress is conventionally considered to be zero. The stress maximum atthe lower surface of a beam width b and depth d is (again without proof)

smax = 6M/(bd2) = 3WL/2bd2

Deflection d may be found by the application of a special form ofHooke’s Law resulting in (again without proof)

d = WL3/(4Ebd3)

A2.5 Failure PredictorsInformation about material behaviour under load is generally provided bylaboratory tests. The nature of these tests is commonly limited to simpletension (or compression) of test bars, simple bending of test beams and“fatigue” testing in tension/compression and reversed bending. All materialsexhibit fatigue when subjected to loading that varies with time, referred toas dynamic loading. For all materials the level of maximum dynamic load atwhich the test specimen will fail is always less than the corresponding max-imum failure load under static load conditions. In this brief primer onmechanics the complex nature of fatigue loading will not be consideredfurther. Interested readers may wish to consult appropriate references onthe subject.A2.4

Once faced with real-world engineering components and loading condi-tions, we need some way of converting allowable loads, available from sim-plified laboratory tests to these real-world situations. This conversionprocess is assigned to the domain of mathematical modelling, structuraldistillationA2.5 and failure predictors. Two most commonly used failure pre-dictors are maximum shear stress (MSS) and maximum principal stress (MPS).

Engineering materials may be classified into ductile elastic, brittle elastic andplastic. Ductile elastic materials exhibit a distinct yield point, the stress atwhich the test specimen begins to deform plastically (see Figure A2.2).Brittle elastic materials do not have a distict yield point. However, bothductile elastic and brittle elastic materials have an elastic” region of behav-iour, where the material will return to its original shape once the load isremoved. Plastic materials have neither a distinct yield point, nor an elastic


A2.4 See for example Shigley et al. (2004), Samuel and Weir (1999), Carlson and Kardomateas(1995).A2.5 Samuel and Weir (1999) Section 1.3.

region of behaviour. In real-world load situ-ations the most highly stressed material ele-ment has a three-dimensional stress fieldimposed on it as indicated shematically inFigure A2.7. The stresses are designatedarbitrarily as s1 (maximum) and s3 (mini-mum). The element shown in Figure A2.7has been rotated into its principal stress orien-tation by geometry. In this condition thereare no shear stresses acting on the faces ofthe material cube.

The maximum shear stress failure predictorpredicts that failure will occur when themost highly stressed material element is subjected to the maximum allow-able shear stress tmax. allowed, where

tmax. allowed = (s1 – s3)/2

This is the failure predictor used for ductile elastic materials because theyall tend to fail in shear rather than in tension or compression. By contrast,for brittle materials, we tend to use the maximum principal stress failure predic-tor. This approach takes account of the fact that brittle materials almostinvariably fail in direct tension. For these materials failure will occur when

s1 = sU, wheresU is the tensile failure stress measured on a test bar in the laboratory.

A2.6 Fail-safe and Safe-life DesignEngineering components may fail in a variety of ways, referred to as modesof failure. Designers of engineering components must assess the most cred-ible modes of failure and build the component strong enough to resist thesemodes. Even in predictable situations there are some statistical influenceson the design due to material variations, manufacturing errors andunforseen load variations possibly due to environmental factors or even“acts of God”. No engineering component can be designed to be perfectlysafe uder all conditions without the commitment of unlimited resources.For this reason the common approach taken by designers is to design com-ponents with a safe life or to be fail-safe.

The term fail-safe is used to describe a device which, if (or when) it fails,it does so in a way that will cause no harm or at least a minimum of harmto other devices or danger to personnel. Examples include:

Safety glass used in automobile windows, designed to shatter intovery small pieces rather than the long jagged fragments created whencommon window glass breaks.

Luggage carts in airports in which the hand-brake must be helddown to prevent the cart from stopping.


Figure A2.7 Three dimensionalstress field acting on the mosthighly stressed material element

Air brakes on railway trains. The brakes are held in the off positionby air pressure created in the brake system. Should a brake line split,or a carriage become decoupled, the air pressure will be lost and thebrakes applied. It is impossible for the train to be driven with a leakin the brake system.

Aircraft control systems use redundancy (mutiple control lines to wingcontrol surfaces) to ensure maintenance of control even when one ofthe control lines becomes damaged.

In safe-life design products are designed to survive a specific design lifewith a chosen reserve. As an example, aircraft components made from alu-minium have a limited design life and need to be replaced at regular inter-vals.

A2.7 Detailed Calculations for Case 2.3A2.6

In this case a key issue was the structural deflection of the companion struc-ture of the main bearing, which had suffered damage through brinelling.The bearing involved was a Rothe Erde single-row angular contact slewingring bearing. These bearings are designed to be supported on a stiff com-panion structure to ebnsure that the bearing does not deflect under load.The companion structure in this case was a ring beam, identified in thephotograph of Figure 2.25, and shown here schematically in Figure A 2.8.In Figure A2.9 a segment of this ring beam is shown schematically for thepurpose of deflection estimation.

The ring beam was supported on several legs and the portion of the ringconsidered in this calculation was that where the legs were the furthest dis-tance apart. This was over a section of the ring representing 111o of arc. Asa conservative assumption, this longest arc between supports was modelledas a simply supported beam with the distributed load calculated from the


A2.6 All stress and deflection formulae used in this section are derived in Samuel and Weir(1999).

Figure A2.8 Schematic sketch of the bottle washer turntable (not to scale)

total load carried by the ring beam. Figure A2.10 shows this conservativelysimplified model of the ring beam schematically.

Arc length = (111/360) x 2491 x p = 2413 mm

Static dead load (from data) = 70 kN, over total circumference.

Total circumference = 2491 x p = 7826 mm,

Distributed “dead” load = 70 kN/7826

= 8.95 N/m An out-of-balance load over this arc length, due to the pull-down load ofthe bottle washer heads, was estimated at 14 kN over the same arc, yield-ing:

Live load component of 14,000/2413 = 5.8 N/mm

Total distributed load over beam w = 8.95 + 5.8 = 14.75 N/mm The second moment of area for the beam section was estimated from itsproportions given in documents provided by counsel in this case as

Ixx = 1.26 x 10–4 m4

Maximum deflection dmax(at beam centre)

= (5 x w x L4)/(384 E x Ixx)where E is the modulus of elasticity and L is the beam length.

dmax = (5 x 14.75 x 103 x 2.4134)/(384 x 210 x 109 x 1.126 x 10–4)

= 0.28 mm ( well within acceptable values for this bearing).


Figure A2.9 Schematic sketch of the ringbeam segment evaluated for deflection

Figure A2.10 Schematic sketch of the ring-beam modelled as a simply supportedbeam

A2.8 Detailed Calculations for Case 2.9A2.7

Data for #1MG

Shell material is Grey Cast Iron 40,

Ultimate tensile strength = 23.5 tons/in2

= 15.44 x 23.5 = 363 MPaAS1210 – 1997; Table 3.3.1(C) – page 66, recommends a design tensilestrength for Grey Cast Iron to AS 1830 Grade T-400 operating at tempera-tures less than 250oC of 40 MPa.

At 50 psi the saturation temperature of steam (steam tables) = 281oF

External temperature (according to a plant maintenance report )

= 213oF

Temperature drop from inside to outside = 281 – 213

= 68oF

Thermal conductivity of Grey Iron (Matweb data at 25oC)

= 55 W/m2.oC/m

This converts to kGI = 55 x 0.578 BTU/hr ft2.oF/ft

= 32 BTU/hr ft2.oF/ft

Endurance limit for Grey Iron (in reversed bending) ASTM Table 004 = 18,500psi

This value converts to SEGI = 128 MPa

Wall thickness = (nominal) (2 inch) = 50.8 mm


Figure A2.11 Model of pressureloading on shell Figure A2.12 Model of beam loading on shell

A2.7 All stress formulae used in this section are derived in Samuel and Weir (1999).

Pressure loading Pressure loading of the vessel shell is shown schematically in Figure A2.11.

Operating Pressure = (50 psi) 350 kPa

Circumferential shell stress

sc = P x D/2t = 350,000 x 4.27/0.1 = 14.95 MPa

Beam loading Beam loading of the vessel shell is shown schematically in Figure A2.12.

Wall thickness t = 50 mm

Second moment of area

Izz = p x [4.274 – (4.27 – 0.1)4]/64

= 1.48 m4

Radial distance to centroid

d = 4.27/2 = 2.135 m

Section modulus Z = 1.48/2.135 = 0.69 m3

Maximum Moment M

= (900,000/2) x 5.1/2 = 1.15 x 106 N m

Longitudinal stress in shell skin due to bending

sB = 1.15 /0.69 = 1.66 MPa

Centrifugal loadingCentrifugal loading operates as an extra pressure field on the cylindricalshell of this vessel. Figures A2.13 and A2.14 show the models used in thiscalculation. All calculations are taken for a unit length of the shell.Integration of the vertical component only of shell element loads is equili-brated by the stress load acting on the quarter shell lower boundary (st). Itis easy to show that the equilibrium equation yields (an approximation for


Figure A2.13 Model of centrifugal loadingon quarter shell

Figure A2.14 Model of centrifugal loadingon shell element

thin-walled cylinders where D is greater than 20t):st = rr2w2t

Cast iron density r = 7300 kg/m3

Surface speed of MG = 500 m/min or approximately 4 rad/sec s = 7300 x 2.132 x 42 = 0.53 MPa

Thermal loadingThermal stress is determined by the temperature gradient in the metalshell. This gradient needs to be estimated to ensure that the vessel stress iscorrectly evaluated. Heat transfer to the shell is via convective heating bythe steam. Condensation will take place on the wall in a thin layer.However the majority of heat from the steam will be transferred by directconvective transfer in a thermal layer near the wall. For consistency, theheat flux through the wall must be equal to the heat flux to the wall fromthe thermal layer (refer to Figure A2.15). Hence

h x DT(Steam) = k x DT(Cast Iron)/t(shell) where h is the assumed convective heat transfer coefficient from steam tothe shell surface. In general the value of this ranges between 10 and 30(Imperial units). For condensate, the value is about one order of magnitudegreater. It can go as high as 6oo. Taking the lower value (average of 10 and30 = 20 BTU/hr ft2.oF)

20 DT(Steam) = 32/(1/6) x DT(Cast Iron) For this case the ratios of temperature gradients in steam and cast iron are:

DT(Steam) = 9.6 x DT(Cast Iron) which gives a temperature rise of approximately 7oF in the shell.

If we use the higher, vastly overestimated value, of 600 for the heat trans-fer coefficient the same set of consistency calculations yield a temperature


Figure A2.15 Schematic view of tempera-ture distribution near shell wall and insidethe shell.

Figure A2.15 Ring beam deformation of the#1MG shell under the nip load.

rise in the shell of 51oF. The tensile hoop stress on the outer surface of thevessel is estimated from

s = (E x a x Dt )/[2 x (1 – m)] where E = elastic modulus; a = thermal expansion coefficient and m =Poisson’s ratio. For this particular iron, the following values hold (fromdata supplied by counsel):

E = 18.1 x 106 psi = 125 Gpa; m = 0.26

a = 6 x 10–6 per oF; Dt = 7oF (low value), 51oF (high value)

Hence s = 3.5 MPa (low value), 25MPa (high value)

Total loading on shell circumferentially

= (15 + 3.5 + 0.5) = 19 MPa (low value)

= (15 + 25 + 0.5) = 40.5 MPa (high value)Allowable load (BS boiler code design originally) = 3200 psi = 22.3 MPa.Fatigue loadingThe line load on the shell is generated from the nip load imposed by theservice rolls pressing against the shell surface. The effect of one service rollis indicated schematically in Figure A2.16. The stress generated by the lineload is complex, but as an approximation I have accepted the figure estimat-ed by finite element modelling as – 4478 psi = – 30.87 MPa. Note that theline load ( a compressive load) acts to oppose the stresses generated by thepressure, centrifugal and thermal loads (all are tensile loads on the shell).Figure A2.17 shows schematicaly how the dynamic line loads vary on theoutside surface of the vessel.

(a) Low thermal gradient case (more realistic case)

Mean stress = (19 + 31)/2 = 25 MPa

Fluctuation = ±15.5 MPa (inside surface stress is the worst case)Outside surface has a compressive stress imposed on it due to the line load.

Mean stress = (19 – 31)/2 =–6 MPaHence the dynamic stress at the outer surface

= –6 ±15.5 MPa

(b) High thermal gradient case (exaggerated condition)

Mean stress = (40.5 + 31)/2 = 36 MPa

Fluctuation = ±15.5 MPa (again, inside surface stress is the worst case)Outside surface has a compressive stress superimposed on the large tensilestress from other load

Mean stress = (40.5 – 31)/2 = 5 MPa


Hence the dynamic stress at the outersurface

= 5 ±15.5 MPaA graphic evaluation of the design

conditions for the two dynamic stresscases is presented in Figure A2.18.From each design condition the per-missible mean stress (or correspon-ding fluctuating stress component) isfound.

Case (a) (low temp. gradient)Permitted mean stress to failure

= 132 MPa

Factor of safety = 132/25 = 5.3

Case (b) (high temp. gradient) Permitted mean stress to failure = 189.5 MPa

Factor of safety = 189.5/36 = 5.3

Overall factors of safety

Static load – low temp. gradient = 363/19 = 19

Static load – high temp. gradient = 363/40.5 = 9

Dynamic load (both temp. gradients) = 5.3 Clearly still quite conservative design.


Figure A2.18 Goodman Diagram with the design conditions of the two dynamic stresscases above

Figure A2.17 Fluctuating stress imposedon the MG shell by the nip load

Engineers make use of measurements, in both SI (Système Internationale) and“Imperial” units. The expert’s report must clearly identify the measure-ments and units used in any investigation or analysis. The following is abrief review of some common measuring units and their relationship to theseven fundamental SI units.

Imperial (English) units of measurement became standardised in the 13thcentury and initially the USA adopted the English system of weights andmeasures. In spite of this there remain differences in both fluid and massunits. The unit of inch, now standardised at 25.4 mm in both the UK andUSA, became standardised only in 1959. In France the metric system offi-cially started in June 1799. The unit of length was the metre, which wasdefined as being one ten-millionth part of a quarter of the earth's circum-ference. The production of this standard required a very careful survey tobe done which took several years. To permit proper standardisation ofmeasurements and units, the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM)was set up by the Convention of the Metre, and has its headquarters near Paris,France.

The Bureau’s mandate is to provide the basis for a single, coherent sys-tem of measurements throughout the world, traceable to the InternationalSystem of Units (SI). This task takes many forms, from direct dissemina-tion of units (as in the case of mass and time) to coordination throughinternational comparisons of national measurement standards (as in length,electricity, radiometry and ionising radiation).

In all, the BIPM recognises seven basic units of measure under theInternational System of Units, Système International d’unités, or SI system,and all other measures and units are derived from these.A3.1

A3.1 The Seven Fundamental SI Units• Length – the metre (m) is the length of the path travelled by light in

vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second;• Mass – the kilogram (kg) is the unit of mass; it is equal to the mass of

the international prototype of the kilogram;• Time – the second (s) is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the

radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfinelevels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom;

351

Appendix 3 — Units ofMeasurement and Conversions

A3.1 Source: www.bipm.org – a wonderful SI brochure is freely available from this site. See alsohttp://physics.nist.gov/cuu/index.html for the USA version of standard system of units.

The best measure of a man’s honesty isn’t his income tax return. It’s the zero adjust on his bathroomscale. Arthur C. Clarke

• Electric current – the ampere (A) is that constant current which, if main-tained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negli-gible circular cross-section, and placed 1 m apart in vacuum, wouldproduce between these conductors a force equal to 2 x 10–7 newtonper metre of length;

• Temperature – the kelvin (K) unit of thermodynamic temperature, isthe fraction 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triplepoint of water;

• Quantity of elemental material – the mole is the amount of substance ofa system which contains as many elementary entities as there areatoms in 0.012 kilogram of carbon 12. When the mole is used, theelementary entities must be specified and may be atoms, molecules,ions, electrons, other particles, or specified groups of such particles;

• Luminous intensity – the candela (cd) is the luminous intensity, in agiven direction, of a source that emits monochromatic radiation offrequency 540 x 1012 hertz and that has a radiant intensity in thatdirection of 1/683 watt per steradian.

A3.2 Derived Units and DimensionsAll units measuring physical quantities may be derived from these sevenfundamental units. Table A3.1 lists some of the derived units and their sym-bols. Area, density, force and pressure are typical derived units. The SI agreedformat for all the units when written as symbols is in the singular. Typically,ten metres (10 m), or ten kilograms (10 kg), rather than 10 ms, or 10 kgs.In addition, each quantity has associated dimensions in mass (M), length (L)and time (T). These dimensions permit the evaluation of relationshipsbetween derived units. Table A3.1 lists the dimension for all the derivedunits. As an example, the unit of force is the newton, derived from the def-inition that it is the force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rateof one metre per second per second (invoking Newton’s law, F = Ma). Itsdimensions then become [MLT–2]. Work is the quantity derived from thedefinition that one unit of work is performed by one Newton force moving onemetre. Hence the units of work are [ML2T–2] (i.e. force x length). Kineticenergy is the energy of a moving body of mass m at velocity v. Hence KE =mv2/2. The dimensions of KE are [ML2T–2], or the same as the dimensionsfor work. Clearly, these two derived quantities, work and energy, have thesame dimensions and indeed they are measured in the same units, namelyjoules (J).

In many situations there is a need to express quantities in very large orvery small units. The SI system recommends standard prefixes for denot-ing various orders of 10 as the multiplier of the basic unit. For example, onekilowatt, denoted kW, is 1000 W. Table A3.2 lists the standard prefix set rec-ommended by SI, virtually all prefixes differing by three orders of magni-

352 Appendix 3 – Units of Measurement and Conversions

353Appendix 3 – Units of Measurement and Conversions

Q uantity Unit Symbol Dimensions

Area Square metre m2 L2

Volume Cubic metre m3 L3

Velocity (speed) Metre per second m s–1 LS–1

Acceleration Metre per second per second m s–2 LS–2

Density Kilogram per cubic metre kg m–3 ML–3

Concentration Mole per cubic metre mol m–3 ML–3

Specific volume Cubic metre per kilogram m3 kg–1 L3M–1

Current density Amper per square metre A m–2 A L–2

Force Newton N MLT–2

Work Joule J ML2T–2

Power (rate of working) Watt (joule/second) W ML2T–3

Pressure Newton per square metre, orpascal Pa ML–1T–2

Stress Newton per square metre, orpascal Pa ML–1T–2

Table A3.1 Derived quantities and their dimensions

Prefix Symbol Power of ten Multiplier tera T 12 1,000 000 000 000giga G 9 1,000 000 000mega M 6 1,000 000 kilo k 3 1,000 hecto1 h 2 100deca1 da 1 10

0 (100 = 1) 1

deci1 d –1 .01centi1 c –2 .001milli m –3 .0001 micro m –6 .000 0001nano n –9 .000 000 0001 pico p –12 .000 000 000 0001

Table A3.2 Prefixes used to denote orders of magnitude in units

1. These prefixes are not recommended by SI and are included because they are still in useby some systems of units.

tude (i.e. giga is three orders of magnitude larger than mega and pico isthree orders of magnitude smaller than nano).

There are some important units used internationally that have not yield-ed to SI standardisation. The following are some examples:

• knot = 1 nautical mile per hour = (1852/3600) m/s.The nautical mileis a special unit employed for marine and aerial navigation to expressdistance. The conventional value given above was adopted by theFirst International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference,Monaco, 1929, under the name international nautical mile. As yet thereis no internationally agreed symbol. This unit was originally chosenbecause one nautical mile on the surface of the Earth subtendsapproximately one minute of angle at the centre;

• are = 100 m2, a unit still in common use in the form hectare, short forhecto-are or 104 m2;

• bar – as a unit of pressure, approximately in multiples of standardatmospheric pressure (atmospheres as measured by a barometer – hencebar). 1 bar = 0.1 MPa = 100 kPa = 1000 hPa = 105 Pa;

• yard – still used in expressing distances (1 mile = 1760 yards); 1 yard= 0.9144 m; same in the US and UK;

• pound – for measuring quantity of substances = 0.453 592 37 kg;same in the US and UK;

• US gallon (liquid) – volumetric measure = 3.785 411 784 l;• UK gallon = 4.546 09 l; different from US gallon;• Ton – a unit of mass = 2000 lb (short ton) in US and 2240 lb (long ton)

in UK; • Note that the SI unit megagram (Mg = 106 g) is the tonne;• The international unit of thermal energy is the calorie (cal) –

1 cal = 9.80665 J;• The speed of light in vacuum = 299,752,458 ms–1;• Acceleration due to gravity = 9.806 65 ms–2;• Newton’s gravitational constant G = 6.674 2E–11 m3kg–1s–2.

A3.3 Systems of Measurement and ConversionFactorsTwo main systems of measurement still in use, in spite of the Convention ofthe Metre. Before the introduction of SI units internationally, there was con-siderable investment in the older units used in many countries. Typicallyroad measurements (and road signage) and engineering thread sizes repre-sent considerable commitment to specific sytem of units. As well, there areother traditionally adopted units of measure that remain in use by certaintrades and professions.

Apothecary measure – This is still used in most medical dosage applica-tions.


Household measures – Recipes make use of these types of units.

Troy weights (used in jewellery, bullion and precious stone weights) –A system of units of weight in which the grain is the same as in theavoirdupois system and the pound contains 12 ounces, 240 penny-weights, or 5760 grains.

Avoirdupois – In the avoirdupois system, all units are multiples orfractions of the pound, which was defined as 0.453 592 37 kg in mostof the English-speaking world in 1959. It is the everyday system ofweight used in the United States. It is still widely used by many peo-ple in Canada and the United Kingdom despite the official adoptionof the metric system, including the compulsory introduction of met-ric units in shops.

Table A3.3 provides some conversion factors for SI units. Table A3.4 pro-vides conversions for some of the traditional units of measure.

355Appendix 3 – Units of Measurement and Conversions

Q uantity SI unit To get (other unit) Multiply SI unit by

Mass Kilogram (kg) Pound (lb) 2.204 62Ounce (oz) 35.274 0

Length Metre (m) Foot (1/3 yard) 3.280 84Inch (1/12 foot) 39.370 1

Kilometre (km) Mile (5280 ft) 0.621 37Volume Litre (l)(=10–03 m3) Gallon US 0.264 172

Gallon UK 0.219 969Cubic foot (ft3) 3.5315 x 10–2

Density Kilogram/metre3 (kg m–3) Pound/cubic foot (lb ft–3) 6.242 8 x 10–2

Force Newton (N) Pound force (lbf) 0.224 809Moment Newton metre (Nm) Foot pound force(ft lbf) 0.737 562Pressure/stress Pascal (Pa = N m–2) Pound force/in2 (psi) 1.450 4 x 10–4

Pound force/ft2(psf) 2.088 5 x 10–2

bar 1 x 10–5

Millimetre mercury(mm Hg) 7.500 6 x 10–3

Inch water (in H2O) 4.014 6 x 10–3

Tonne/metre2 (Tm–2) UK ton/ft2 9.143 789 x 10–5

US ton/ft2 1.024104 x 10–4

Bar Atmosphere (atm) 0.986 923Work/energy Joule (J) British thermal unit (Btu) 9.478 2 x 10–4

Calorific heat unit (Chu) 5.2657 x 10–4

Power Watt (Js–1) Horse power (Hp) 1.341 0 x 10–3

Table A3.3 Some common conversion factors

1. There are varieties of “barrels” established by law or usage. For example, federal taxes on fermentedliquors are based on a barrel of 31 gallons; many state laws fix the “barrel for liquids” at 31.5 gallons; one statefixes a 36-gallon barrel for cistern measurement; federal law recognizes a 40-gallon barrel for “proof spirits”;by custom, 42 gallons compose a barrel of crude oil or petroleum products for statistical purposes, and thisequivalent is recognized “for liquids” by four states.2. “Struck measure” refers to a struck, or level, bushel. It is the only official bushel measure in the UK.3. Used in assaying. The assay ton bears the same relation to the milligram that a ton of 2000 pounds avoir-dupois bears to the ounce troy; milligrams of precious metal obtained from one assay ton of ore gives directlythe number of troy ounces to the net ton.4. The gross or long ton is used commercially in the United States to only a limited extent, usually in restrict-ed industrial fields. These units are the same as the British “ton”.


Unit SI or Imperial equivalent

1 cable's length 120 fathoms; 720 feet; 219.456 m

1 chain (Gunter’s or surveyor’s) 66 feet; 20.1168 m

1 fathom 10 chains (surveyor’s); 660 feet; 201.168 m1 league (land) 3 statute miles; 4.828 km1 mil (thou) 0.001 inch; 0.025 4 mm1 point (desktop publishing) 0.013 889 inch; 0.352 778 mm1 rod, pole, or perch 16.5 feet; 5.0292 m 1 acre 43,560 square feet; 4840 square yard; 0.405 hectare1 barrel, liquid 31 to 42 gallons1

1 bushel (US) struck measure2 2150.42 cubic inches; 35.238 l

1 bushel, heaped (US) 747.715 cubic inches; 1.278 bushel, struck measure1 dram, fluid or liquid (US) 0.226 cubic inch; 1.041 British fluid drachm; 3.697 ml 1 gallon (US) 231 cubic inches; 3.785 l1 gallon (British Imperial) 1.201 US gallons1 gill 7.219 cubic inches; 0.118 l

1 peck 8.810 l1 tablespoon 3 teaspoons; 4 fluid drams; 0.5 fluid ounces1 assay ton3 29.167 g 1 carat 200 mg1 dram, apothecaries’ 3.888 g1 dram, avoirdupois 1.772 g 1 hundredweight, gross or long4 112 pounds; 50.802 kg1 hundredweight, net or short 100 pounds; 45.359 kg 1 ounce, avoirdupois 437.5 grains; 0.911 troy ounces; 28.350 g1 ounce, troy or apothecaries’ 480 grains; 1.097 avoirdupois ounces; 31.103 g1 pennyweight 1.555 g1 point (jewellers) 0.1 carat; 2 mg

Table A3.4 Conversions for some traditional units of measure

AAckerman 176, 278argy-bargy 304, 313Artis 306ASME Dimensional Standard 74Australian Academy ofTechnological Sciences andEngineering 174Australian Design Rules 157, 169BBailey 258Babbitt 77Baldwin 266Berry 14Bicheno 219Boatright 27Bowles 177Briggs 278CCase chronology 15, 16Cassidy 8Code of conduct 3, 26Correll 219Court hierarchy 2, 3Crocker 306DDanzon 189Dedene 306DeFina 27Dimentberg 95EEberhart 178Edson 219Eligehausen 266Elling 195Engineering expert 2, 29Engineering insurance 4, 7, 29Engineering litigation 1, 2, 8, 15Evans 177Expert witness report 24, 29

FFayyad 14Fledderman 27FMEA 127, 177Frank 14Franzoi 8GGerik 114 Giudici 14Goodier 54, 101Gordon 178Grover 27Gunasekaran 219Gupta 114Gutheil 27HHales 107Han 14Hand 13, 14, 16, 27Hart 108Hastie 14Hawkins 177Heinzerling 176, 278Hepple 179Hoang 177Huang 23IIndurkhya 14Isermann 177ISO9001 152, 154JJabbour 338KKahn 278Kamber 14Kardon 27Kihlstrom 8King 27Kinzie 108Kuleshnyk 8

357

Index

Kutz 139LL10 life 42Lee 23, 114Legal foot stamping 105Lind 195Linoff 14Liquidated damages 40, 48, 75Lunney 179Luzic 187MMacLachlan 209Maggbury v. Hafele 319man of straw 10, 284Marks 277, 278Matthew 319Mensch 225Moore 114Morrison 114Munich Re 4, 7, 8NNational Association of TestingAuthorities 102NCRP Synthesis 244 266Neale 79Nottage 108OOecd 108, 266Oliphant 179One-time_pad 277PPelaez 177Petras 224Poesnecker 188Pope 27Potential failure modes and effectsanalysis 127Prosser 179RRaines 108Rehrig 139Residual stress measurement 105Ricketson 237, 238, 239, 265, 266

Robbins 38Rossmanith 108Rothe Erde 51, 53, 55, 56, 59Rothenberg 8Rud 14SSachse 95Salsas-Forn 306Sanders 195Samuel 48, 54, 65, 337, 340, 342Schweitzer 139Shannon 278Shigley 337, 342snake oil 108, 109, 129, 130, 174Society of Automotive Engineers169Stack 38Stanley 94Strict liability 107, 108Swan 114Système Internationale 351TTennyson 306third umpire 10Timoshenko 54, 101Tischler 114UUicker 86Unger 27VViaene 306WWeir 54, 65, 179, 337, 340, 342Weiss 14Willis 23Witten 14Woollons 177Woinowski-Krieger 101www.austlii.edu.au 319, 322YYaniv 338Young 47, 54

358 Index

references and bibliography978-1-84628-… · · 2017-08-25tunnelling and underground space...

Documents