5 ms·

Is it just me or is the headline exaggerating a bit? The article doesn't seem to give any hint that "engineering" will change "profoundly", but rather checking

by moring 5y ago

Is it just me or is the headline exaggerating a bit? The article doesn't seem to give any hint that "engineering" will change "profoundly", but rather checking that buildings are built to code, inspecting their current state, making extrapolations about their future. None of this is extraordinary, especially if somebody is interested in keeping a building intact and willing to pay for it. Sounds more like a political change about allocating money for all of this and/or forcing someone to pay for it.

redis_mlc 5y ago
No, the headline is accurate. Although this building had maintenance issues, the bigger question is if it had enough support columns. Video of neighborhood buildings shows a minimal amount of parking garage support for such massive buildings. It looks like structural engineers designed all those area condos with ideal conditions in mind. One drunk driver taking out a single column would collapse the building. If you watch the Youtube Practical Engineering channel series on reinforced concrete, it's obvious workman are too careless when placing and/or scratching rebar. (You can't stand on rebar while pouring concrete or the expected exterior spacing isn't kept, which accelerates corrosion and violates any structural calculations.) Also, never buy a condo with an above-ground pool or you will get periodic maintenance fees for $50,000 - $100,000 per unit, plus the long-term corrosion issues. To understand how bad sea salt corrodes metal, I've seen airplanes totalled from sea mist. You can use your fingernail to score and crumble aluminum parts.
engineer_22 5y ago
It is part of the engineer's job to anticipate age and maintenance (or lack of maintenance) when they're designing their structures. And it is the engineer's moral responsibility to uphold public safety above all other concerns. We may see changes to the code to prevent another catastrophic failure like this one.
- moring 5y ago
  Are such changes a rare occasion? I had naively expected this cycle (accident, analysis, changes to code or law, quiet period, then another accident with a less obvious cause) to be a tragic but necessary engineering routine. I'm referring to that "profound change" that, to me, sounded like there would be a change to that cycle itself, not just updates to the building code.

by moring 5y ago

redis_mlc 5y ago

No, the headline is accurate. Although this building had maintenance issues, the bigger question is if it had enough support columns. Video of neighborhood buildings shows a minimal amount of parking garage support for such massive buildings. It looks like structural engineers designed all those area condos with ideal conditions in mind. One drunk driver taking out a single column would collapse the building. If you watch the Youtube Practical Engineering channel series on reinforced concrete, it's obvious workman are too careless when placing and/or scratching rebar. (You can't stand on rebar while pouring concrete or the expected exterior spacing isn't kept, which accelerates corrosion and violates any structural calculations.) Also, never buy a condo with an above-ground pool or you will get periodic maintenance fees for $50,000 - $100,000 per unit, plus the long-term corrosion issues. To understand how bad sea salt corrodes metal, I've seen airplanes totalled from sea mist. You can use your fingernail to score and crumble aluminum parts.

engineer_22 5y ago

It is part of the engineer's job to anticipate age and maintenance (or lack of maintenance) when they're designing their structures. And it is the engineer's moral responsibility to uphold public safety above all other concerns. We may see changes to the code to prevent another catastrophic failure like this one.

moring 5y ago
Are such changes a rare occasion? I had naively expected this cycle (accident, analysis, changes to code or law, quiet period, then another accident with a less obvious cause) to be a tragic but necessary engineering routine. I'm referring to that "profound change" that, to me, sounded like there would be a change to that cycle itself, not just updates to the building code.