第二次世界大战期间，海上和码头的船只发生故障，脆性断裂问题成为人们关注的焦点。来自船舶故障的数据有很好的相关性，因此，从由此引发的研究中，我们学到了很多东西。在非船舶故障数据上不存在类似的相关性，因此进行本次调查是为了补充船舶故障的研究。共研究了64个结构故障，以及输气管线的故障。这些故障发生在铆接和焊接结构中，例如储罐、桥梁、压力容器、烟囱、压力管道、电铲以及输气管线。研究表明，脆性破坏的历史至少可以追溯到1879年。结论是: 1.非船舶结构中的脆性破坏与船舶中发生的现象相同；2.脆性破坏发生在许多类型的非金属材料中- 船舶结构；3.脆性断裂可导致交叉铆接；4.没有证据表明，随着焊接的出现，脆性破坏的发生率降低或增加；5.结合其他因素，热应力可能很重要；6.残余应力不是脆性破坏的主要原因，但此类应力可能与其他因素一起引发此类破坏；7.冶金变量的影响很重要；8.冷成型促进了脆性破坏的易感性，但由于缺乏数据，其作用无法评估；9.在数据可用的情况下，在失效温度下，板材的夏比冲击值通常较低；10.在大多数非船用脆性破坏的情况下，断裂源于制造过程中产生的缺陷。有一些起源于设计缺陷；11.似乎在所有情况下，断裂均起源于几何不连续性； 12.这些失效结构没有证据表明各种焊接工艺对脆性失效敏感性的影响；13.除非焊缝质量异常差，否则焊缝无断裂倾向；14.绝大多数非船舶脆性破坏显然发生在全静载荷条件下；15.结构的年龄似乎与脆性破坏无关；16.大多数工程规范允许使用已知特别容易发生脆性破坏的钢材。同时，在除一个规范外的所有规范下，应力水平保持在相当保守的值；17.最后，证明了脆性破坏是多种因素综合作用的结果。 没有现成的材料可以完全防止其发生，也没有已知的试验可以肯定地从小样本的行为预测给定钢在可能发生结构脆性破坏的情况下的性能。 简而言之，精心设计、材料选择和良好工艺对于防止非船舶结构的脆性破坏至关重要。船舶也是如此。

The failure of ships at sea and at dockside during World War II brought the problem of brittle fracture into sharp focus. Data from ship failures have been well correlated, and as a result, much has been learned from research stimulated thereby. No similar correlation on non-ship failure data exists, and this survey was therefore undertaken in order to supplement the study of ship failures. A total of 64 structural failures, plus failures in gas transmission lines, was studied. These failures occurred in both riveted and welded structures such as tanks bridges, pressure vessels, a smoke stack, a penstock, power shovels, as well as gas transmission lines. It is shown that the history of brittle failure extends back at least to 1879. It is concluded that: 1. Brittle failure in non-ship structures is the same phenomenon as occurs in ships;2. Brittle failure occurs in many types of non-ship structures;3. Brittle fractures can cross riveted joints;4. There is no evidence to show that the percentage incidence of brittle failure has either decreased or increased with the advent of welding;5. In conjunction with other factors, thermal stress may be important;6. Residual stresses are not the prime cause of brittle failure, but such stresses may, in conjunction with other factors, initiate such failure;7. The effect of metallurgical variables is important;8. Cold forming promotes susceptibility to brittle failure, but its role cannot be assessed due to lack of data;9. In such cases where data are available, Charpy impact values of plate were generally low at the failure temperature;10. In most cases of non-ship brittle failure, the fracture originated at defects arising from fabrication. A few originated at design defects;11. It seems evident in all cases that fracture originated at a geometric discontinuity;12. No evidence exists for these failed structures to show the effects of various welding processes on susceptibility to brittle failure;13. Except in the case of exceptionally poor welds, there is no tendency for fracture to follow welded seams;14. The great majority of non-ship brittle failures apparently occur under conditions of entirely static loading;15. Age of structure seems to have no bearing on brittle failure;16. Most engineering codes permit the use of steel which is known to be particularly susceptible to brittle failure. At the same times, under all codes but one, the stress levels are held to quite conservative values;17. Finally, it is demonstrated that brittle failure results from a combination of many factors. There is no readily available material which would entirely prevent its occurrence, and there is no known test which will surely predict from the behavior of small specimens the performance of a given steel in circumstances where structural brittle failure might occur. In short, careful design, selection of materials and good workmanship are of the greatest importance in the prevention of brittle failure in non-ship structures. This is also true of ships.