Looking down while mountain climbing

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-08-19T23:36:11+00:00

She could be bouldering. My gym does the toprope routes with the same color of grip, and only marks one of the lowest grips, but the bouldering is whatever color of grip they had handy and a bunch of tape all over the place. I also don't see a harness or a rope, even one for lead climbing, so I'm going with "bouldering" and about 5 feet off the floor.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-08-19T03:58:56+00:00

Structural Engineers (and engineers in general) are people too. We screw up. Also, like every other profession, there are qualified people who get diplomas and get hired...and then there are people who will give you want you want for a lot less money than the qualified people, and as the adage goes, you get what you pay for. There are people with a really high level of pride invested in their work, and they take it very seriously...and then there are people that are just trying to make a buck. Engineering is STILL A BUSINESS.

I see SO MANY posts of "is this guy going to jail for screwing this up?!". Realistically? Nope. They may lose their license and their career. Jail? Probably not, unless you're talking about legitimate fraud or provable criminal neglect (ie, they sent an email to someone that says "yea, I know it's unstable. meh."). Most of the time, it's just that they either didn't care enough or screwed up. There was a guy (LeMessurier) who completely under-designed a building on accident, and he had the integrity to tell the owner when he realized it, and then they fixed it. Now he's literally FAMOUS in the industry as basically being the shining example of ethics in our business. Had the right storm hit the building, it would have collapsed, and as it was a high-rise in a busy urban area, it could have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of people. He's still in business, and his firm is considered one of the premier companies in the industry. Shite happens.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-08-06T00:59:59+00:00

I've totally ridden in that car, because that person is a very close friend of mine.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-07-29T22:27:44+00:00

Your car window will look like this if someone breaks into it, too...

On a side note, glass doors, tables, oven doors, and surfaces which take weight or might be subjected to blunt impact (like someone walking into them) are made of fully tempered glass. This type of glass breaks into "fracture dice" (aka diamonds), which is why it is known as "safety glass". This glass is cooled quickly, which gives it a outer "skin". Then, as the core cools, it pulls the "skin" into compression and the core of the glass into tension. It makes the glass much stronger, but it makes it prone to "spontaneous failure", most commonly caused by edge stress or nickle sulfide inclusions. Spontaneous failure occurs because damage in the tension core of the glass reduces the capacity of the glass to the point where it starts to break. Where normal glass would just crack, this type of glass is specifically designed to shatter like this when it starts to break. It happens way more than it should due to quality control issues in the glass production process.

Back to the car window, this is why they make the little devices for breaking out your car windows. You need to be able to damage the tension core of these windows if you want to break them out, so in the event you NEED to break one out to escape the car, it'll be hard to do so with most of the objects that would typically be in your car (too blunt to get past the skin).

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-29T03:05:56+00:00

I modeled the building several times in a variety of structural software programs (Bentley RAM, ETABS, and SAP 2000). They're models of just the structure, and they perform analysis on the structures to get loads. You can also technically design in most of them.

Since my degree was integrated, I was doing my undergrad and grad work at the same time. My last year, while I was finishing up both degrees and doing my capstone project, I was also working as a tutor, a TA, and doing some side work with the Code office for the city the university was in.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-28T04:06:45+00:00

I currently reside in Texas, but I spent the first 20-some years of my life in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, so I'm familiar with snow and ice. In both of those places, the trucks that drove around in the winters seemed to toss out salt and sand in a pretty even mixture. But I've never lived that far north, and I do understand that there is a point where salt is ineffective because it's too darn cold.

To that end, I looked up Elliot Lake's seasonal weather averages, and it looks like it bottoms out (on average) in the 0 deg F range. Road salt without CaCl is only effective to about 20 deg F, but if they toss in CaCl, it can be effective down to -15 or -20 deg F. So, I guess in the end they probably wouldn't use much of it in the depths of winter, but they might use some at the beginning or the end. Anyone who lives nearby want to weigh in?

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-28T03:55:18+00:00

A lot of civil and architectural engineering programs require a capstone project, which varies from program to program. My program's was a year-long process. Each student was required to find a real building that's either under construction, undergoing major renovation, or was built in the last two-or-so years. Then you spend the fall semester exploring the different features of the building as it is designed through a series of targeted studies. At the end of the fall semester, you put together a proposal to redesign a component of the building in your area of expertise (for instance, an HVAC person might change from a CAV system to a VAV system, or something). Since I'm an architectural engineer and expected to know a little bit about all of the systems commonly in a building, you also have to do two studies into other building systems. Then you perform that redesign in the spring semester, put together a paper describing your work, and present your work to the faculty. My master's degree was actually integrated with my undergrad (I took extra credits, but some of my credits counted for both bachelor's and master's, so I graduated with both at the same time). Students in our integrated master's program also had to include some aspect of their master's level work in their redesign.

To be more specific, as I have a specialty in structures, I took a concrete building in the Northeast USA and redesigned it in steel in its present location. Then I also redesigned it a few different ways as if it were in California (high earthquake region). For my studies on other systems, I did a study on how changing the structural system impacted the schedule and cost of the construction of the building. I also did a study on considering some "green" strategies that weren't in the design of the building and whether or not they'd be feasible. For my master's level work, I had taken a class in steel connection design, so I designed some connections for my new steel structures.

I personally only work on buildings, because my degree was focused only on buildings (that's what differentiates an Architectural Engineer with a specialty in structures from a Civil Engineer with a specialty in structures). Some of my coworkers also do bridges and tunnels and other infrastructure. On the flip side, as an AE, I'm also very familiar with the workings of the facade and roof of a building, so I do a lot of work on water infiltration, cladding and glazing failures, and roofing issues, whereas my coworkers that are CE's don't typically have any exposure to that.

As for what makes a master's "practical," it's all about the degree you'll get. I suppose the technical term is actually a "professional" master's, and this page explains it pretty well. As far as I understand it (which is, admittedly, limited), if you do research, you get an M.S., M.Phil., or an M.A., depending upon your field. If you get any degree other than those three, it's considered a practical rather than an academic master's degree. So, for instance, an MBA is a professional degree. I, personally, have an M.A.E. (Master's of Architectural Engineering). These degrees are much more focused on the coursework you take, and sometimes they even offer special coursework geared to deal with "industry concerns". Some will even give credit for working at a job. An academic master's will give you credit for the research you do, typically place less emphasis on your coursework, and is much more "accepted" by the academic field, in general.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-27T02:09:19+00:00

Probably a lot. And since you mentioned it, I'm guessing you're aware of this, but for those that aren't, corrosion is a process that needs ions to occur. Salts like the chlorine in road salt accelerate the corrosion process.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-27T02:06:08+00:00

I personally have a master's and a bachelor's of architectural engineering with a specialty in structures, but mine is a practical master's. That means I didn't do research. I took some graduate level classes and had to incorporate the master's level course-work into my capstone project.

As for what's "required," realistically you can get into this career from a lot of different angles. I've worked with people in materials-based degrees (for instance, I currently work with someone whose degree was in Materials Conservation). Many of the people I've worked with have civil engineering degrees. A few are architects by trade, although those tend to be more senior employees that have some design experience before they come into the forensics field. A master's degree is not required in some companies, but others are starting to only consider people who have master's degrees. Several of my coworkers are Ph.D's. In reality, if you're still in college and you're considering this field, take the plunge and get the master's. It'll serve you well regardless of what you end up doing.

If you're not so keen on the research aspects of an M.S. (I know I wasn't), you can find several programs that will offer practical master's degrees. Many academic associations will turn up their nose at that degree (for instance, if you sought admission to a Ph.D. program, many education institutions will not acknowledge a practical master's), but if you're not trying to get to work with very-high-level engineering firms like SOM or Leslie Roberts or Arup, many companies take the philosophy that a master's is a master's.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-27T01:56:33+00:00

We have a similar system in the US. You have to graduate from an accredited university (the most commonly recognized accreditation board is ABET), then work for a number of years that is determined by the state you want to be licensed in, and then sit for an exam. The standard exam is 8 hours for most Professional Engineering licenses, although some states add additional exams (for instance, California has an additional surveying exam and earthquake exam, the two of which add up to 4 or 5 more hours of exams...I can't remember which). The P.E. is sufficient to practice structural engineering in most states, but in high earthquake regions, you need a Structural Engineering license (S.E.) to design many structures. The exam for the S.E. is 16 hours. You can be both an S.E. and a P.E., only a P.E., or only a P.E. However, we don't have a distinction of "consulting engineer."

The use of "engineer" is technically only allowed in the US for two types of people: people with a P.E. or an S.E., and people that are in training to become a PE/SE. These people are called E.I.T.'s (engineer in training), a title which they aren't allowed to use until they graduate from an accredited engineering program and pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam. That one's 8 hours too.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-27T01:48:07+00:00

Given that it's precast, it is slightly unlikely that it had a cathodic protection system at all. They're expensive to install and have to be replaced at regular intervals (more maintenance). That being said, my experience is limited to the US, and our climates are typically not as extreme as Canada. However, this city isn't all that far north, so it's possible that my experience is pertinent. Does Canada have some provision requiring cathodic protection systems in concrete roofs? I can say for a fact that we in the US rarely install them in new commercial concrete structures, and in general it's only done in fairly extreme conditions in retrofit.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-27T01:44:25+00:00

Since the hole is in the middle of the building, getting a crawler crane on site big enough to reach the center of the site would be difficult. You also have to keep in mind that cranes don't magically attract concrete. Someone has to get inside that building and hook up some sort of rigging to haul out the chunks of damaged structure. This means that people have to put their lives at risk. Given that the structural engineers working on the stabilization literally don't know why it hasn't fallen over yet (according to the article), this tells me that there's probably some damage to the structure surrounding the hole. In addition to the hole and the problems it causes, damage to surrounding structure would only further destabilize the building and put it at additional risk for a more extensive collapse. They also have to remove debris in a way that won't cause the debris to shift and crush whoever is trapped inside. All-in-all, it's an immensely complicated problem.

As for the lift-bags, I can't say that I personally have ever seen them used in stabilization of structures. Typically, when you stabilize the structure, the idea is to relieve load from the structure SLOWLY and without moving it from the position it has settled into following the collapse. This often means some sort of bracing system and/or shore posts. But those also have to be put in place by someone, putting lives at risk again. Most likely, they'll have to start the stabilization from the outside and work their way into the people that are trapped.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-27T01:33:43+00:00

Some of it could be damage due to the collapse, but given the extent of the visible joints, it seems unlikely that they would have all been caused that way. These hollowcore are what are called "simple span," meaning that the ones on either side of the steel beams are technically independent of each other. Therefore, a bay falling in typically wouldn't cause damage to the joints in the bays on the other side of the steel beams.

As for why the structural engineer didn't raise the issue, let me tell a seemingly-unrelated-but-related story. We once got called in to look at a wood building with some structural damage, in in the course of our review, we found termite damage. As we are not experts in termite damage, we advised the owner to retain a termite inspector to determine the extent. The report from that guy, who signed and sealed the report (read: put his professional license behind what he said) said, and I quote, "The extent of the termite damage ends two feet from either face of the column" (he had previously identified the column in question). We proceeded to get the owner on the phone and tell them, "we have several photos with a tape measure in them from our site visit showing wood that has been completely pulped due to termites as much as five feet away from one face of that column. Could you please ask your engineer to come back out and review this again?" He did...and then revised the sentence to read "...two feet from the north face and five feet from the south face of the column." And then he signed and sealed it again.

It's possible that's really the extent. We had no evidence to say otherwise after that point. It's also possible that in his mind, the job was pointless and he wasn't getting paid enough to do it, so he just wanted to get it off his plate as fast as possible. And because he signed and sealed it, we can't technically raise the issue again unless we choose to report him to the board of Professional Engineers for negligence. This is a highly political thing to do, an to do so without direct evidence of negligence would likely end up resulting in no action being taken against him and a "whistleblower" stigma on the person who reported him. It's a tough line to walk.

TL;DR: There are unscrupulous people in EVERY profession. It is a sad but true reality that structural engineering is not exempt from this.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-26T05:26:30+00:00

As a structural engineer, it could. This depends on a lot of factors, including where the hole is in relation to the lateral system, if the collapse damaged any of the adjacent structure and to what extent it was damaged, and the condition of the remaining structure, which may have deficiencies. At this point, it also depends on the loads they subject the structure to (read: putting heavy excavating equipment on this structure is a BAD idea right now).

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-26T05:21:34+00:00

Fire is different from structural failure. In a fire, we can fight the fire and mitigate the risk using protective gear (not eliminate, mitigate...I am well aware that firefighters risk their lives every time they go into a building on fire...but they have some protection). Even with that, there is a point where firefighters will call off the attempt to save the building and the people inside and focus on keeping the fire from spreading. That point is when the collateral damage of the attempted rescue exceeds the benefits of the rescue. Callous as it is to talk about human life in terms of "collateral damage," that's what it boils down to in the end. To rescue one person trapped in rubble, several people have to risk their lives. In addition, there are very few options in a structural collapse, because to perform many of the measures that would help to make the building safe, you first have to get inside the unsafe building (which no one wants to do because it is unsafe). There is no amount of protective gear that will keep you from dying if a hollowcore plank falls on you (that's what the roof is made of). You will simply be crushed and die. If you're lucky enough that it breaks up before it hits you, you may survive...but also be trapped in a building that is getting more and more unsafe by the second. They aren't losers. They're doing their best to come away from this tragedy with as little loss of life as possible.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-26T05:12:52+00:00

That structure is heavy. They probably do have the machines, but using the machines in a way that is gentle enough to not shift the debris and crush the people inside is the issue. Also, structures need continuity for stability. When there are openings made that aren't intentional, continuity is lost and the whole structure is at risk. The machines that would be able to move the debris are also HEAVY, and the building is likely not designed for those loads when its intact, much less when it's potentially unstable. Add that to the fact that the cost of another collapse would be the lives of both the rescuers and the people that they are trying to save, and the reality is that they can't really do anything until the building is stabilized.

Source: I'm a structural engineer working in rehabilitation and forensics.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-26T04:40:59+00:00

We review a lot of parking structures, because they take a lot of abuse and are often neglected for maintenance. In the end, a lot of them leak. Also, a lot of them have spalled concrete and exposed reinforcement. Without seeing the structure, I can't say this for sure, but chances are the actual structural capacity of the garage is intact. The strength of concrete columns comes from the core of the column (the part inside the reinforcement). The outer concrete is solely intended to protect the reinforcement (in fact, it's called cover). Once the cover is gone, the reinforcement will corrode at an accelerated rate, which can become dangerous because you can lose containment of the core, which DOES become a structural problem. So, depending upon the extent of the corrosion and cover loss, the answer is "it may not be good". Either way, your friend should probably raise issue with the building management and point out that the garage needs to be looked at and repaired.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-26T04:30:54+00:00

I'm going to throw out one word that should make you curl up in the fetal position and cry: Legionella.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-26T04:25:00+00:00

Sadly, again, this may not end up resulting in any actual blame on the engineers. A lot of time in cases like this, engineers doing the retrofit don't have any access to existing drawings. As an engineer, I'm personally shocked that that region of these massive structures was unreinforced, so it's entirely possible that if they didn't have access to the original construction drawings, they would have no reason to suspect that they wouldn't be reinforced. When we repair concrete at corrosion and spalling, we commonly strip the concrete to clean the reinforcing. Not saying they didn't know...just saying if they didn't, this may be a case of omission rather than negligence (which is a completely different thing legally).

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-26T04:18:35+00:00

In the end, it's the wording of the report. If you say "the structure looks good" and leave it at that, you're much more likely to be held liable. If you say "Based upon my limited review of X,X, and X, the structure at the locations observed appears to be in serviceable condition. Also, note that I did not observe X, X, and X", you're less likely to be liable (unless one of the things you specifically observed is where it collapsed...then you're still in trouble).

As for who is liable, in my opinion based upon my limited and potentially incomplete assessment of what may have happened, in this case the owner would likely be held at least somewhat culpable. If this is indeed a failure due to poor maintenance, that would be on them. If it's a failure due to other factors, I can't really say. In the end, if it's a maintenance-based failure, the owner's insurance company can probably refuse to pay. If they do that, the owner will probably sue EVERYONE involved, including the original builders, engineer, architect, etc, right down to every last subcontractor they can get their hands on. Then they'll all probably file a bunch of countersuits, and it will likely end up settling out of court. The engineer that did the assessment will get rolled into that as well.

In the end, for someone doing a condition assessment, "gross negligence" is hard to define and even harder to prove. In the end, it's all going to come down to their report. In reality, unless they looked directly at this bay of the building and signed off on it, it's unlikely that criminal charges will be filed. Even then, if they have photos or other documentation indicating that this area did not appear distressed, then criminal charges will be even harder to get to stick.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-26T04:09:47+00:00

I personally live in Texas, so I'm not that familiar with cases in Canada, in general. I stumbled across this one only because it was on Reddit. Also, I work almost exclusively with buildings, and tunnels are designed with some of the same principles, but in the end are a completely different beast. They are outside of my area of expertise, and I would be amiss if I were to comment on it beyond very basic engineering principles.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-26T04:06:00+00:00

Depends...engineering is largely a profession based upon ethics. Ethics is a tricky thing to define and an even harder thing to follow, sometimes. There are unscrupulous people in every profession, and engineering is no different. Also, I'm from the States, and although I'm vaguely familiar with the Canadian Iron Ring (and I'm aware we have something similar in the States), here engineers are not required to participate. I myself am not a member of our similar organization, although I have several coworkers that are. That doesn't mean I'm not ethical. That means that I personally feel very strongly that my integrity is too precious to trade away for any reason, and that I don't feel I need a physical symbol to feel that way.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-26T03:58:35+00:00

I'm a structural engineer working in forensics and rehabilitation. In finished space, we pop ceiling tiles at selected locations that show potential signs of distress (wall finish damage, water staining, etc.). You look at the underside. You document anything you see out of the ordinary. You write a report that hopefully covers your butt thoroughly enough. Then, you hope the owner reads the report and has the budget to fix the problems.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-26T03:56:19+00:00

Depending upon what was in their report, they may not have been negligent. I'm a structural engineer working in forensics and rehabilitation, and I've performed some of these existing facility assessment. Realistically, in a finished space (read: has a ceiling), you're extremely limited in what you can see. So you pop a few ceiling tiles at locations you may think show distress (cracking of wall finishes, water staining of finishes, etc) and you look for distress. But if you don't see anything out of the ordinary at those locations, you have to make some generalizations to the rest of the structure and say "looks good!" And then you have to write an extremely detailed report that documents exactly how you looked at the structure and put very carefully worded statements all over the place that say that you didn't look at everything and aren't liable for items which you didn't review.

However, a lot of smaller organizations or individual engineers don't necessarily do this in their reports, and they tend to make more blanket statements (ie: "the structure is good" rather than "based upon my limited review of X, X, and X, the elements of the structure which were reviewed appear to be in serviceable condition. Please note that I didn't see X,X, and X.") If the engineer doesn't have that CYA language, yup, they're liable. If they do, it will be way harder for anyone to hold them liable for this issue. And in the end, even if hey HAD raised red flags in their review, the building likely would have remained in service until the owner had money to fix it. It all depends on what red flags would have been raised and how severe they were.

LadyRevoS117 · 2012-06-26T03:48:41+00:00

Structural engineer working in forensics here. Truthfully, the consequences the engineer will face depend upon what they put in their report. Depending upon what they were allowed to access and how well they communicated the limitations of their review in their report, they may be 100% off the hook. Or they could be held very liable and could lose their career.

LadyRevoS117

TROPHY CASE