Hard Rock Hotel under construction in New Orleans collapses... 119

[OHIOMatt]

IRstuff, you make a valid point, let's leave names and links out of it. That information is easy enough to find, if you are so inclined.

 

[bones206]

This is borderline doxxing by a bunch of junior detectives with limited evidence. Please tread lightly. Peoples lives and livelihoods are at stake.

I agree with the doxxing sentiment. Since the formal investigation is ongoing, I think it would be best to keep names out of the discussion as much as possible. We can still talk through this using generic terms like contractor, engineer or inspector, without publishing their names ourselves. Anyone can readily look up the names on their own.

However, I don't see a problem with pointing out potential red flags if they may have relevance. I posted a link early on in this thread regarding New Orleans building officials who are currently subjects of a federal corruption investigation. Corruption and/or lack of inspection or thorough plan review could easily have played a role in all this, so it's a relevant data point to present. But I presented it with a disclaimer making it clear that it's just an isolated data point and it's too early to connect those dots. I didn't publish anyone's name.

It's a fine line and agree that we should strive to discuss what happened with due respect to those caught up in this tragedy. Disasters like this are usually multi-factorial and could very well be a series of lapses by several individuals that lead to a "perfect storm" scenario. So I think it's fair to examine anything that we think may be relevant, because you never know if something seemingly insignificant could turn out to be a contributing factor. But let's try to avoid being prematurely punitive by publishing names in a way that implies culpability. The internet never forgets.

 

[sandman21]

JAE - sealed and signed does not equate to perfect or without error. It's okay to critique the drawings, but some of the comments are dangling on the edge of arrogance. The comment was for the benefit of all to remember, you're only one mistake away from scrutiny.

If you are turning in a plan check submittal set which does not have a complete gravity or lateral system and will be correcting it later then you are bound to have a building collapse. These are not minor gaps to be filled in later we are not talking about soffit connections, custom connection details, etc. we are seeing gaps in basic engineering. Also these issues are never one mistake but mistakes made down the line. If one mistake was the issue building failures would so frequent as to be the norm and also be easily corrected. Dismissing criticism of these drawings because every project has an RFI for something missing is weak to say the least.

Doxxing is releasing private information to identify an individuals. Peoples public website, LinkedIn, etc. are not private. With that said the only person responsible is the EOR, the errors may have been done by a staff engineer or EIT. However, you sign the drawings you own any issues that come from the design.

 

[IRstuff]

That may be your opinion about doxxing, but Wikipedia and others define it thusly:

Doxing or doxxing (from dox, abbreviation of documents) is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifying information (especially personally identifying information) about an individual or organization.
The methods employed to acquire this information include searching publicly available databases and social media websites (like Facebook), hacking, and social engineering. It is closely related to Internet vigilantism and hacktivism.

Yes, public information is public, but there's no need here to publish anyone's name or profile, since this is about the engineering and not the person. That's for the actual investigators to determine the relevance.

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

 

[MJB315]

“Engineering is a great profession. There is the fascination of watching a figment of the imagination emerge through the aid of science to a plan on paper. Then it moves to realization in stone or metal or energy. Then it brings jobs and homes to men. Then it elevates the standards of living and adds to the comforts of life. That is the engineer’s high privilege.

The great liability of the engineer compared to men of other professions is that his works are out in the open where all can see them. His acts, step by step, are in hard substance. He cannot bury his mistakes in the grave like the doctors. He cannot argue them into thin air or blame the judge like the lawyers. He cannot, like the architects, cover his failures with trees and vines. He cannot, like the politicians, screen his shortcomings by blaming his opponents and hope the people will forget. The engineer simply cannot deny he did it. If his works do not work, he is damned…

On the other hand, unlike the doctor his is not a life among the weak. Unlike the soldier, destruction is not his purpose. Unlike the lawyer, quarrels are not his daily bread. To the engineer falls the job of clothing the bare bones of science with life, comfort, and hope. No doubt as years go by the people forget which engineer did it, even if they ever knew. Or some politician puts his name on it. Or they credit it to some promoter who used other people’s money . . . But the engineer himself looks back at the unending stream of goodness which flows from his successes with satisfactions that few professions may know. And the verdict of his fellow professionals is all the accolade he wants.”

It is the duty of all engineers to review, discussion, dissect and nitpick failures. We need to understand them. Every student needs the story drummed into them. It's the only way we move collectively forward.

I really feel for the design team (and construction team, review team, code team, area businesses, workers families, etc.) - but the work is in the open for all to see. And it didn't work.

So let's discuss why.

"We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us." -WSC

 

[azcats]

Article that includes video from worker before collapse.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.nola.com/news/article_d82bade0-f032-11e9-aaf6-231f92b121e2.html?32249&utm_medium=notification&utm_source=pushly&utm_campaign=desktop_push[/url]

 

[bones206]

“What it shows is that the concrete deck has so much deflection that they can’t remove the shore posts,” [The contractor interviewed in the article] said. “They have so much load on them, it’s bending them.” [The contractor interviewed in the article] said he’s been told workers had been removing the temporary posts, and “when they got to less and less of them, got more and more load on ‘em,” they tried to tell the contractor to stop but were told to keep going.

 

[StrucDesignPE]

Looking at the video, it's hard to see the sag in the deck as the video looks like it was filmed on a potato. But, the bent shoring post is clearly visible and it seems to be bent at a point higher than what one would think likely if it was hit by some piece of equipment.

Notice that at the 1:00 to 1:05 mark on the video, it looks like the corridor framing where there is left-to-right deck span and no beams crossing as JAE pointed out yesterday. This would seem to indicate it is the same building despite the GC's spokesman in the article questioning the video's provenance.

 

[structuralengr89]

Oh my goodness...Even the guys out in the field know a W10x19 is a "Shit Beam"

 

[NOLAscience]

Yes it is still doxxing if something wasn't hacked. Even if it is public information its not warranted on this forum. We all want to know what went wrong. Calling out companies or public entities involved is fair, but not their personnel.

It does make me shake my head to see that the building inspector had a master's in Urban Studies and a bachelor's in architecture, so I am thankful to the person who posted the link to the resumé of the plan reviewer. No one is blaming him, and I am not even ready to blame any profession or craftsman on the job. It's just more data.

 

[NOLAscience]

Ok, on to a new subject. Could we get some comments from those of you who use REVIT regarding what the model would return for that strange framing on Floors 15 or so (Col Rows E-H and 1-6, from the image I shared above) near the Canal/Rampart corner (and the same at the Iberville/Rampart corner)? Even if a W10x19 were used in the model, why didn't the model show failure at that area?

I calculate mostly by hand or with very small models, so I don't know much about REVIT beyond some PDH training a year or so ago.

And this was the engineering company's 10th structural design in REVIT! You can do your own search to see the size and scale of their other recent designs.

From Facebook: "REVIT Model and completion of Ochsner Lake Terrace. Heaslip Engineering has hit TEN completed structural designs in Revit!"

 

[MrHershey]

Ok, on to a new subject. Could we get some comments from those of you who use REVIT regarding what the model would return for that strange framing on Floors 15 or so (Col Rows E-H and 1-6, from the image I shared above) near the Canal/Rampart corner (and the same at the Iberville/Rampart corner)? Even if a W10x19 were used in the model, why didn't the model show failure at that area?

I calculate mostly by hand or with very small models, so I don't know much about REVIT beyond some PDH training a year or so ago.

Despite what Autodesk may claim or portray, most engineering firms are doing zero analysis or design in Revit. Revit is typically used for drawing production and building 3D models to detect conflicts between design trades and that's it.

It CAN do analysis and design, but I don't think I've run into a single design firm yet that actually uses it for that. All of the analysis is done in a separate application and then those results are imported or translated over to Revit.

 

[NOLAscience]

Looking at the video, it's hard to see the sag in the deck as the video looks like it was filmed on a potato. But, the bent shoring post is clearly visible and it seems to be bent at a point higher than what one would think likely if it was hit by some piece of equipment.

Notice that at the 1:00 to 1:05 mark on the video, it looks like the corridor framing where there is left-to-right deck span and no beams crossing as JAE pointed out yesterday. This would seem to indicate it is the same building despite the GC's spokesman in the article questioning the video's provenance

I love it: "filmed on a potato"!

That corridor is certainly a strange entity. Kills all continuity of the framing. In the collapse, I agree with 'bones206', who noted that the corridor acted like a "fuse" to prevent collapse of the entire building above the parking garage podium level.

 

[NOLAscience]

It CAN do analysis and design, but I don't think I've run into a single design firm yet that actually uses it for that. All of the analysis is done in a separate application and then those results are imported or translated over to Revit.

Ok, agreed. I remember that model importing from the PDH training now. So why didn't the separate application catch the problem (if, indeed, it is a problem) before importing or translating into REVIT?

 

[IceNine]

I'm still going back to the transfer girders at level 15. The W16x26 beams support W6x20 columns above, which support 3 additional levels above.
These W16x26 beams frame into W18x35 beams (Grid JJ between 4 and 9 for example). This beam is the same size on the floor below,which doesn't have these transfer loads.

It is very confusing because the W6 columns aren't shown on the 15th floor framing plan, but on the next sheet labeled 16th floor - roof column plan.

 

[structuralengr89]

REVIT is BIM modeling...It is typically not used in the US for structural analysis...it has replaced CAD for providing Construction Documents...I would guess that in Louisiana most designers would be using Bentley's Ram Structural System for analysis.

During the initial stages of the design, some designers might place a holder beam in the model until the Engineer determines the size.

 

[structuralengr89]

So why didn't the separate application catch the problem (if, indeed, it is a problem) before importing or translating into REVIT?

It not the job of the computer program to "CATCH THE PROBLEM". It is the job of the engineer to know what he is doing.


How about some basic span to depth ratios for Steel Girders and Joists that I was taught the first month of beginning my career in building design???

A W10 Girder spanning almost 30'??? Any structural engineer who has spent anytime analyzing beams know this will be a problem with excessive deflection and likely your connection detail.

I rarely use W10s because I can't get enough bolts in them.

 

[WinelandV]

Ok, agreed. I remember that model importing from the PDH training now. So why didn't the separate application catch the problem (if, indeed, it is a problem) before importing or translating into REVIT?

Because there are a lot of firms that, like mine, just brute force the model (i.e., build it within REVIT from the ground up). We use RISA, and while there is a RISA-REVIT link, by the time I've sorted out all the node and floor level issues, I find that it's just as fast to model it directly. EDIT TO ADD: and so, when the design finally gets done, you have to go back into the model and update all the members. Whatever analysis program should have alerted the designer to any issues.

Unrelated to the REVIT, from Table 3-6 in the 15th edition, Max uniform loading (ASD) on a 17' W10x19 is only 1,294 plf (assumes laterally braced to develop Mp - about 3'). With a trib width of 25', that leaves max D+L floor load of 51.8 psf. (Note: see structuralengr89's post with the semi-close up of the framing. The 17' long beam w/25' trib width is on MM.7) That's what I get for not downloading the plans. (See below, beams are supposed to be composite)

 

[IceNine]

Unrelated to the REVIT, from Table 3-6 in the 15th edition, Max uniform loading (ASD) on a 17' W10x19 is only 1,294 plf (assumes laterally braced to develop Mp - about 3'). With a trib width of 25', that leaves max D+L floor load of 51.8 psf. (Note: see structuralengr89's post with the semi-close up of the framing. The 17' long beam w/25' trib width is on MM.7)

These are composite beams, so Table 3-6 doesn't apply.

 

[PEinVA]

These are composite beams, so Table 3-6 doesn't apply.

Correct. I was just going to point that out. I know when we've specified composite beams we always put W18x35[XX] or something after the member size with the [XX] indicating number of studs.

I see on this plan there is just a generic table for studs at a specific spacing depending on their length.

I can't say I've ever seen this for composite construction at least in the DC/MD/VA area.

RC