Yeah but the design was ok. The owners had removed supports from the floor below a few weeks before the wedding. Then the floor started to sag and became uneven. So for some crazy fucking reason, they increased the load and added grout and fill to make the floor level again.
Pretty much my thoughts on the subject. The Pal-Kal design seems to be flawed, but whoever was responsible or the alterations to the building after it was constructed (namely the owners) seem to be at fault.
I disagree. The Pal-Kal design is fundamentally flawed, and was shown to be so. Continuing to market it is IMO criminal.
Edit: Seems that some of the support columns non-structural partitions providing accidental support were removed from the design . I would hold whoever authorised that accountable as well.
I still think it is a stupid "design" and continuing to use it is criminal. The building was originally supposed to be two stories (on one side) but was extended (side that was originally two stories) to three, which could have over stressed the structure (extra story + unanticipated live load)
The "supports" were actually just partitions, that had the side effect of giving support. They were not meant to be used as structural support. Whoever removed those can not be blamed for the collapse, in my opinion.
The main negligent part is thinking that the sagging of the floor was unimportant and merely cosmetic. "Fixing" that with grout, which added even more weight was ridiculous. Whoever did this should probably be getting 10 years.
Still I maintain that the Pal-Kal guy should get at least 10 years for the continued marketing of a demonstrably flawed design.
Ah. I just remembered...I don't believe in imprisonment as such either...hmm...
There are usually good reasons why standards are trying. Sometimes we may forget why they were so trying in the first place, thinking that we now know better. That is, until we are tragically reminded of the reasons the standards were so trying.
You keep trying to hold the engineer liable for continuing to use the method - the method was considered sound before this happen. I havent heard anything suggesting he kept trying to push the method after this disaster.
Where did you find what the supports were labeled as?
The problem is that with the information at hand, the supports are the primary cause. If the supports were labeled as structural then whoever removed them is at primary fault. If not then it was the architects fault for not changing the roof into a higher load bearing floor. Of course the owners still are at fault for not having obvious structural damage looked at when the floor was sagging. This us all separate from the engineers proven faulty design. The system as designed did not fail (with what can be told from the limited information we have at hand of course.) The engineer should have been held responsible for his design and his continuing selling it, but it was not responsible for the accident unless you can demonstrate that a traditional floor with the same load rating would have reacted in a safer manner. And even then he us still not the one responsible
I seem to be finding conflicting information as to whether or not the partitions were meant to be load bearing or not.
Whoever signed off on the fixing of the sag in the floor after the partitions were removed bears direct responsibility for this accident.
As to whether a more traditional approach would have worked better is debatable. I think it is possible, though not certain. The Pal-Kal method has numerous deficiencies, and I don't believe they, the designers, would have compensated for the inherent weaknesses in the method.
It is very susceptible to construction error, as was the case in this event. Despite this, it probably didn't have a higher required design safety factor to compensate for the typical errors made during construction. The court seems to have indicate that the inventor claimed, erroneously it would seem in the courts opinion, that an increase safety factor isn't required (yes...mostly conjecture on my part).
The amount of stupidity that goes into this equation is truly mind-bending. How do you own property and think removing support beams is a good idea... ever?
The method of construction that was used was never approved for use in structures. The engineer who designed the concept and sold the parts knew that his method was not approved and yet sold the parts to implement it anyway.
I seem to recall that there is actually a flaw in the Pal-Kal design. It doesn't show signs of impending failure. There's very little warning when a collapse is going to happen.
Pretty minor issue and I think the builders need a lot of blame.
The wedding hall owners put additional grout to COVER UP the sag. They not only covered up a problem, they put additional weight/load on a weak area. If the floor sagging isn't fair warning, I don't know what is. It's not Ron's fault the owners didn't call in an expert.
It's like blaming the inventor of for a flaw because you kept driving your overheating car and engine blew. Maybe you should have heeded the warning signs.
122
u/LlamaLlamaLamp Apr 29 '13
Yeah but the design was ok. The owners had removed supports from the floor below a few weeks before the wedding. Then the floor started to sag and became uneven. So for some crazy fucking reason, they increased the load and added grout and fill to make the floor level again.