I'm not a Florida engineer, but I am an engineer that grew up in Florida, so I'm interested in the topic.

Politics aside, I'd be surprised if this resulted in a significant change in practice. If they find fault in a detail that is still used/allowed by current codes, then I could see an update coming, but I don't know about a new credential. While it seems like there may have been some design errors, on the whole this structure stood for quite a while and faced some pretty significant environmental loading (it survived Andrew, right?). It seems more likely that the cause will be poor maintenance and failure to execute repairs, though the need for them may have been exacerbated by the design. If this were a relatively new building or it failed during a hurricane or other 'design event' then yes - I'd expect the root causes to fall more into the designer's lap and result in changes to the profession.

The most likely candidates for change will be the inspection procedures for mid- and high-rise buildings, how much scrutiny they receive, and how the recommendations of the engineer/inspector are enforced.

Somewhere out there is an actuary who counted the cost of the dead 20 years ago.

Quote:

It seems more likely that the cause will be poor maintenance and failure to execute repairs, though the need for them may have been exacerbated by the design.

That's what I have been hearing too. Apparently a engineering consulting company had alerted them to maintenance issues years ago.

If something needs changing, it's apartment-building inspection and repair ... and condominium ownership structures.

The latter is a nightmare. What do you do with potentially hundreds of owners who have sunk significant capital into buying units in the apartment building, and then you tell them that the building is condemned?

This isn't just a Florida issue.

That's a good point, very similar to the inflammable cladding issue in UK and Australia.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

ash060,

The collapse of the Algo Centre Mall has fed back to professional organisations here in Ontario, Canada. Both the Professional Engineers of Ontario and the Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists of Ontario have implemented mandatory Continuing Professional Development (CPD) in response to Algo.

--
JHG

The cladding of the London tower was the last straw on the fire. They had retrofit windows that were too small for the openings and bridged the gaps with flammable material. This is what allowed an electrically ignited fire inside of one apartment to not only escape to the cladding, but also enter other apartments. The electrical fire appeared to be caused by failing electrical distribution in the building, a problem that had been going on for months and is particularly a problem with the way the British manage their circuitry.

The code change I could see in the aftermath of the apartment collapse is to isolate non-critical structures from critical ones and to design the non-critical ones so they cannot impinge on critical ones. It looks to me that when the pool area collapsed it remained attached to the columns supporting the condos, pulling that lower level over. Had there been a separation between the two I suspect that it would have been seen as a really annoying event with people waking up to see the pool was gone and maybe some cars damaged instead of the horrific event it was.

I worked on a largish material movement vehicle that involved people on it, beside it, and beneath it. At one point in testing there was a critical structural failure that sent bolt heads and bolt remains rocketing about and, had it occurred with a full load might have killed people. The result was replacement of a rigid link with a spring-loaded shock-absorbing system to limit the applied load.

The question it brought to mind was "Anything that is abused enough will break. What part of the design process decides how catastrophic that is limited to be?" So, if the floor of a building is overloaded, should there be some element designed to fail in a way that the floor doesn't collapse, but does give the user an unmistakable warning? I have not seen this approach used much outside of things like electrical fuses or circuit breakers and similar hydraulic control elements, but not so much with plain structures.

I'm licensed in multiple states, with an SE in some. Florida licensing is no better or worse than any other state. They seem to take continuing education more seriously, maybe to preclude a swarm of retirees from hanging out their shingle. There are required classes on new codes.
What I do notice is that designs there seem to be on the less stout side. The costs seem to be the main motivator (even more than usual). A lot of the extra strength that I expect due to round off (#6's at 9 inches required by analysis; #5's at 6 inch provided) is missing. The designs are adequate, but to the gnat's butt. Combine that with the likelihood of full loading events (hurricanes) and it seems a recipe for issues. Not to mention that contractors tend to be "casual" about QC. They seem to work like they don't think anyone is watching.
I don't think an overreaction for licensing is required (although it would help my business), just an emphasis on inspection and documentation. And absolutely no removal or reduction of PE requirements (I'm looking at you, Governor D.).

Quote (drawoh)

Both the Professional Engineers of Ontario and the Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists of Ontario have implemented mandatory Continuing Professional Development (CPD) in response to Algo.

I have 30+ years experience as a full-time welding engineer and these changes will only make things worse. This will turn into a credential collecting exercise resulting in even more CPWEs* than are already stealing my bread.

* Certified Pretend Welding Engineer

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

ironic metallurgist,

CPD definitely is a pain in the ass. Did a lack of CPD cause the Algo collapse? Has any of my CPD been safety oriented?

When something goes wrong, people outside the profession demand action, something, anything!

--
JHG

Quote (ironic metallurgist)

I have 30+ years experience as a full-time welding engineer and these changes will only make things worse. This will turn into a credential collecting exercise resulting in even more CPWEs* than are already stealing my bread.

We practice in the same jurisdiction, and I am wholly unsure how you equate PEO finally mandating CPD with more CPWEs lol. Weld engineers are certified, as you know, by CWB and...that has very little to do with PEO and their CPD policy.

I do agree that it will likely lead to people doing courses for the sake of courses. But people will not be attempting the CWB engineering exams for the purposes of CPD. There are just so many easier things for them to do to tick that box. And if they weren't motivated to attempt the CWB exams beforehand, they certainly wont be after mandatory CPD is in place.

I view the collapse of the Algo Centre Mall as a human failure more than it was an engineering failure. Almost any lay person could have grasped the technical problem and the consequent risks.

Consequences from PEO against the engineers were essential, and not just scapegoating.

What appalled me about the episode is that there were zero legal consequences for the mall owner, who put unbearable pressure on the P.Eng. I have been in similar (though far less consequential) situations where my boss was happy to retest until the client was satisfied. The pressure I felt was intolerable, and would not have been helped by a PEO credentialing exercise. It was my income pitted against my conscience. Bad people will do bad things regardless of restraints (oh, and reporting to a non-engineer boss can be a serious occupational hazard).

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote:

oh, and reporting to a non-engineer boss can be a serious occupational hazard

Yep. I got irritated with a PM in a meeting once and said something like "You sure are generous with my stamp."

Quote (Enable)

Weld engineers are certified, as you know, by CWB

I am certified because it is required for my position, but I have consistently turned down structural work. It is a boring, bureaucratic paper exercise. I have however on several occasions gone into the field to fix problems that another certified CWB engineer thought could be fixed by more paper. News flash: procedures don't make welds!

90+% of them are structural engineers who qualify by taking a couple of short metallurgy courses. Certification in the reverse situation is far more onerous - I would essentially have to become a structural engineer. I am all in favour of regulation but the CWB takes bureaucracy to an extreme.

In the pressure vessel world things are at the other extreme. The Ontario PV regulator would literally accept a PQR submission from my chimpanzee if I dressed her up suitably. Everybody and their uncle is in the game, but the only ones that irritate me are other P.Engs dabbling in WE because they legally can. As I said, CPD will not improve this, it will make things worse.

The only fix is for PEO to recognize Welding Engineering as a proper specialty. And IWE is not the answer, it is another whole exercise in credentials. I could obtain IWE just by sending a cheque, but on principle I won't (even though I could easily be spec'ed out of a job in today's twisted hiring market, despite 30+ years of experience).

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."