Miami Beach, Champlain Towers South apartment building collapse, Part 15 32

[SFCharlie]

A continuation of our discussion of this failure. Best to read the other threads first to avoid rehashing things already discussed.
Miami Beach, Champlain Towers South apartment building collapse
Miami Beach, Champlain Towers South apartment building collapse, Part 02
Miami Beach, Champlain Towers South apartment building collapse, Part 03
Miami Beach, Champlain Towers South apartment building collapse, Part 04
Miami Beach, Champlain Towers South apartment building collapse, Part 05
Miami Beach, Champlain Towers South apartment building collapse, Part 06
Miami Beach, Champlain Towers South apartment building collapse, Part 07
Miami Beach, Champlain Towers South apartment building collapse, Part 08
Miami Beach, Champlain Towers South apartment building collapse, Part 09
Miami Beach, Champlain Towers South apartment building collapse, Part 10
Miami Beach, Champlain Towers South apartment building collapse, Part 11
Miami Beach, Champlain Towers South apartment building collapse, Part 12
Miami Beach, Champlain Towers South apartment building collapse, Part 13
Miami Beach, Champlain Towers South apartment building collapse, Part 14

SF Charlie
Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

 

[Demented]

What are the intentions of the #5 90* hooks?

Edited to fix pre-coffee grammar.

 

[spsalso]

I would think that the cars parked on the southern side of the parking area would provide a load for that wall, through the deck edge.

If not, wouldn't they then be supported by a cantilevered deck?


spsalso


And it also would appear that re-bar in this building wasn't always installed where it should have been, so the lack thereof does not mean it wasn't necessary and/or planned.

 

[Optical98]

Keith 1

No one here disagrees that the membrane and it's maintenance was a big concern. But a few of us disagree with you that the perimeter wall was built to hold zero load.

I also believe you mentioned it was a post-tension build and that Josh from Building Integrity researched this and said it was NOT a post-tension build.

You keep mentioning the beams, some beams on the plans were not actually installed...which beams and "their condition" are you referring to?

Please stop with the name calling, it does nothing to further our comprehension of your conceptions.

 

[Demented]

@Optical,
I don't believe Keith said it was post or pre-tensioned. Possibly in an old edited/deleted post, but I see no mention of that; anymore at least.


However,

There are simply no defects in the construction of this structure, it was entirely a lack of maintenance

Precision guess work based on information provided by those of questionable knowledge

 

[Optical98]

Demented

On the 15th he ended his post with -
"What will really screw with you is in post-tension construction, it is 100% forbidden to have any load transfer on a wall."

I took that to mean he was talking about this build.

 

[Red Corona]

Even if that wall was supposed to have no tensile load applied to it, the contention in the BI video is that the failure of the slab at the pool deck column heads was giving it one.

And yeah it must have been supporting a compressive vertical load of the southernmost span (south of the last column) even at design time.

 

[Jeff Ostroff]

@IEGeezer I think you have an error on your floorplan drawing of the Monteagudo condo unit. Your red lettering shows K9.1, L9.1, M9.1. I believe that should be K10, L10, M10.

As there is no row nine of columns anywhere on the 11th stack units or any of the other units on that part of the condo building. The number 9 row of columns is over on Collins Ave side, the “06” stack of condo units for example.
Also interesting that Mike bell pointed to those three columns because he has commented on my video and chastised me for focusing on M11.1, he told me to give it up already and move on, LOL.

When in fact I think M11.1 is a strong candidate for where the deck may have originally collapsed in the first place. I don't think that the deck collapsed at the south wall is because if it had collapsed there that part would be down on the ground first and everything else probably sticking up higher but instead it looks like everything else collapsed first while the part of the pool deck that attached to that south wall was sort of hanging and leaning up against the wall.

That's why I don't think that's where the pool deck collapse began. I think the weakened, waterlogged area over M11.1, combined with exploration work done there that was not repaired per Morabito’s instructions led to the pool deck dropping.

 

[Nukeman948]

@IEGeezer I think you have an error on your floorplan drawing of the Monteagudo condo unit. Your red lettering shows K9.1, L9.1, M9.1. I believe that should be K10, L10, M10.

Actually, they are both correct. There is no number 9 row there, but there is a number 9.1 row.

The #9.1 location marker on the drawings indicates the center-line of those columns and the #10 indicates the outside surface of those same columns but it is a hard dimension because it defines that outside face of the building. For another example, the North East corner is P-1 on it's outside surface but O.1-1.1 for the center-line.

This was a common practice with some architects because if there was ever a revision to the drawings that called for a different size column on the #9.1 line for example, it would be required to shift it over accordingly to keep the #10 line straight.

Keeping it straight.​

 

[IEGeezer]

@Jeff Ostroff
On the Morabito blueprints there does not appear to be a gridline 10. I am referring to Sheet D2C-1.0 dated 04/26/2021.


I don't think there is a conflict between focusing on M11.1 and K9.1, L9.1 and M9.1. I think M11.1 did NOT fail in punching shear and its failure led directly to the failure of the KLM9.1 columns. The failure of the KLM9.1 columns is difficult to explain without what happened to KLM11.1. Had KLM11.1 NOT failed, the building might still be standing or it would have stood long enough for more lives to be saved.


M11.1, K13.1 and K14.1 are all overloaded by the planters. Regardless of which failed first, the others failed within seconds.

Agreed.

 

[Keith_1]

This is not a post tensioned building. What I was saying is that is that there is no hard connection between the wall and the deck in that type of construction In PT there is a at least 5/8th of an inch between the block or curtain and the deck. When you pull tendons you actually lift the deck up,and a hard connection between the deck and wall would be an extremely bad idea.

I was making an analogy as to why the perimeter wall is nothing more than a retaining wall, snd is not load bearing.

 

[spsalso]

But not answering the question about what is supporting the load of the cars parked above that wall.

spsalso

 

[SwinnyGG]

It's pretty clearly the perimeter wall, whether that violates the content of Keith's ENG 101 rubric or not.

 

[Nukeman948]

...what is supporting the load of the cars parked above that wall?

Ok, ENG 101.one,

Obviously, the hydro-static pressure induced by the membrane maintenance oscillator allows the slab to float on a cushion of highly viscus load bearings that prevents water intrusion at subgrade. The redundant mystery beam mount provides the stability needed for the eye beam housing attachment and retrograde decompression at the perimeter circumference.

The equilibrium vortex created by the youtube monetary distribution algorithm is counter propagated with an elaborate system of sonic spectrum drivers and valet moonbeams to keep the anti-frequency audio drivers in alignment on the perimeter tie-in bracket from interfering with the bull sheet piles.

If this should ever fail, the palm tree removal process would begin displacing the axial bilateral forklift extractor. Having the tar-kettle core orientated in such a way as to provide buoyancy compensation to lift the bucket-o-nonsense from the anti-gravity well, increasing the likelihood of pre-tensionary tendon reduction with the added benefit of providing pressure wave delta phase reciprocation. (You know that's a good thing, right?)

Obfuscating the obvious.​

 

[Jeff Ostroff]

@keith I always wondered could they have done better with the load bearing of the pool deck up against that South wall simply by placing a second wall in front of that existing South wall and up against the south wall that that now the pool deck can rest on top of that 2nd wall like a roof truss does on a regular brick house. Then they could tie in the pool deck to the South wall whatever method they were going to do and it still has its load bearing Underneath it by the secondary wall of bricks in front of the South wall. So the differences between the 2 walls would be the South wall connects head on into tge poldeck slab, where is the 2nd wall sits underneath the pool deck giving it the load support. Alternatively they could have just built that South wall so the edge of the pool deck rests on top of it rather than tie into it.

 

[spsalso]

NukeDude948,

When someone explains things as clearly and logically as you did, it is very embarrassing to find that one didn't think of it on one's own.

Talk about missing the obvious!

I hesitate to bring this up, but are you perhaps a student of Ron Hamburger? There's a familiar ring,.......


spsalso

 

[Demented]

*raises hand*
Teacher, I has question.

If the southern wall was just a retaining wall and not a load bearing wall, why would a reinforced concrete wall need be built? Couldn't you just leave it at the steel sheet piles? Why have 2 retaining walls butting up together?

Precision guess work based on information provided by those of questionable knowledge

 

[Keith_1]

@k[highlight #729FCF]eith I always wondered could they have done better with the load bearing of the pool deck up against that South wall simply by placing a second wall in front of that existing South wall and up agaianst the south wall that that now the pool deck can rest on top of that 2nd wall like a roof truss does on a regular brick house. Then they could tie in the pool deck to the South wall whatever method they were going to do and it still has its load bearing Underneath it by the secondary wall of bricks in front of the South wall. So the differences between the 2 walls would be the South wall connects head on into tge poldeck slab, where is the 2nd wall sits underneath the pool deck giving it the load support. Alternatively they could have just built that South wall so the edge of the pool deck rests on top of it rather than tie into it.[/highlight]

A simple beam supported between two columns will end up with a force profile where the 1/3 on the ends will be in compression and the 1/3 of the center will be in tension. This is why the wall is irrelevant as there is no load being transferred to it, for the simple reason there is nothing above it.
Loads in a building basically go straight down, A few kips of live load on the driveway is nothing, the issue is the weight of the building and balancing them and transferring to the foundation.

If Hydrostatic issues were not a major problem, houses in Florida would have basements, subgrade work is extremely difficult. I have used t-55 turbine powered pumps to dewater a site via point well for underground parking, and it is nothing I will ever do again, it was a total nightmare.

For the keyboard warriors, what supports that wall? I'am talking foundation what carries the load? It there was a grade beam over piles piers or even a footers then that would be one thing, but there is nothing under that wall.

 

[spsalso]

OK.

Keith is ignoring me, but I see that he is saying that only the weight of the building is worth bothering about. The weight of some cars, "A few kips of live load on the driveway", "is nothing".

And that would be the live load transferred to the top of the "retaining wall".

Yes. It is certainly true that the south wall of the garage was not heavily loaded by the building.

But it would appear that he is still in error by saying it "is not load bearing". He, unfortunately, did not say "only lightly loaded". He made an absolute statement, which still appears to be wrong.


spsalso

 

[Nukeman948]

I hesitate to bring this up, but are you perhaps a student of Ron Hamburger? There's a familiar ring,......

No, not a student of his or his work.
Of course you realize that, somewhere, someone must have been Ron Hamburger's "mentor".
Sorry, that wasn't me either.

Keith will continue to ignore anyone that brings up hard questions. He can't explain his ideas clearly enough for anyone to understand what concept he is trying to convey, and obviously can't back up any of his nonsense with documentation, facts, pictures, or any other types of evidence. You could either ignore him or poke fun at him. Life is too short to actually try to engage in debate with him.

Move along folks.
Nothing to see here.​

 

[spsalso]

Thank you, NukeDude948.

spsalso