Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations GregLocock on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Avalanche Burys Hotel in Italy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Has that been Photoshopped? I mean, the sky looks blue in that picture - something that's clearly impossible!

A.
 
Sky color could always be manipulated, even in the DDBA, by using UV and/or blue filters.


Conway Castle in Wales:
URL]


TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
It would be interesting to review the areas where the survivors were found to determine if there is a design element that provides the best chance of survival in the event of the disaster, and that feature could be incorporated into future hotel designs in at risk areas.
 
I think I just read that two of them were in a car.

So maybe we should all be sleeping in our cars.
 
Italian mountain resorts...only, I remember that in spring/summer/autumn one sometimes hears about mudslides taking away buildings etc. and to cover the fullness of the year there's the avalanches..
However, there must be people knowing to pick construction locations not prone to avalanches / mudslides. Then again, well, shouldn't immunity against such events be a stringent design criteria for construction in mountain areas?
I come from a small town near the sea, so the need for a breakwater is evident, and projecting this into the mountains this could be done by some dam or buildup hillock towards the slope. Could be fitted nicely into the picturesqe landscape w/o evident concrete..


Roland Heilmann
Lpz FRG
 
"Then again, well, shouldn't immunity against such events be a stringent design criteria for construction in mountain areas?"

Seriously? We don't even do that in the US. Floods, tornadoes, etc. routinely demolish buildings and towns, and I don't see anyone saying that the re-builds should be tornado or flood proof. Or earthquake proof in Alaska and California. We don't demand that our cars be build to withstand all possible collisions. We don't demand that our airplanes have triple redundancy in all systems.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
"Then again, well, shouldn't immunity against such events be a stringent design criteria for construction in mountain areas?"

Seriously? We don't even do that in the US. Floods, tornadoes, etc. routinely demolish buildings and towns, and I don't see anyone saying that the re-builds should be tornado or flood proof. Or earthquake proof in Alaska and California. We don't demand that our cars be build to withstand all possible collisions. We don't demand that our airplanes have triple redundancy in all systems.

We actually do design for snow and wind loading in specific geography; as well as size heating and cooling systems accordingly.

I recall reading that a homeowner in Tennessee was able to save his home from the recent forest fires because he had managed his property (clearing brush) over the years to mitigate the effects of a forest fire

In your own experience, if you have a chronically wet basement you put in shelving to keep stuff off the floor.

The challenge is what to do with existing structures
 
Lets start with you can't protect, or regulate stupid. Yes beach houses get washed away every year.
So maybe one should start with insurable risk. If the cost of insurance is real high, then maybe that's the wrong place.

In the middle of the US houses get blown away by tornadoes, but some houses survive for over 100 years. So much for bad luck.
However, if the houses were designed as earth shelter houses, they might better survive. But they have a lower resale value.

I have heard many times that people should not be allowed to build there because of the risk. Yet, I can say the same for building on the coast, or even for house boats.
The fact is there is no place that has no risk.

Was this a bad place for a building? Or had more than usual risk?
I don't know, but if there is a way to reduce the risk or effects, then let's hear it.
 
[URL unfurl="true" said:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/26/last-bodies-recovered-from-italian-avalanche-hotel[/URL]]The final death toll from an avalanche in central Italy last week is 29, firefighters have said, after the last bodies were pulled out of the rubble of a hotel crushed by the snow.
Also
[URL unfurl="true" said:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/europe/italy-avalanche-hotel/[/URL]]Italy avalanche: Hotel search ends with 29 dead, 11 rescued
Sad

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter
 
Yes,
pls. give me the chance of a rehearsal of wording and to add some illustration:
- "design criteria" to be read "choice of location" - criteria,
- immunity: Instead of building at a per se dangerous location (add fences / protections at cost as described as above by others), why not use excavated soil + some boulders to build up some breakwater ("breaksnow"), in case no other location is at hand and especially instead of doing nothing and waiting for the big one?
These are commonplaces, sure enough. However, doesn't it seem as if commonplaces aren't hardwired into regulation there's a good chance to get them ignored?

I'm sorry the ill. is an attachment only, the "upload image"-functionality doesn't work anymore for me.



Roland Heilmann
Lpz FRG
 
 http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=b5f395a0-c712-4447-8bb2-894c56fb34b5&file=illustration.PNG
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor