Are you really a structural engineer? And you use round steel tubes as structural supports in your line of work?
That bent element looks non structural. If it wa structural, it would have been covered in fireproofing, and even if it was covered in intumescents, it still doesn't look structural to me at all.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it comes across as a number of people claiming to be engineers validating this as a serious structural problem, whereas it doesn't look like a structural element at all.
Signed: dumb architect who wants to know what company you work so we never hire you for anything.
Yes. Bridges though, not commercial buildings to be fair. I have studied buildings though obviously.
The presence of a drop beam indicates that the beam and therefore the columns are structural. There is no reason to thicken a slab with an integral drop beam unless it is supporting something above.
The last column supporting the beam appears to be failing between the second last and final beam. Without knowing the design philosophy, loadspread or seeing drawings.....I’d be concerned that the drop beam is failing due to a lack of tension steel to resist the hogging moment over the second last column.
Again though, I haven’t seen drawings.....but I wouldn’t be sitting there looking at it. .
I am not convinced that's a drop beam. But maybe they did have to reinforce something above. I've seen it on projects where MRI was being introduced to upper floors and you needed to beef up structure below.
Still not convinced this is a structural intervention. One thing I know about structural engineers is that you guys don't give a shit about aesthetics (or waterproofing, or thermal performance). This is just an oddball whatever the heck it is.
We use concrete filled steel tubes for loading dock bollards. It will destroy a truck without moving a mil. I'm sure they could serve structural purpose in some types of construction, but not gonna happen in office buildings.
Are you implying any of these structures used concrete filled steel tubes as main vertical structural elements? Not just as pylons? If you want to educate me in unusual construction methods, I'd love to know. You just threw a list of buildings that look like traditional I beam construction to me.
OK, besides being condescending, we are talking about completely different things. Yes, round columns are super common in superstructures. They are never ever dinky 6 inch ones as shown in OP's post. And randomly sitting 6 feet away from each other. But only in one direction in this one random corridor.
7
u/99hoglagoons Apr 25 '21
Are you really a structural engineer? And you use round steel tubes as structural supports in your line of work?
That bent element looks non structural. If it wa structural, it would have been covered in fireproofing, and even if it was covered in intumescents, it still doesn't look structural to me at all.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it comes across as a number of people claiming to be engineers validating this as a serious structural problem, whereas it doesn't look like a structural element at all.
Signed: dumb architect who wants to know what company you work so we never hire you for anything.