[HN Gopher] Condo Wreckage Hints at Less Steel in Columns Than D...
___________________________________________________________________
Condo Wreckage Hints at Less Steel in Columns Than Design Drawings
Author : bigpumpkin
Score : 34 points
Date : 2021-07-04 21:40 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| brandon272 wrote:
| Saw a video today of a simulated collapse that suggests a
| possible failure mode given the likely parking garage collapse
| that occurred before primary collapse:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hynHiWE818c
| LatteLazy wrote:
| One of the worst things about these disasters is that we will get
| months of daily reports of things being "hinted at". All the
| noise means that when the final cause is found, no one will care
| anymore or remember or they'll remember wrong and swear it was
| all to do with sinkholes or whatever. We need some quite and some
| rapid inspection of other buildings. Not hints and opinions.
| adamrezich wrote:
| the news told me it was climate change tho
| leetrout wrote:
| https://archive.is/pdNGl
| politelemon wrote:
| The design drawings being referenced. Are they public documents,
| or I suppose I'm asking, how did those engineers get a hold of
| it? Can I, a public person get it?
|
| This isn't something I've thought about until now, are all
| buildings' drawings available at some... Central authority, an
| archive?
| josh3736 wrote:
| The answer is "it depends" on the particular city, county,
| and/or state.
|
| Florida is a little unusual in that state law makes a very wide
| range of information public and easy to get. In this case, the
| town has actually posted all the relevant documents on their
| website (https://www.townofsurfsidefl.gov/departments-
| services/town-c...), so you can just click that link to get the
| plans.
|
| Other places have varying levels of access to building
| documents. In SF, for example, DBI maintains plans and other
| documents, but state law prohibits reproduction without the
| property owner's consent. A member of the public can, however,
| make an appointment to _view_ the plans in the DBI office.
| (https://sfdbi.org/DOP)
|
| But generally, yes, all buildings' plans are maintained by
| (usually) the county-level office that issues permits.
| l1tany11 wrote:
| Typically approved, permitted plans are public record on file
| at the local authority (city or county usually). If you have an
| address you can request access to the plans.
| lbotos wrote:
| At least for NYC, it's not easy to get, but in theory NYC has
| records of all buildings and renovations (that were legally
| done) as they have to sign off on the drawings to issue
| permits.
|
| I wish it was public, but I haven't be able to find drawings
| but you can find permit info.
| gumby wrote:
| In the USA most approved plans are public documents, and
| approval requires code compliance.
|
| Some buildings, like banks or certain public buildings (jails?)
| don't have publicly available plans.
|
| Some buildings' usage (such as chemical storage or compressed
| gasses) will require additional detail.
| Someone wrote:
| In theory, it seems you can.
| https://www.buildingrecords.us/blog/how-to-find-
| blueprints-o...:
|
| _"Once the blueprints have been filed by the contractor with
| the municipality building department, these building plans are
| public records and technically attainable by anyone wanting to
| view them."_
|
| That page links to https://www.buildingrecords.us/construction-
| data/building-pl...
| Syonyk wrote:
| > _Mr. Kilsheimer cautioned that it is common in construction for
| the final product to differ from drawn designs._
|
| Yes, and there's also a decent history of structural failure, or
| nearly so, from that particular habit.
|
| The Hyatt walkway collapse
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse...)
| is one of the better known - designed one way, built another so
| it would be easier and cheaper to build, and nobody thought
| through the changes in terms of how it impacted loading. Result?
| 114 dead.
|
| The I-35 bridge collapse was another case of "various safety
| factors were eliminated until the safety factor was less than
| one."
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge...
|
| > _On November 13, 2008, the NTSB released the findings of its
| investigation. The primary cause of the collapse was the
| undersized gusset plates, at 0.5 inches (13 mm) thick.
| Contributing to that design or construction error was the fact
| that 2 inches (51 mm) of concrete had been added to the road
| surface over the years, increasing the static load by 20%.
| Another factor was the extraordinary weight of construction
| equipment and material resting on the bridge just above its
| weakest point at the time of the collapse. That load was
| estimated at 578,000 pounds (262 tonnes), consisting of sand,
| water and vehicles. The NTSB determined that corrosion was not a
| significant contributor, but that inspectors did not routinely
| check that safety features were functional.[126]_
|
| There's a lot of redundancy built into modern construction, but
| if you remove some of it because it's cheaper to build, and other
| degrades over time from wear, well... at some point, there's
| nothing left.
|
| It's going to be an interesting report to read, whatever the
| causes.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-04 23:00 UTC)