ENGINEERING? Emerald apt that collapses only under vertical loads

[cakilomer]

Dear colleagues, Collapsed under vertical loads, the attached report of Zümrüt apt. Many of you know. I did a detailed investigation and reached the following results. I ignored the manufacturing errors and it is available in the report (etabs) that nothing extra was done apart from the one in the project (including the GROUND report). When the formwork plan is examined, 1) The discontinuity of the system, in which the console overhangs are not connected with beams, could not be ensured. However, although this forces the system, I think there is no reason for it to collapse only under vertical loads. It poses a great danger in case of earthquake. 2) There are excessive studs in the system, the studs are arranged close to the column to disrupt the frame system and this will cause trouble in load transfer. 3) Most of the column directions are strong in the y direction, which again poses a great danger in the event of an earthquake. 4) The difference between RM and KM is mentioned in the report, which creates the A1 irregularity. However, there is a sanction in the regulation that only affects the calculation method related to the A1 irregularity. *Result; In these project flaws that I have seen (only by looking at the mold plan), it says to create your frame exactly in the first articles of the regulation, but shouldn't there be a control mechanism about it? *Do you think these points are enough for the structure to collapse only under vertical loads? Or did this build collapse for some other reason? *The report was analyzed according to etabs and it was seen that the size of the columns should be larger than necessary. However, are there any differences when the projects made with idecad sta4cad,probina are compared with foreign sourced software such as etabs sap? NOTE: My aim is to prevent and prevent wrongdoing unknowingly, and to show that 92 lives can be costed to those who do wrong on purpose. Waiting for your valuable comments, good work, best regards

 

[siromar]

Despite so many studies, reports and articles about Zümrüt, there is still no clear reason for collapse among the society and engineers. There is still the question, why it was not demolished all these years, etc. The most important lesson to be learned from Zümrüt is this: The axial load safety factor we all know is 0.5 Fck in earthquake condition, 0.9 Fcd in non-earthquake condition or 0.6 Fck is that enough? otherwise, although the regulation sets limits, a designer should stay on the safer side, at least in cases where the stresses formed in the concrete under permanent loads due to axial load, which is the big brother of the brittle migrant, are less than 40% of the compressive strength, in cases where the creep increases proportionally to the stress but exceeds 40% It is well known that creep increases faster. And therefore, shortenings that cannot be neglected will be seen in the columns at limit values and serious damages will occur. The items to be emphasized in every report about Zümrüt are as follows (no foundation, no ground survey, no studs, no frameless consoles, no YASS etc., although they are very important issues for engineering, they are not the cause of the collapse) 1) Concrete strength C8 C9 (no partial collapse, no The main reason for the total emigration) 2) Column Section insufficiency 3) Extra loads applied to the building (hollow-hole - mezzanine floor etc.) and the column strengths reaching the limit values and the resultant creep effect Hope this painful event in my own city will be the last, good work

 

[cakilomer]

Dear Mr. Ömer, the situations you mentioned are, 1) Concrete strength C8 C9 (the main reason for partial emigration, not full occupancy) 2) Column Section insufficiency 3) Extra loads applied to the building (hollow floor - mezzanine floor etc.) First of all, thank you for your comment.1. It is necessary to consider whether the concrete strength is C8 C9 will cause problems for partial or complete collapse. Because we always stay on the safe side (concrete safety coefficient) in our basic training, we get 1.5 for concrete poured in place and 1.4 for pre-casting. As a result, there is a C11 concrete effect, but I think it is not the main reason. I don't know in which program the project file for the insufficiency of the column section was solved, but the column openings are not too many, but of course, there are weaknesses in general, but this should not be the reason. I mean, because the building collapsed with the effect of rotation, I wonder if there was a ground slide or something else. It is a reason that is definitely overlooked because when we look at the wreck pictures (I did not see all of them), the hooks of the column irons are tied. As you said, I hope it will be the last. Best regards