thaimate Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 wish me luck as you wave me goodby,we are off there for dinner so if i dont post again you know we perished with a full stomach,hopefully. Pattaya may well be quite, there may be a lot of pessimism about, BUT its gladdens my heart to know we have some brave and courageous souls walking the mean streets and questionable malls of OUR fair city, daring to go where few would venture, my hats off to you all Made it ,had to dodge some falling masonary once or twice, ruined the soup ,but with luck and fortitude(the bulldog spirit dont ya know) made it through the desert and with help from rescuers even got the car out of the carpark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mobi Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 wish me luck as you wave me goodby,we are off there for dinner so if i dont post again you know we perished with a full stomach,hopefully. Pattaya may well be quite, there may be a lot of pessimism about, BUT its gladdens my heart to know we have some brave and courageous souls walking the mean streets and questionable malls of OUR fair city, daring to go where few would venture, my hats off to you all Made it ,had to dodge some falling masonary once or twice, ruined the soup ,but with luck and fortitude(the bulldog spirit dont ya know) made it through the desert and with help from rescuers even got the car out of the carpark. Still safer than driving down the 'local' roads (next to the railway lines) since they changed them to one way traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Bear Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 So i will call HOAX ! Not a hoax. These are 'stiffeners' used to prevent (or minimise) sway in vertical columns. However they are commonly welded between base plates and the lower end of vertical columns, not at the top of a section. I would suggest that someone who does not know anything about steel structures has been busy wasting rime and money. I would suggest that, if the problem is lack of strength in the original joint, then connecting girders from columns to beams would be a better support. Also, looking at the pieces bolted on, I wonder what structural calculations have been made. The fins appear to have been welded onto a back plate that has then been bolted to the base columns. This is ridiculous - to weld directly to the column and top plate would be far stronger than relying on a few bolts (many too few, comparing fin size to number of bolts) This is work by someone completely ignorant of either structural steel work or economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Bear Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 And BTW, IMHO the whole ISO 9000/02 etc crap is the biggest money making con ever perpetrated on the world's business community. Just look at all the incompetent, fck'd up companies in Thailand who proudly claim they are ISO approved, if you need confirmation of this. Ohhhhh - you've touched on one of my pet subjects. Although ISO qualification is necesary for any construction company that wants to progress beyond 'handyman/sub-contract labour' standard, due to the pre-qualification requirements of most employers, it is almost impossible to properly apply any ISO standard to he on-site construction process. I have been working for ISO-certified companies for as long as ISO has been around, but I have followed my own instincts and set up my own processes at every job-site, based upon the guide-lines of my head office. But always one has to implement routines that are different to the guidelines, because no two projects are the same, no two clients are the same, no two design engineers produce the same blueprint. ISO works for factories where millions of the same article are produced, but is a waste of time in construction. I used to have to be individually responsible for my work on site, as did every other worker. Now all refer back to the management, saying that ISO means that oly the QA/QC people need to monitor the product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soutpeel Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I would suggest that someone who does not know anything about steel structures has been busy wasting rime and money.to weld directly to the column and top plate would be far stronger than relying on a few bolts (many too few, comparing fin size to number of bolts) This is work by someone completely ignorant of either structural steel work or economics. Very apparent you dont know anything about structures either.... The sections have been installed I am guessing to stop "punch through" between the column and the slab, not to prevent column sway, bolted connection in this instance would be the only way to go... In your vast experience of structual steel please explain how we would weld a steel structual section to a concrete column and slab... ...know a bit about welding and fabrication and all my years never came across an electrode or filler wire which could fuse steel and concrete together... Also how the h*ll do you know there are too few bolts ???.....the steel structual section is in shear and the calculation is not that hard to determine 1. No bolts required and the diameter of the bolts required, not knowing the loads involved, types of bolts etc used cant do the calculation, but based on experience, would say what is installed is adequate... More scaremongering.... ....the old saying is very true...."a little knowlege is a dangereous thing".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Bear Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) I would suggest that someone who does not know anything about steel structures has been busy wasting rime and money.to weld directly to the column and top plate would be far stronger than relying on a few bolts (many too few, comparing fin size to number of bolts) This is work by someone completely ignorant of either structural steel work or economics. Very apparent you dont know anything about structures either.... The sections have been installed I am guessing to stop "punch through" between the column and the slab, not to prevent column sway, bolted connection in this instance would be the only way to go... In your vast experience of structual steel please explain how we would weld a steel structual section to a concrete column and slab... ...know a bit about welding and fabrication and all my years never came across an electrode or filler wire which could fuse steel and concrete together... Also how the h*ll do you know there are too few bolts ???.....the steel structual section is in shear and the calculation is not that hard to determine 1. No bolts required and the diameter of the bolts required, not knowing the loads involved, types of bolts etc used cant do the calculation, but based on experience, would say what is installed is adequate... More scaremongering.... ....the old saying is very true...."a little knowlege is a dangereous thing".... Sorry - I thought the concrete was just fire-proofing on a steel-framed sructure. If this is a concrete framed structure then there is absolutely no sense in bolting on some steel in this manner. Look at the steel stiffening - look at the number and approx size of the bolts (M16??), There is no correlation. What are the bolts held with - chemical anchors? Why are you talking about 'punching-through' something? If the design of columns and beams is correct, then there will be no 'punching-through'. If the design is incorrect, then placing some sort of bracing under the beams will not solve the problem - which must be lack of bonding between columns and beams (Missing reinforcement?) - coupled with undersized beams. The bracketing will only give limited stoppage to movemnet of the beams in relation to the columns at the point of support. It will not strengthen the joint, nor will it prevent movement away from the joint. (By the way - I have designed, supervised the cutting and fabrication, supervised the erection of many thousand tonnes of structural steel. Similarly I have done the same with concrete. But I have never tried the solution offered in this thread. It seems to be qithout any logical engineering reason.) Edited June 17, 2009 by Humphrey Bear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mobi Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Humph, I think I love you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soutpeel Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) Why are you talking about 'punching-through' something?If the design of columns and beams is correct, then there will be no 'punching-through'. If the design is incorrect, then placing some sort of bracing under the beams will not solve the problem - which must be lack of bonding between columns and beams (Missing reinforcement?) - coupled with undersized beams. The bracketing will only give limited stoppage to movemnet of the beams in relation to the columns at the point of support. It will not strengthen the joint, nor will it prevent movement away from the joint. And there is the answer....if the design is correct.... , it may be the case that the structure has some ommisions to the design... , missing re-bar maybe, we dont really know...as regards punch through, if we have inadequate reinforement between the column and floor slab, the slab could literally "slip" down the column as existing re-bar/slab would not be able to take the shear load Chemical anchors or grouting...that is the question, bolt diameter is only part of the story, it also depends on the material type used....ie the higher the UTS of material, the less the diameter could be, so bolt diameter on its own is not a good indicator of adequacy I am in agreement with you saying this is not a normal way of doing things and there is something strange going on....is it serious ??....who knows But reading a lot of these posts....people are suggesting or scaring people into believing the place is under imminent threat of collaspe, there is just not enough information to make an educated guess on this one.. In summary 1. Is there problem....It appears so 2. How big a problem ??.....We dont know, and to go any further is just pure speculation 3. Will the owner talk about it.....highly unlikely 4. Does knowing about this, coupling with my engineering knowledge, prevent me from going to the place to shop/eat ??...No 5. Based on probability....What is the probability of me being in the place if it did come down ??.....Very very slight chance... I have a better chance of getting taken out in a car crash on a Thai road, than being crushed at a specific time on a specific day during the collaspe of Central..... Edited June 17, 2009 by Soutpeel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PattayaParent Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I would suggest that someone who does not know anything about steel structures has been busy wasting rime and money.to weld directly to the column and top plate would be far stronger than relying on a few bolts (many too few, comparing fin size to number of bolts) This is work by someone completely ignorant of either structural steel work or economics. Very apparent you dont know anything about structures either.... The sections have been installed I am guessing to stop "punch through" between the column and the slab, not to prevent column sway, bolted connection in this instance would be the only way to go... In your vast experience of structual steel please explain how we would weld a steel structual section to a concrete column and slab... ...know a bit about welding and fabrication and all my years never came across an electrode or filler wire which could fuse steel and concrete together... Also how the h*ll do you know there are too few bolts ???.....the steel structual section is in shear and the calculation is not that hard to determine 1. No bolts required and the diameter of the bolts required, not knowing the loads involved, types of bolts etc used cant do the calculation, but based on experience, would say what is installed is adequate... More scaremongering.... ....the old saying is very true...."a little knowlege is a dangereous thing".... Sorry - I thought the concrete was just fire-proofing on a steel-framed sructure. If this is a concrete framed structure then there is absolutely no sense in bolting on some steel in this manner. Look at the steel stiffening - look at the number and approx size of the bolts (M16??), There is no correlation. What are the bolts held with - chemical anchors? Why are you talking about 'punching-through' something? If the design of columns and beams is correct, then there will be no 'punching-through'. If the design is incorrect, then placing some sort of bracing under the beams will not solve the problem - which must be lack of bonding between columns and beams (Missing reinforcement?) - coupled with undersized beams. The bracketing will only give limited stoppage to movemnet of the beams in relation to the columns at the point of support. It will not strengthen the joint, nor will it prevent movement away from the joint. (By the way - I have designed, supervised the cutting and fabrication, supervised the erection of many thousand tonnes of structural steel. Similarly I have done the same with concrete. But I have never tried the solution offered in this thread. It seems to be qithout any logical engineering reason.) So what you're saying then is this structure is unsafe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soutpeel Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 So what you're saying then is this structure is unsafe? This is the reason why people with Engineering backgrounds should not dicussing technical aspects of things on a open non-specialist form....as it scares all the OAP's... No body on TV has the full information of what exactly is the issue....its all pure speculation, to suggest something is safe or unsafe based on a couple of photographs, is being completely irresponsible...May I suggest if somebody is really that worried about this, get in touch with Central Management and ask the question, if dont fancy this, talk to the Pattaya mail and get them to get Central to comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mobi Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 So what you're saying then is this structure is unsafe? .May I suggest if somebody is really that worried about this, get in touch with Central Management and ask the question, if you don't fancy this, talk to the Pattaya mail and get them to get Central to comment That is almost as ridiculous as the speculation from unqualified TV posters with nothing better to do than to scare OAP's Do you really think that if there was a serious problem (or even a minor problem, come to that), that either Central Management or the local rags will rock the boat by coming clean?? You seem to forget where you live Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soutpeel Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Do you really think that if there was a serious problem (or even a minor problem, come to that), that either Central Management or the local rags will rock the boat by coming clean??You seem to forget where you live Actually your statement is is very valid, but not just restricted to Thailand I am afraid, companies the world over have a habit of downplaying and covering up issues, this is not just limited to Thailand and wouldnt expect anything less here ....but as we sit speculating about Central has anybody took the step to ask the management, granted you will either get no answer or just a load cr*p from them, but they may supprise you, considering tourism is going down the toilet in Thailand and the last they need is more bad publicity or rumours about something being unsafe...just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGW Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Maybe I am missing something? At this time I would consider the building to be perfectly adequate, But - there is still to be added a couple of million kilos of building on top! (Hilton Hotel) surely this will be, or is going to be the problem? Or maybe TIT it will go away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTYstefan Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Im no construction expert but i do know one thing........ If im ever in there and there is a heavy snowfall, i'll be first one out of the doors! and if there is smoke in the building then don't forget to open the umbrella or you might get wet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimmer Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) Don't ya just love it when engineers have a set to? Give me accountants every time at least you can see if the numbers don't add up Edited June 17, 2009 by Rimmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashirelad Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I remember soon after they started to build Central. They'be maybe 10 floors up in the centre. All the rebar horizontal steel support stucture was in place ready for concreting a floor, somewhere between floors 5 & 8 i'd guess. At the North East corner the steel work collapsed under its own weight. A hel_l of a mess it was, just hanging down all twisted & torn. Anybody else remember it? So annoyed now i didn't manage to get a pic. Think I must have left Pattaya soon after because i don't remember how they rescued the situation, whereas previously i was walking past along 2nd rd most nights. By the way: What is its correct title? Central Festival Centre is the one at Big C opposite soi 2. Woah! Hold the front page. This was not Central, it was View Talay 6. Been thinking about this & realised that what i saw was not so close to the road as Central is. My apologies. It would be 2006 i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spalpeen Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Getting back to the original post and subsequent comments....1. Concrete slump tests are carried out using a cone, not a length of pipe. Every engineer knows this. 2. As concrete gains strength slowly, the definitive tests on concrete test cubes are carried out after 28 days. If these indicate a problem then you have to come up with and implement a solution. This may be an explanation for the steel brackets shown. 3. As has been stated, the steel brackets are there to stop the slab "punching" down around the column by giving a larger bearing area. This is called a shear failure and is characterised by diagonal cracks forming in the slab. Shear failure at slab/column junctions is prevented by the use of shear link reinforcement. These are short hooked bars which link the top and bottom mats of steel in the immediate vicinity of the column and prevent the diagonal cracks from forming. Because these are small, fiddly to fix and their purpose is not immediately obvious steel fixers often try to leave them out unless you make the f@ckers put them in. This is the most likely explanation for the brackets shown. If brackets are now being fixed to all columns in the basement as reported then this is a bad sign. On the positive side, if this is a shear link problem then the brackets probably will fix it. The worst case scenario is that if you get an uncontained shear failure at one column load is transferred to the adjacent columns which can then fail in turn resulting in a progressive collapse. This is possible but unlikely. Dodgy design and construction is by no means unique to Thailand. Anyone interested in this should look up the structural history of the Citigroup building in New York. Now that really was a <deleted> up ! Mr Spalpeen - Engineer. Like I said before. Some of the recent posts on this topic have displayed a rather shaky grasp of reinforced concrete structures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJo Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Like I said before. Some of the recent posts on this topic have displayed a rather shaky grasp of reinforced concrete structures. Tell me about it. It's 10 years since i last time designed any structures and frankly i'm not qualified to do it anymore but Mr. Bear you made my day. Nothing better than a good laugh to wind you down from hard days work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackysleet Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 NanLaew OK, just because you happen to have had your attention drawn to these steel plates in the parking garage of the local mall, you come out and say it's not normal? How about the thousands of hidden supports and beams in all the multi-storey buildings you have been inside elsewhere in the world? Just because you haven't had your attention drawn to them before (because without the pictures, you would still be blissfully ignorant) does not mean that this is a rare or bad construction practice. Anyway, I note that some still chose to go head-to-head with construction engineers more experienced and learned commentaries. Keep sounding off and I am sure they will find enough 'wiki-experts' will flock to your cause... whatever it may be. Maybe they seek some morbid satisfaction from 'I told you so' when buildings collapse? Why the OP wanted to reinvent this 'Bob the Builder says' thread in the first place is a bit beyond me. The first one took a few pages before it got into a pissing contest between the usual suspects. This one is crashing & burning even faster. You appear to be the one over reacting, what actually concerns posters are that these supports are new and visible, if they are not to do with structural viability why put them there, if of course they are needed then so be it, someone slipped up unless of course they had some paint left over and didn't know what to do with it. I have noticed from other posts you have made that you seem to have no time for falangs so why get involved in the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Conners Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) Why the OP wanted to reinvent this 'Bob the Builder says' thread in the first place is a bit beyond me. The first one took a few pages before it got into a pissing contest between the usual suspects. This one is crashing & burning even faster. This is what a forum is for, discussions. Except in police states where that is not allowed. I posted this thread as I spoke to several friends who read Thaivisa who had not read about this subject because they were not interested in the subject of the other thread. The subject of this thread makes it clear what it is about. If you're not interested you need not participate. I think this thread has remained pretty much on topic throughout so far. Edited June 17, 2009 by Phil Conners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackysleet Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Why the OP wanted to reinvent this 'Bob the Builder says' thread in the first place is a bit beyond me. The first one took a few pages before it got into a pissing contest between the usual suspects. This one is crashing & burning even faster. This is what a forum is for, discussions. Except in police states where that is not allowed. I posted this thread as I spoke to several friends who read Thaivisa who had not read about this subject because they were not interested in the subject of the other thread. The subject of this thread makes it clear what it is about. If you're not interested you need not participate. I think this thread has remained pretty much on topic throughout so far. Sorry to disapoint you mate but that is not my post, that belongs to NanLaew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Conners Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 Why the OP wanted to reinvent this 'Bob the Builder says' thread in the first place is a bit beyond me. The first one took a few pages before it got into a pissing contest between the usual suspects. This one is crashing & burning even faster. This is what a forum is for, discussions. Except in police states where that is not allowed. I posted this thread as I spoke to several friends who read Thaivisa who had not read about this subject because they were not interested in the subject of the other thread. The subject of this thread makes it clear what it is about. If you're not interested you need not participate. I think this thread has remained pretty much on topic throughout so far. Sorry to disapoint you mate but that is not my post, that belongs to NanLaew. Well you messed up the quote so how should I know. I have NanLaew on Ignore so didn't see his post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackysleet Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Probably did as I frequently do, but my actual contribution to the debate consists of just the 3 bottom lines where you can read my reply to NanLaew, wackysleet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Conners Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) Ok, noted. Edited June 17, 2009 by Phil Conners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PattayaParent Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Like I said before. Some of the recent posts on this topic have displayed a rather shaky grasp of reinforced concrete structures. As shaky as the reinforced concrete structure in question it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tropo Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 <SNIP>. Do you really believe that the engineers are knowlingly allowing this building to be inhabited by thousands every day if they feel it is unsafe? Do you really believe Thai construction engineers are that irresponsible? Cover something up to avoid responsibility or loss of face not to mention millions of dollars in liability??? I think you know the answer to that one? Putting in extra supports for the whole world to see would be the absolute worst way to cover up. They could best achieve "cover up" by just leaving it alone, couldn't they? I'm heading there for a meal shortly. Not if they were to cover up the extra supports by encasing them in gypsum board so that they are hidden?? And now that they've discovered that there's an obvious problem in the car park where all the columns and beams are exposed and have rectified/hidden (delete as appropriate) the problem have they inspected the whole of the rest of the mall? Especially those connections that are hidden by the shopfitting of the tenants? I don't know that their plan is, but it makes perfect sense to cover up the ugly extra supports purely for aesthetic reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tropo Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) Do you really think that if there was a serious problem (or even a minor problem, come to that), that either Central Management or the local rags will rock the boat by coming clean?? If Central Management consider that there is a serious problem, then I have to ask the question - where are they? Do they have an outside office? Perhaps, Mobi, you may want to put your writing skills to good use and get started on the orbituaries for the unfortunate staff (1000 or more?) that work in Central every day. Edited June 18, 2009 by tropo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mobi Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Like I said before. Some of the recent posts on this topic have displayed a rather shaky grasp of reinforced concrete structures. As shaky as the reinforced concrete structure in question it seems. Well at least I have admitted that I know absolutely nothing about construction. So as we are in Thailand, I believe that gives me indisputable qualifications to have an informed opinion on whether or not this building may collapse. Tropo: If Central Management consider that there is a serious problem, then I have to ask the question - where are they? Do they have an outside office? I bet you that anyone of importance who has responsibility for the overall construction is based in Bangkok. They're too smart to live in Pattaya and have an office in a building that shudders and has strange flanges added to it's beams just a few months after opening. Phil Connors: This is what a forum is for, discussions. Except in police states where that is not allowed. I posted this thread as I spoke to several friends who read Thaivisa who had not read about this subject because they were not interested in the subject of the other thread. The subject of this thread makes it clear what it is about. If you're not interested you need not participate. I think this thread has remained pretty much on topic throughout so far. Right on Phil, I'm with you all the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raro Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Here is what a civil engineer sent me by e-mail - U translated the most important passages from German: I had a look at the pictures, it looks a bit odd at first glance, but for reinforcements that is rather normal. Apparently the problem has been identified and tackled. I [the engineer] suppose that the reinforcements were put in to prevent a punch-through problem. Important to know would be whether there were first visible damages and THEN the reinforcement or if someone recalculated the statics and came up with this solution BEFORE damages occurred. If there were damages already, it is possible that there are further design or quality problems. If the second case is correct, it would be safe to assume that the reinforcement has been done after a proper recalculation. Compared to other natural, social, health and technical risks we are exposed to on a daily basis, structural collapse can be sorted well behind traffic - so if there are no further damages to the building I [the engineer] would go there for shopping - provided that the prices are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeetJohnDoe Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 (edited) Compared to other natural, social, health and technical risks we are exposed to on a daily basis, structural collapse can be sorted well behind traffic - so if there are no further damages to the building I [the engineer] would go there for shopping - provided that the prices are right. A voice of reason in a sea of hysteria Edited June 24, 2009 by MeetJohnDoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts