Post history

History for Ryan

Earthquaking

Back to topic

Current version

Posted November 26, 2016 02:24 · last edited November 26, 2016 03:45

ConanTroutman wrote:

Oceanic6 wrote:

Doesn't seem like our journalists are asking serious questions as to why these newish buildings are not able to survive these earthquakes. Queensgate cinema, readings car park, state services.  Surely they will launch an enquiry.  Someone's head needs to roll. It's embarrassing.

The Statistics NZ one seems to be the only one that actually failed though. The others all stood up to the quakes and anyone inside would have survived(or at least, the building wouldn't have killed them - furniture might have). The problem is that people seem to have been rushed back into buildings after a very superficial inspection. Building codes are set up so that the building stays standing in a shake and people can get out - not so that the building is safe to occupy afterwards in aftershocks or future quakes. 

My work is a 1940s building, 8 storeys high, and they inspected the whole thing in 2 hours. There's massive cracks in the plaster and in some places you can see the crack extends deep into concrete behind the plaster. I'm not a structural engineer but two hours seems like very little time to assess whether any of the load bearing structures are damaged and what that might mean for the integrity of the building. Especially as there's at least maybe 50 pillars per floor - 50x8 = 400. Can you check 400 pillars in 120 minutes, let alone floors, ceilings, the roof, stairwells, lift shafts etc? Then you hear about people returning to work for a few days only to get evacuated again because there some damage which was missed in the initial inspection. Scary stuff.

I very much doubt after Christchurch engineers would declare a building safe unless they were 100% satisfied. I had to provide evidence to the Royal Commission of Inquiry after the Christchurch earthquake on just this point and the engineers involved received an absolute grilling, it was all streamed on the internet and the documents are all public record, I have no doubt every engineer in the country was following the inquiry and none of them would ever want to go through that, or have a loss of life based on their decision.

It's simply not worth the risk of loosing your job or even going to jail to open a building early. 

Engineers don't inspect the building in 2 hours, they spend 2 hours on site and take meticulous records, videos, and photos. If they built the building or strengthened it  recently then they're going to have 3d models that they can run through a simulator, otherwise they will have the plans. They will then spend hours going over the videos and photos and compare any signs of stress to the plans, they know exactly what to look for and all the tell tale signs. If they're worried they will do a more invasive check. They will inform the building owner and the building owner is obliged to inform the tenants, the council, and civil defense if there are any concerns. 

Previous versions

3 versions
Ryan edited November 26, 2016 03:45
ConanTroutman wrote:
Oceanic6 wrote:

Doesn't seem like our journalists are asking serious questions as to why these newish buildings are not able to survive these earthquakes. Queensgate cinema, readings car park, state services.  Surely they will launch an enquiry.  Someone's head needs to roll. It's embarrassing.

The Statistics NZ one seems to be the only one that actually failed though. The others all stood up to the quakes and anyone inside would have survived(or at least, the building wouldn't have killed them - furniture might have). The problem is that people seem to have been rushed back into buildings after a very superficial inspection. Building codes are set up so that the building stays standing in a shake and people can get out - not so that the building is safe to occupy afterwards in aftershocks or future quakes. 

My work is a 1940s building, 8 storeys high, and they inspected the whole thing in 2 hours. There's massive cracks in the plaster and in some places you can see the crack extends deep into concrete behind the plaster. I'm not a structural engineer but two hours seems like very little time to assess whether any of the load bearing structures are damaged and what that might mean for the integrity of the building. Especially as there's at least maybe 50 pillars per floor - 50x8 = 400. Can you check 400 pillars in 120 minutes, let alone floors, ceilings, the roof, stairwells, lift shafts etc? Then you hear about people returning to work for a few days only to get evacuated again because there some damage which was missed in the initial inspection. Scary stuff.

I very much doubt after Christchurch engineers would declare a building safe unless they were 100% satisfied. I had to provide evidence to the Royal Commission of Inquiry after the Christchurch earthquake on just this point and the engineers involved received an absolute grilling, it was all streamed on the internet and the documents are all public record, I have no doubt every engineer in the country was following the inquiry and none of them would ever want to go through that, or have a loss of life based on their decision.

It's simply not worth the risk of loosing your job or even going to jail to open a building early. 

Engineers don't inspect the building in 2 hours, they spend 2 hours on site and take meticulous records, videos, and photos. If they built the building or strengthened it then they're going to have 3d models that they can run through an simulators, otherwise they will have the plans. They will then spend hours going over the videos and photos and compare any signs of stress to the plans, they know exactly what to look for and all the tell tale signs. If they're worried they will do a more invasive check. They will inform the building owner and the building owner is obliged to inform the tenants, the council, and civil defense if there are any concerns. 

Ryan edited November 26, 2016 02:26
ConanTroutman wrote:
Oceanic6 wrote:

Doesn't seem like our journalists are asking serious questions as to why these newish buildings are not able to survive these earthquakes. Queensgate cinema, readings car park, state services.  Surely they will launch an enquiry.  Someone's head needs to roll. It's embarrassing.

The Statistics NZ one seems to be the only one that actually failed though. The others all stood up to the quakes and anyone inside would have survived(or at least, the building wouldn't have killed them - furniture might have). The problem is that people seem to have been rushed back into buildings after a very superficial inspection. Building codes are set up so that the building stays standing in a shake and people can get out - not so that the building is safe to occupy afterwards in aftershocks or future quakes. 

My work is a 1940s building, 8 storeys high, and they inspected the whole thing in 2 hours. There's massive cracks in the plaster and in some places you can see the crack extends deep into concrete behind the plaster. I'm not a structural engineer but two hours seems like very little time to assess whether any of the load bearing structures are damaged and what that might mean for the integrity of the building. Especially as there's at least maybe 50 pillars per floor - 50x8 = 400. Can you check 400 pillars in 120 minutes, let alone floors, ceilings, the roof, stairwells, lift shafts etc? Then you hear about people returning to work for a few days only to get evacuated again because there some damage which was missed in the initial inspection. Scary stuff.

I very much doubt after Christchurch engineers would declare a building safe unless they were 100% satisfied. I had to provide evidence to the Royal Commission of Inquiry after the Christchurch earthquake on just this point and the engineers involved received an absolute grilling, it was all streamed on the internet and the documents are all public record, I have no doubt every engineer in the country was following the inquiry and none of them would ever want to go through that, or have a loss of life based on their decision.

It's simply not worth the risk of loosing your job or even going to jail to open a building early. 

Engineers don't inspect the building in 2 hours, they spend 2 hours on site and take meticulous records, videos, and photos. If they built the building or strengthened it then they're going to have 3d models that they can run through an simulators, otherwise they will have the plans. They will then spend hours going over the videos and photos and compare any signs of stress to the plans, they know exactly what to look for and all the tell tale signs. If they're worried they will do a more invasive look. They will inform the building owner and the building owner is obliged to inform the tenants, the council, and civil defense if there are any concerns. 

Ryan edited November 26, 2016 02:26
ConanTroutman wrote:
Oceanic6 wrote:

Doesn't seem like our journalists are asking serious questions as to why these newish buildings are not able to survive these earthquakes. Queensgate cinema, readings car park, state services.  Surely they will launch an enquiry.  Someone's head needs to roll. It's embarrassing.

The Statistics NZ one seems to be the only one that actually failed though. The others all stood up to the quakes and anyone inside would have survived(or at least, the building wouldn't have killed them - furniture might have). The problem is that people seem to have been rushed back into buildings after a very superficial inspection. Building codes are set up so that the building stays standing in a shake and people can get out - not so that the building is safe to occupy afterwards in aftershocks or future quakes. 

My work is a 1940s building, 8 storeys high, and they inspected the whole thing in 2 hours. There's massive cracks in the plaster and in some places you can see the crack extends deep into concrete behind the plaster. I'm not a structural engineer but two hours seems like very little time to assess whether any of the load bearing structures are damaged and what that might mean for the integrity of the building. Especially as there's at least maybe 50 pillars per floor - 50x8 = 400. Can you check 400 pillars in 120 minutes, let alone floors, ceilings, the roof, stairwells, lift shafts etc? Then you hear about people returning to work for a few days only to get evacuated again because there some damage which was missed in the initial inspection. Scary stuff.

I very much doubt after Christchurch engineers would declare a building safe unless they were 100% satisfied. I had to provide evidence to the Royal Commission of Inquiry after the Christchurch earthquake on just this point and the engineers involved received an absolute grilling, it was all streamed on the internet and the documents are all public record.  

It's simply not worth the risk of jail time to open a building early. 

Engineers don't inspect the building in 2 hours, they spend 2 hours on site and take meticulous records, videos, and photos. If they built the building or strengthened it then they're going to have 3d models that they can run through an simulators, otherwise they will have the plans. They will then spend hours going over the videos and photos and compare any signs of stress to the plans, they know exactly what to look for and all the tell tale signs. If they're worried they will do a more invasive look. They will inform the building owner and the building owner is obliged to inform the tenants, the council, and civil defense if there are any concerns.