Not the section by the pool. Just columns. That’s been one of my concerns from the start. There doesn’t appear to be any load transferring structure to the columns at that location. All the columns there just punched through.
I talked about the differences in design within the building in post 612.
The pool deck is absolutely connected to the main building supports.
TTTTTT
The leftmost T is supporting the highrise.
Imagine the five T’s on the right (pool deck) have the top of the T collapse and slide down the vertical pillar.
They all yank hard on that leftmost T. Just enough to critically weaken it.
the deck is NOT sitting on beams. It’s just sitting on columns. It went straight down with the columns punching through. When the columns punched through the deck they kept the deck for moving laterally.
See the part that says “beam” (queued to the right part):
I guess to be more correct that should be:
TT I I I I
to start with you’re quoting someone who remodels bathrooms.
But to your point. there are some beams in the section that collapsed. I talked about how less robust that section of the building was compared to the part that remained standing.
So far, the only indication of the pool deck falling in is by the end of the pool. It did nothing to the section of building that remained. It’s because the deck just slid down the columns in a punch-through sheering action. There’s no lateral movement.
It might be possible that pool deck columns under the rubble collapsed, dragging against the building. but we don’t see that in the section that remained. The columns just punched through.
The forensic study may show other deck pillars collapsed and that pulled against the building. But we don’t see that yet. We do see the garage under the building falling apart and that’s probably the sound described as “walls falling in”. This happened before the deck collapsed.by the pool.
What we see is the building side on the pool deck collapsing first and we know the pool deck collapsed before the building collapsed.
It did not collapse on the side of the garage ramp first where we have seen that video (which is the other side of the building from the pool deck).
These are clues you seem to keep ignoring.
Occam’s Razor. Maybe they were unrelated and just coincidence but why would you think so?
To add:
Pool deck collapses, yanks on building supports on that side and the building ever so slowly starts to lean in that direction. As it leans it pulls on the opposite side (the garage ramp side). Concrete and whatnot starts to slowly (minutes “slowly”) crack and fall. Each bit weakens that side and the building accelerates towards collapse. Some big chunks fall down and we see it in the video of the garage ramp. Eventually there simply is not enough structural integrity and it all fails catastrophically.
I should note that I think it is fair to ask if the building should have been able to deal with the pool deck failure and not collapse. Was the building built to cheap standards (the first building with thicker supports survived)? Was the ongoing water problem that seemed a constant issue in the garage weakening the structure?
I dunno. We’ll probably have to wait for the NIST report.
This is right. Uninformed speculation from people who aren’t engineers and who haven’t seen the actual site are pretty worthless.
But it is fun and can be done with reference to certain sources to suggest some reliability. The definitive report with come from NIST though.
I do not think anyone here is suggesting they are an authority on this subject.
The engineer in my earlier link talked about pillar size and use of beams in the remaining structure. He thought the extra support may have been for hurricane winds. There is also a pass-through lane under that part so I’m thinking it was for that. the extra beams go up 2 levels there.
I’m not discounting your theory but it appears so far that the building that collapsed first was already crumbling in the garage, THEN the pool deck collapses, THEN the building collapses.
They’re all certainly connected to each other because of the amount of energy transferred back and forth in that area.
Personally, I think the columns under the pool deck should have had additional structure elements to handled load transfer. If they had column capitals on them I don’t think it would have collapsed.
As to the beams in the section that collapsed the pictures look like they were cast on to the side of the columns instead of on top of them. that is probably designed to reduce height of the building but doesn’t give any support UNDER the beam.
I still remember working for a company that involved moving heavy production parts. that had fork lift stands so you could drop a part down and reposition it. The beam holding up the item was welded to the side of the column instead of on top. The welds failed and down came the parts. They re-welded the beams on top of the column. I’m sure on paper the original design was supposed to hold the weight but it didn’t. I’d guess it got banged around which weakened the welds. You didn’t have to be an engineer to recognize which setup was stronger.
Now imaging a giant slab of concrete poured into a column with a bit of rebar. The load is attached to the side of the column and not on top. It’s concrete so it’s subjected to the elements affecting concrete. One of them is water. Another would be energy transfer from events nearby.
This building was subjected to both.
Here is another video from Building Integrity explaining punching sheer. This is what I’ve been trying to convey but needed an Engineer to explain.
He also talks about the core samples and what they show. Very interesting.
The site has been cleared. The foundation is in very good condition. No sinkholes or any sign of failure.
Looks like they could build on top of the foundation. They probably won’t because of the collapse and the developer will want a updated architectural design. I’ve seen homes rebuilt after fires. Saves a lot of money reusing the foundation and piers. One ranch house is about the same as another. Make sure the bearing walls sit on the piers.
Where would you dump 22 million pounds of rubble? I can’t imagine how many truckloads that required.
New video uploaded to reddit. Condo Collapse Simulation | Champlain Towers South Surfside, Florida, Miami [8K] - YouTube
the foundation is under the garage floor. I would expect the floor to be pulled for forensic examination.
interesting video. the entire pool deck didn’t collapse and they don’t show the sheering of the middle section in steps. If the structure is based on the building plans it will be a good video to walk through slowly to see how it’s laid out in the sub-garage.
I haven’t been following this story as closely in recent days as I did in the beginning. Can someone update me-- have all residents now been accounted for? Except for one person, is anyone else still missing and not accounted for?
That’s how I read the following, but I’m notorious for my misinterpretations…
…
In all, 97 people have been confirmed dead — a significant drop from initial estimates of possible casualties, which suggested as many as 159 had been killed. That figure fell as authorities identified remains or discovered people who turned out not to have been in the building at the time of the collapse.One person is thought to be unaccounted for.
The only victims who made it out alive were recovered from the site shortly after the tower came crashing down.
Of those whose bodies have since been unearthed, all but one have been identified, according to officials.
…
Thanks.
Hard to believe the collapse was one month ago. Seems much longer.
You are correct - all but one person is accounted for and identified.
