Apartment Building Collapse 46

[dik]

"A six-story apartment complex partially collapsed Sunday evening in the city of Davenport, Iowa, authorities said. It was not immediately clear if there were any fatalities or how many people may be missing or trapped in the building.

Davenport Mayor Mike Matsen said there were "several people unaccounted for," but did not give a specific number or range.

The collapse happened shortly before 5 p.m. local time, Davenport fire chief Mike Carlsten said. The cause of the collapse was not immediately clear."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/davenport-iowa-building-collapse/

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[JAE]

Below are several items in the lawsuit that dik just posted a link to.
These are the relevant sections pertaining to the structural engineer (with my comments)

[blue]
96. However, once the extremely dangerous condition of the exterior west wall was observed, Mr. Valliere and Defendant Select Structural Engineering did absolutely nothing to warn the tenants and occupants of the building of this imminently dangerous condition that was putting their lives in grave and immediate danger.
97. The very first fundamental canon of the National Society of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics is that professional engineers must “Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” Mr. Valliere violated this sacred fundamental canon when he failed to take any action whatsoever to warn the tenants of The Davenport of the imminent danger posed by the structural instability of the exterior west wall or otherwise sound the alarms and call for the evacuation of the building until it could be made safe. [/blue]

I think that many past times I have been hesitant to go “around” my client to notify government authorities or local tenants of safety conditions as I feel I am an agent, so to speak, of my client and would typically rely on my client to decide to evacuate a building. Hasn’t happened often but I can see Mr. Valliere’s perspective in simply warning the client and depending on them to warrant the “safety and welfare of the public”. However, this event shows that we engineers shouldn’t be this passive when a structural collapse is a real concern.
[blue]
98. Mr. Valliere and Select Structural Engineering knew or should have known that failing to warn the tenants of The Davenport or immediately recommend or call for the evacuation of the building in light of the imminent danger would foreseeably expose the tenants and occupants of The Davenport, including Plaintiff, to an unreasonable and unacceptable risk of severe injury and/or death.
99. Despite this aforementioned knowledge, Mr. Valliere and Defendant Select Structural Engineering knowingly failed to warn the tenants of The Davenport of the imminent danger or call for the evacuation of the building until it could be made safe.

112. On May 23, 2023—just five days before this tragic collapse—Mr. Valliere of Select Structural Engineering made another visit to the site. His findings at this inspection were alarming and should have raised immediate red flags to the Wold Defendants, and the City of Davenport that an immediate evacuation of the building was required to protect the health and safety of the tenants and occupants of the building.
113. There is no excuse for Mr. Valliere not doing everything possible to ensure the building was evacuated based on his observations during this visit. ]/b]
114. In a May 24, 2023 report, Mr. Valliere notes that on the exterior west wall “there are several large patches of clay brick façade which are separating from the substrate large patches appear ready to fall imminently, which may create a safety hazard to cars or passersby.
[/blue]
Note that here Mr. Valliere appears to be primarily concerned with exterior safety issues (cars or passerby). This makes me wonder if he wasn’t cognizant of the interior structural framing system and only concerned with the exterior wall as an enclosure, vs. a vital element in supporting six levels of floor. He did earlier indicate the need for an interior post to support a single beam, but the reports issued by Select Structural all appear to be mostly focused on the exterior.
[blue]
115. Mr. Valliere observed that “there are two former window openings, roughly 12 feet tall by six feet wide, which appear to have been bricked over some years ago. The clay brick façade on and between these openings is bulging outward by several inches and looks poised to fall. In anticipation of these areas falling, the brick façade above the windows should be secured. This is to keep the entire face of the building from falling away when the bottom area(s) come loose.”[/blue]

Here the attorneys zero in on what is probably the main legal danger to the engineer, the lack of acting on engineering knowledge to warn the public.
[blue]
119. Mr. Valliere and Select Structural Engineering knew or should have known that failing to warn the tenants and occupants of The Davenport of the grave and imminent danger they were in or otherwise call for the immediate evacuation of the building would foreseeably expose the residents, including Plaintiff, to an unreasonable and unacceptable risk of severe injury and/or death.
120. Despite this aforementioned knowledge, Mr. Valliere and Select Structural Engineering outrageously and recklessly remained silent, and knowingly failed to warn the tenants and occupants of The Davenport of the grave and imminent danger they were in or otherwise call for the immediate evacuation of the building to safeguard the residents’ lives.
121. Mr. Valliere and Select Structural Engineering turned their backs on the sacred fundamental canon of their ethical code to “Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” [/blue]

If anything this certainly should warn all of us here to keep the public safety paramount in our work, separate and transcendent over our contractual obligations to our clients.

 

[WinelandV]

Soo...... what exactly should Mr. Valliere done, specifically? Pulled the fire alarm to get everyone out of the building? Gone door to door personally telling each tenant to get out?

Say the engineer does all that, and then, as someone above mentioned, now the building doesn't fall down. Is Mr. Valliere liable for damages from the owner?

Do any of us feel like we have the authority to evacuate an entire building? If this is the expectation, we should be pushing for legislation that holds us harmless in the event that a catastrophic event does not occur after a building evacuation.

Just some random thoughts. Feel free to rip 'em to shreds.

Please note that is a "v" (as in Violin) not a "y".

 

[gte447f]

WinelandV,

My personal understanding of these matters goes something like this. We are supposed to make the pertinent recommendations to our client first. If they are a layperson, and they overrule our engineering judgement, then we are supposed to go over their head and report our findings and recommendations to the appropriate authorities. That is the gist of what the laws in my state, and I'm sure others, require. If the proper authorities overrule your engineering judgement, then I suppose you could go door to door if your conscience demanded. This last part, the part about if the proper authorities overrule your engineering judgment, is not mentioned in my state laws I don't think.

In this particular case in Iowa, in the engineering letters and reports that I have read, I have not seen a finding that the primary structural system was at risk of imminent structural failure and collapse, nor have a seen a recommendation to evacuate the building. In fact, at least one communication included a finding that the situation did not pose an imminent safety risk.

 

[JohnRBaker]

While I agree with JAE's overall conclusion, I also can see where this could lead to problems which eventually the courts will have to resolve in terms of who is responsible to whom and for what and when. What I mean is, if the engineer did indeed feel that his client was not heeding his advice to notify the tenants and others who could be harmed, either physically or financially, and he took it upon himself to directly notify these individuals and there was not a subsequent failure or problem where someone might have been injured, he could be sued for preventing his client from benefiting from the use of his property/business. I'm not saying that the engineer needs to always put his clients well-being above those who might be harmed as a result of his clients inaction, but it still must be a consideration.

While I've never been in a situation anywhere near what happened here, as a machine designer, I was responsible for trying to make the machinery that we were manufacturing as safe as possible by anticipating potential problems. Now in our case it was protection for the machine operators and/or the maintenance personal who would have to repair and service the machinery. We could install guards, interlocks, platforms with railings, safety systems and protection when starting something like a large bakery oven which was gas-fired and might include steam injectors, but once a piece of machinery was installed and the customer formally signed-off on the job, it was pretty much no longer our responsibility. Now there were times when we were contracted to come in and do some of the more complicated and significant preventative maintenance or to perform upgrades and repairs, and if we saw that the efforts that we had put into the original design and installation for the safety of the client's employees were being circumvented or bypassed, we were obligated to point that out to both the customer and to our management. In the 14 years that I worked for that company, while there were accidents reported at customer sites, I can't recall us ever having been shown to have been responsible. In virtually every case, it was either outright poor behavior by the individual(s) involved or it was only after the safety systems of the machinery had been compromised by the customer or his employees. We were quite proud of our safety record when it came to the proper use of our products.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[dik]

Concur, the owner is the first line of action, and depends on how serious the fault looks... but, if there was no quick action on the owner's part, the AHJ would be next in line.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[Tomfh]

However, this event shows that we engineers shouldn’t be this passive when a structural collapse is a real concern.

Clearly with the benefit of hindsight this building should have been evacuated. But why this assumption that the engineer knew there was an imminent collapse but chose to turn a blind eye?

Clearly the engineer missed it. He thought he was dealing with a defective facade, when really he was dealing with something much worse.

I just don’t understand this mindset of engineers immediately going for the kill when another engineer misses something.

 

[Tomfh]

Do any of us feel like we have the authority to evacuate an entire building?

Yes, but there has to be a clear and present danger in advance, not hindsight.

You can’t just evacuate every building that isn’t up to code. No engineer does that.

Say the engineer does all that, and then, as someone above mentioned, now the building doesn't fall down. Is Mr. Valliere liable for damages from the owner?

If it can be shown that the engineer acted without good reason, then yes. If you can be shown have been acting in good conscience over building defects, as a precaution, then no.

 

[dik]

People maybe died because of his oversight.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[Sym P. le]

An excellent summary of the collapse by Mike Bell youtube.

Composite multiwythe bearing wall supporting interior steel frame.

 

[kissymoose]

Yes, I feel it is obvious that nobody had concerns about an imminent collapse. The structural engineer didn't think it would collapse, the owner didn't think it would collapse, the city didn't think it would collapse, the contractors didn't think it would collapse, the people living in the building didn't think it would collapse. This narrative that anyone was risking lives with a collapse in order to save some money or appease a client doesn't make any sense. Anyone who thinks something like this is about to happen either runs away to distance themselves or does whatever they can to stop it. The half-assed shoring and lack of urgency and communication of danger in the reports indicates that nobody saw this coming. Just like the Champlain towers. People saw areas of concern that should be addressed, but nobody thought buildings were going to come down and people would die.

I think the area of focus for us as engineers should be how to spot situations like this and diagnose potentially lethal conditions. I, for one, will take more seriously doing work on old buildings with steel beams bearing on multi-wythe masonry. I don't think the focus should be on whether or not the engineer should have alerted everyone to an immediate danger because he obviously didn't think there was any. We should talk about why he didn't see the danger and how to look for it in our own work.

 

[gte447f]

Excellent point kissymoose.

 

[Tomfh]

Spot on kissymoose.

 

[IRstuff]

I don't think the focus should be on whether or not the engineer should have alerted everyone to an immediate danger because he obviously didn't think there was any.

The question is, I think, should he have known? Did he REALLY think that the facade just fell away all by itself? It was so neatly done that it could have only fallen if it were pushed from the hidden wythes, which should have raised questions as to how that happened, and the exposed inner wythes are in such bad shape that one has to seriously wonder why the engineer thought that attaching a relatively new, and relatively pristine facade to crumbling and deteriorated wall could possibly even work.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[JAE]

The engineer….in his reports, indicated that there was serious potential for collapse. He was warning an owner who didn’t respond to those warnings.

 

[phamENG]

The question is, I think, should he have known? Did he REALLY think that the facade just fell away all by itself?

This would depend on the engineer's knowledge of historic construction methods. In modern construction, this is very possible. I've seen whole walls of brick veneer fall off and not worry the building one bit. Most cavity wall construction more than 40 years old is unlikely to have anything tying the wall together even if it had ties to begin with. In multiwythe, non-cavity walls it depends. If it's a running bond with no tie courses, then you're depending on the collar joints to keep them together and the veneer's contribution to the walls stability is questionable.

There is a sketch for a new column. That is potentially telling. It suggests the engineer did have some concern about the ability of the structure to support itself. But it's certainly not damming on its own. Perhaps a recognition of a coming problem, and the immediate safety concerns of construction would be handled by the contractor. Hard to say, and we're unlikely to have as much information as the experts testifying in the case. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it both technically and legally.

 

[dragon6172]

I think the question is do you think the building collapsed on it's own from deterioration, or was the collapse accelerated because of the piss poor shoring. Would the collapse have happened if the engineers drawings had been followed? And if those drawings were followed does the risk of collapse increase enough to warrant an evacuation of the building?

 

[JAE]

That’s all correct. But the engineer should have known that the exterior walls were load bearing elements supporting the exterior bay line (5 floors of it).

This wasn’t just a facade issue. This brick wall that was bowing, fractured and prompting him to recommend at least a post under an interior beam suggests that he knew the wall was a non-redundant element.

 

[JAE]

dragon6172, that diagonal shoring wasn’t very serious attempt at supporting the floors of this building.

 

[Tomfh]

indicated that there was serious potential for collapse

The reports referred to the potential for facade collapse, not building collapse.

This wasn’t just a facade issue.

That's clear with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[chris3eb]

The structural engineer didn't think it would collapse

This narrative that anyone was risking lives with a collapse in order to save some money or appease a client doesn't make any sense.

I'm not speculating on this engineer or this scenario, but these two ideas aren't congruent. A drunk driver doesn't think they are going to crash, the decision makers at Nasa didn't think the Challenger was going to explode, and the engineers at FIGG didn't think the FIU bridge would collapse. But all of these people were certainly risking people's lives with their decisions. Most reckless people don't think that their recklessness will catch up to them, but that doesn't mean they aren't being reckless.