February 3, 201214 yr Author I have heard of at least one that is very serious. Not life threatening, but absolutely serious.Yeah, that was based on very early reports.
February 3, 201214 yr All good and valid scenerios on what might have happened during the pour. I think you'll find when the actually report comes out that it was an issue with the bolts (or lack there of) holding up the girder that collapsed. I heard a report today on the radio that said all the bolts were there. No mention if there was a problem with them though.
February 6, 201214 yr Obviously those were only temporary bolts to speed up erection of the steel . The two bolts shown in the first picture are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long and appear to be the wrong diameter for a final installation . The permanent bolts were probably to be installed with a follow up crew . Just a guess but this was probably done late on a work day and the crew foreman missed the follow up on the next day . Probably a friday -monday situation , Where were the Inspections done by the sub ,the general etal ? Thanks for the pictures CWB where did you get them ? Edited February 6, 201214 yr by KyTmcNcc
February 6, 201214 yr Obviously those were only temporary bolts to speed up erection of the steel . The two bolts shown in the first picture are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long and appear to be the wrong diameter for a final installation . The permanent bolts were probably to be installed with a follow up crew . Just a guess but this was probably done late on a work day and the crew foreman missed the follow up on the next day . Probably a friday -monday situation , Where were the Inspections done by the sub ,the general etal ? This was (allegedly) a steel connection that was completed by the erector and signed-off on by the testing agency - testing agency was a hired testing firm, very well known in the area.
February 6, 201214 yr This was (allegedly) a steel connection that was completed by the erector and signed-off on by the testing agency - testing agency was a hired testing firm, very well known in the area. N-----g?
February 6, 201214 yr They still on the job or at least that particular inspector ? Now that, I don't know. Be interesting to see how that develops. I can't imagine that particular inspector wouldn't be taken off the job (and most likely canned).
February 6, 201214 yr Now that, I don't know. Be interesting to see how that develops. I can't imagine that particular inspector wouldn't be taken off the job (and most likely canned). Yes he along with the subs foreman and their inspector should be canned . Do you agree with my Friday- Monday Premise ?
February 7, 201214 yr Yes he along with the subs foreman and their inspector should be canned . Do you agree with my Friday- Monday Premise ?When you say "subs foreman", are you referring to the sub who was placing the concrete or the sub that installed the structural steel? Where was the GC's pre-pour inspection?
February 7, 201214 yr The steel erector sub -contractor. They should have caught first it was their job to install the beam correctly ,. then the General contractor's inspection team should have caught it .
February 7, 201214 yr Yes he along with the subs foreman and their inspector should be canned . Do you agree with my Friday- Monday Premise ? Sorry...meant to respond earlier. I think you may well be correct about the Friday/Monday premise though. The pictures came from a worker for one of the subs onsite who I've worked with in the past.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.