Tuesday, September 21, 2010

The fix is in

Initial inquiries into the Stadium Southland collapse show it was built when roof weight-bearing requirements were lower than they are now, Building and Construction Minister Maurice Williamson says.

Gee, that was quick. It is only Tuesday and the fix is already in. John Boy's fix-it man on the spot has had a squiz and got the low down from those in the know.

The snowfall was a "spectacularly unusual" weather event

Not so say the local weather people. A normal event to be expected.

some calculations had been done using information from Niwa about how much snow was likely to have been on the roof and found the weight would have been between 0.380kPa and 0.470kPa

At the time the stadium was built in 2000, the building code for buildings of the stadium's nature sitting at sea-level was 0.323 kilopascals and that it was in fact designed to withstand 0.400kPa

Mr Williamson said in 2006 a severe snow storm which damaged roofs in Canterbury had led to weight bearing requirements in the Building Code to be lifted to 0.630kPa for structures of Stadium Southland's stature.

So knowing that, why wasn't immediate strengthening work done on Southland's stadium? As they are required to do so in the guidelines as below.
Existing installations
Design engineers who are aware of eccentric cleat connections which may be deficient because they have been designed using flawed methods or assumptions and are a critical part of the structural system carrying gravity loading with no redundancy, should as soon as possible advise the building owner accordingly and recommend the connections be assessed for structural integrity.

Some involved these processes have failed in their duty of care, IMNSHO. I wonder if that line of questioning will be taken, Mr Fix-it?


Anonymous said...

If this is correct why should the insurance company pay up?


gravedodger said...

as I understand it the roof was lowered by several meters as a compromise to get the resource consent past adjoining property's objections thereby compromising the ability for the roof to shed any of the snow that fell on it.
This is in the same category as the stupid "green" based objections to clearance of sections in Victoria, of trees and combustable material that contributed spectacularly to the devastation in last years fires. The Law Of unintended consequences.
I am aware of one resident who was compelled to pay fines for breaching the clearance rules of some thousands of dollars but was the owner of a building that survived the fires.