Jump to content
  • Welcome to SEFP!

    Welcome!

    Welcome to our community forums, full of great discussions about Structural Engineering. Please register to become a part of our thriving group or login if you are already registered.

Sign in to follow this  
UmarMakhzumi

Elliot Lake Mall Collapse

Recommended Posts

 

Quote

Discredited engineer Robert Wood is facing two counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

Wood signed off on a report declaring the Algo Centre Mall "structurally sound" just weeks before a portion of its rooftop parking deck caved in.

Two women — Lucie Aylwin, 37, and Doloris Perizzolo, 74 — were killed and more than a dozen others were injured. The northern Ontario community lost its economic and social hub. 

"I'm glad to see this trial proceeding, and thought it has been a long time coming," said Gary Gendron, who was engaged to Aylwin. 

'Markedly inferior'

Wood inspected the Algo Centre Mall in 2009 and 2012. He noted steel supports showed surface rusting, but there was "no visual distress."

In a public inquiry that followed the mall collapse, Commissioner Paul Belanger made special mention of Wood's work and conduct, calling it "markedly inferior."

"His work provided unfounded assurances that gave the mall owner a documented excuse to continue doing nothing," Belanger wrote in his 2014 report.

"His review was similar to that of a mechanic inspecting a car with a cracked engine block who pronounces the vehicle sound because of its good paint job."

Reports changed to appease owner

Wood admitted to changing his 2012 inspection report after he and his partner signed off. He omitted a photo that showed yellow tarps strung up to collect water that was leaking from the roof and a corroded steel beam. He also removed a reference to "ongoing" leakage. 

The changes were made, Wood told the inquiry, at the request of the mall's owner, Bob Nazarian, who was trying to refinance the building.

These changes constituted "misleading" and "unprofessional behaviour" by Wood, Belanger wrote. 

In a 2011 conversation relayed to the inquest, Wood was cited telling a prospective buyer it would cost $1.5 million to fix the mall's roof and reportedly warned the structure had to be fixed or the roof would cave in.

Wood told the inquiry he could barely recall any such conversation.

Read More: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/robert-wood-trial-begins-1.3748401

If this were Pakistan, the chances of criminal indictment would be zero. Whats your take?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right, we lack in professionalism and justice because no matter how qualified one becomes in Pakistan, ethics are still left out due to absence of fear of judgement/punishment/morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Our picks

    • AOA 

      i am facing problems in shear wall design .what are the pier and spandral ?what will be the difference when we assign pier or spandral? without assigning these the shear wall design is incomplete .

      i am taking about etabsv16

      someone have document about shear wall design plz provide it 

      thank you

       
      • 9 replies
    • Salam Members,

      Congratulations to Engineers, PEC has become full signatory of Washington Accord, what are the benefits to Pakistani engineers for this agreement. 

       

      Regards   

       

       
      • 3 replies
    • Please clarify the following confusions one by one:-

       

      1. If we run P-delta analysis in ETABS, then should we ignore stiffness property modifiers for beams and columns? I have heard that if we perform P-delta analysis and apply stiffness modifiers at the same time then the moment magnification process is doubled...?

       

      2. ETABS considers selenderness of a column by applying moment magnification factors. If we run P-delta analysis also, does it mean that the selenderness of column is being over-estimated? I mean once the moments are magnified in P-delta analysis process and again through moment magnification process?

       

      Please help me understand the software myth and clarify above confusions.
      • 1 reply
    • Assalam o alaikum.
      According to ACI 12.5.2,
      development length for fc' = 3000, fy=60000, for normal weight concrete and epoxy less reinforcement, The required development length comes out to be
      for #3 = 8.2 inch
      for #4 = 10.95 inch
      for #6 = 16.42 inch
      for #8 = 21.9 inch
       
      And if in my case, ACI 12.5.3 is not fulfilled, it means now i have to provide ldh as mentioned above. ldh is STRAIGHT EMBEDMENT LENGTH + RADIUS OF BEND + ONE BAR DIAMETER as shown in figure attached. Now my question is, if in my case, main reinforcement of beam is of #6 and #4, minimum column size required will be 18 inch and 12 inch respectively. Lets say by any means, i can not select #4, #3 bars and size of column where bars are to be terminated is 12 inch, how to fullfil this development length???
      • 11 replies
    • Dear all,

      I am trying to design shearwalls through ETABS with temperature load applied over shell. At various location, spandral section fails in Shear due to temperature and piers (sometime in shear, mostly in flexure).  (See Attached Image)

      Certainly all the problem in Shearwalls are due to temperature. I don't want to increase cross section of spandral or pier at some location just due to temperature load case as it will appears non-uniform with rest of the wall. 

      I have seen stiffness modifier affect distribution of forces and also rigid/semi rigid daiphragm assumption. 

       

      Can anybody guide how to properly design the shear wall with temperature load applied in ETABS or share any similar experience. Thanks in Advance.    
      • 15 replies
    • ENGINEERS;
      I WILL LOOSE MY BRAIN FROM ETABS. 
      I DECIDED TO MAKE MANUAL MESHING FROM AREA ELEMENTS BESIDE EACH OTHER AND EVERY HING WAS FINE .
      BUT AFTER DEVISION SAY 7*7 ELEMNTS FOR EVERY BIG ELEMENT AND MAKING ETABS CHECH..................THEN 500 ERROR MESSAGE THAT ALL ELEMNTS ARE CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.  WHAT ARE GOING...... SOMEONE TELL ME PLEASE...... I WILL LOST MY WORK
      • 6 replies
    • Assalam o alaikum.
      I have just designed a frame structure with SMRF. The out put of shear seams weird to me. Column reports design shear Av/s as 0.045. (Images are attached). but when i right click the member, it must show me the most critical case HIGHLIGHTED AUTOMATICALLY. But it highlights load combo 38 (auto-generated combos have been used) which reports Av/s as 0.038. And 0.045 value is at combo 32. Is their any logic behind it?? More over how to interpret this Av/s?? means 0.045 in kip-in units means what? How can i convert this into spacing?? 
      • 9 replies
    • Hello everyone, I hope all of you will be fine. In etabs when we apply Response Spectrum loading on a multistoried building with 2 basement floors. At what floor level this loading will be applied as in equivalent static seismic analysis, we can apply EQX & EQY on any floor we like as this option is available in etabs but the problem is with response spectrum and time history analysis. please if someone knows and have the experince, share it i shall be very thankful.  
      • 5 replies
    • Salaikom dear professionals,
      First of all I would like to express my sincere thanks to the initiators of this forum for establishing such an exceptional atmosphere for knowledge/experience sharing, I it is really useful, In fact since I have found the forum I am mostly online and busy reading the posts. I would also like to thank the members for their professional comments and advice.
      As my first post in this forum I would like to ask the following queries:
      1-After running the analysis and design when I check the DESIGN DATA through Display >> Show Tables >> DESIGN DATA >> Concrete Frame Output, there is no specific message in Column Summary Data and Beam Summary Data, but in Joint summary data it is showing that “Joint B/C check not done”. Does anyone has any idea? I am sharing the ETABS model for your information and easy reference.
      ETABS MODEL.zip
      2- ETABS provides greater area of steel in the upper column than the column at BASE, perhaps due to higher moment. Could someone explain why this is so? In practice should we maintain maximum steel in both stories? Or we shall follow what the software suggests?
      3- Beside considering the minimum thickness required for deflection control of Beam as per Table 9.a Chapter 9 ACI-318 , using concrete crack behavior in ETABS and checking story drift, Do we have to check the deflection of beams for the serviceability propose elsewhere in ETBAS? If yes, Could anyone explain it?
      Regards, and look forward to any explanation
      • 13 replies
    • Posting this thread to break the ice. Modelling domes is very easy in Etabs/SAP. All you need to do is to draw the curvature of the dome in elevation by a series of straight lines, but draw only the one half. Then using the apex at centre point, radially extrude the line say 24 times at 15 degree intervals (or 48 times at 7.5 deg intervals. This feature is under Edit> Extrude Lines to areas. You can further use this geometry for Finite Element Analaysis.
      • 22 replies
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Recent Discussions

  • Latest Forum and Club Posts

    • Beams are flexural members only  designed for the major moment and shear without axial load effects. However, column design is more accurate as you can account for biaxial bending plus axial load effect on shear. Infact all the beams can be designed by this approach. However, generally beams do not have huge axial loads or minor bending. Thats why it is simplified.
    • I developed this sheet long time ago. See the attached. Strap footings design.xlsx
    • Here are my two cents:- 1. General guidance regarding placement of construction joints in RC work has been provided in Section 6.4 of ACI 318-08 and its commentary. Some clarity is given in section 6.4.3, where it is stated that "Construction joints shall be so made and located as not to impair the strength of the structure. Provision shall be made for transfer of shear and other forces through construction joints." For transfer of shear etc through construction joints, reference is made to the ACI Section 11.6.9 that deals with the calculation of shear-friction, at the interface between two concretes cast at different times (beside other situations described in section 11.6.1 of the code). Moreover, Section 6.4.4 suggests that "Construction joints in floors shall be located within the middle third of spans of slabs, beams, and girders. 2. Regarding construction joints in columns, however, Section 6.4 does not provide guidance clearer  than that in Section 6.4.6 stating that the "Beams, girders, or slabs supported by columns or walls shall not be cast or erected until concrete in the vertical support members is no longer plastic."  And, the commentary section R6.4.6 explains that "Delay in placing concrete in members supported by columns and walls is necessary to prevent cracking at the interface of the slab and supporting member caused by bleeding and settlement of plastic concrete in the supporting member. 3. The support member (referred in previous paragraph) will generally be a column or a wall. And, in a simplified form, Section 6.4.4 & its commentary are advising us NOT to cast beams & slab monolithically with the wall or column, BUT only after the supporting column (or wall) concrete has hardened,  in order to avoid plastic cracking at the beam-column (or beam-wall) joint. 4. In our normal field practice (within Pakistan as well as abroad), beams & slabs are cast at least one day after casting of columns or supporting walls. This gap of one day (between casting of column & beam concretes) ensures that hardening of column (or wall) concrete poured one day earlier has hardened (is no longer plastic),  thereby avoiding any possibility of plastic cracking (discussed in paragraph 2 above). . 5. Now coming to your queries; In general terms, it is preferable to cast the column in one pour.. However, in compelling circumstances it may be done in more than one pour too, subject to certain conditions.   Already described in initial paragraphs.   This is the normal & IMHO desirable practice, according to ACI code Section 6.4.6.   IMO, leaving 9" or 12" column depth below the beam soffit is excessive & undesirable. It should not be more than 1" or 2" in any case.   IMO, this practice is based on the requirements of ACI 318-08 (also ACI 318-11) Section 6.4.6. The same requirement is available in ACI 318-14 Section 26.5.7.2 (a) as well. HTH Regards.
    • Thank you Waqar. I need code reference for this practice.   Thanks
    • Salam Dear Junaid! Cold joints are common and practice is upto soffit, properly roughen the face and apply some chemical at the joint. Leaving column at mid height is not good. Regards
    • References given in the following link might be useful in this connection: http://www.sepakistan.com/topic/1978-strap-footing-design/ Regards.  
    • Any sheet/pdf for design of concentric and edge footing tied with strap beam?
    • AoA all, Is it mandatory to do column concreting upto the soffit of the beam in a single pour ? What code says about the construction/cold joint location in column ? Majority of the contractors are pouring the column concrete upto the soffit of the beam (full height of the column), some contractors leave the column height about 9" to 12" below the beam level and then fill this 9" to 12" column height with the beams & slab concreting. On one site column concreting was stopped at the mid height and the remaining half was filled on the next day. Thanks    
    • SIR KINDLY STUDY building code(ACI318-14) AS WELL AND THEN DISCUSS
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.