OT: Speculation as to reason for the Florida high-rise collapse.

I read that satellites had detected that the building had sung by a few mm since the 1990s. How the heck.......?

JohnP snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.com wrote in news:XnsAD576432557F7JohPnowherecom@81.171.92.222:

SUNK

More like a few cms. The report I read said it had been sinking at the rate of about 2mm per year for the past three decades.

There is also the effect that the ground is a bit like a sponge, and as you say with the amount of fresh water being taken away, then there is going to be migration of the saline water underground. There do seem also to be a disproportionately high number of sinc holes in parts of Florida. One also wonders if any of this was looked into when the block and indeed other blocks were put up. Its not even the case where sinking longer piles would help you almost need a floating building. Brian

Lots of building settle, due to various reasons. Many with no issues whatsoever. Excessive differential settlement is the problem.

Yes but in that case there was no proper stable construction for each floor, each kind of resting on the one below, so a failing anywhere created far more stress above that point. Brian

Well its not really that complicated as when you think of the weight of water and the porosity of the seabed and coast then it should be a factor in many places. You see salt tolerant plants on the coasts of island for this reason, indeed even the channel islands. Brian

Perhaps someone here knows the technical term for this horizontal saline

You make my point perfectly. Progressive collapse is the default. You have to do a lot of extra design and spend money to make it less likely

I never said it was. You introduced that word.

Shock loading on floors below when floors above collapse on them nets you a twin towers/911.

Probably.

From what one can read it was a building waiting to fall down. weakened by salt spray, old, cracking, and so on.

Aka leaning tower of Pisa!

Isn't the whole of Venice sinking?

AIUI the land is sinking due to water extraction, making the rate of sea level rise *seem* much higher than elsewhere, and with the consequent increased risk of flooding.

That seems no longer to be cited as the reason:

On an aside, the article also says: "The previous year (1967), had seen the largest ever number of new flats and houses built ? 470,000".

If only that number of dwelling were build in the last decade when needed. I always thought the rate support grant should have a carrot and stick approach to house building.

London has been sinking for decades, ISTR the rate of sinking increased coinciding with the wide-scale adoption of dish-washers. I wonder if there was a reduction in the rate of sinking/raising? of London when water-meters were installed wide-scale.

And there also the possibility of 'Mafia' concrete being used as part of its construction - this in a hot part of the USA where it is more imprtant to have the correct strength of concrete and not allowed to dry out before full strength. This latter issue was demonstated on the recent BBC documentary about Hinckley C, where the construction slab forming the base of the reactor was sprayed with something waxy/oily immediately after the pour and levelling had finished.

because the precast penels were so badly made, the holes didn't line up, so the workers installing them just didn't bother.

Actually the water table under London has been progressively rising in recent decades. All the local industry that used to have their own wells (like the brewers) have long gone.

In the mid-1960s, the UK was still clearing and replacing slums (many of them genuinely slums, but many not), with large areas of the inner cities being cleared and made available for redevelopment. That was still happening in the 1970s.

Since then, "slum clearance" (where "slum" means any house standing on land the council would prefer to compulsorily purchase for next to nothing) has been out of favour, with refurbishment and rehabilitation the preferred option.

I imagine water meter introduction over the whole of London would have more effect than loss of a few breweries. I wonder if water meters have been introduced into Florida to assist the underlying aquifer.

Correlation, causation?

Dishwashers use more/less water than hand washing?

Bill

Dish washers use less water than hand washing

London gets some of its water from deep chalk aquifers, but mainly from recycled piss.

I very much doubt it.