In regards to continuation from Set 04
As I say all the time, Just because codes allow, or better said, do not prohibit a certain design, does not necessarily mean any particular design that meets code is a good idea. This design appears to have deficiencies and in the very least, fosters progressive failure. It may even be effectively unsuitable for use just because of that one characteristic alone. This design also appears to require intensive maintenance, far and above typical levels, especially given the severe environmental stress it has experienced. At the very least, it was not corrosion resistant in areas that it should have been. This design apparently did not incorporate any progressive failure mitigations. There appears to be no good reason why a design that allowed a pool deck collapse to take out 75% of the building was selected. A simple construction isolation joint might have limited damage to loss of the jacuzzi water.
It is also quite typical that codes do not recognise all design flaws, especially those that are still unknown to us as production line engineers faced with new materials, new fabrication and construction methods and what seems to always be more and more stringent economic limitations. Codes typically only cover things that are within our previous realm of collective experience. Seldom will they be adequate when stretching their provisions to the limits, nor exceeding any established practice of the past, maybe even including an architects wet dream trying to make you design your next slab with 2" thick floor slabs and 50ksi concrete. Will you do it if the numbers work based on present code allowables?
Codes change all the time to address new problems that come up as we move forward. Many of which were totally unexpected. We were designing and fabricating high pressure pipe walls with newer and stronger properties, all permissible under our existing codes at the time, only to realise too late that our quality testing methods were not sensitive to discovering laminations in the steel brought on by the new fabrication techniques. Other materials were found to become brittle under lengthy exposure to hydrogen compounds, especially at higher pressures and temperatures. The pipeline design codes were revised. Some materials were deemed unsuitable and prohibited from further use. Others were required to have different quality control procedures, others were required to be normalised by heat treatment.
It is my highly experienced intuition that is now telling me that we will soon see a number of revisions in building design, maintenance, inspection and occupancy codes due to the results we are talking about here today. Even if for some reason we don't, every structural engineer that's reading these now 5 sections will be thinking about how he/she will react the next time an architect or owner says thin slaps, no drop panels, capitals, or beams. If s/he isn't, it might be time to start.
[IEGeezer, No, I have not learned the whistling language Silbo. That is a specific peculiarity of Isla Gomera. Interesting that you know of it. All of these islands are quite different. I'm on Tenerife, la isla de los chicharreros.]
