Coss Posted November 9 Report Share Posted November 9 Because - Somchai the road builder - "That looks OK, you could drive a truck over that..." https://www.pattayamail.com/thailandnews/overloaded-soil-truck-likely-causes-concrete-slab-collapse-in-bangkok-444936 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekong Posted November 10 Report Share Posted November 10 Definitely MEA fault. Even if truck carrying 36 Tonnes the concrete slab should have been designed for 54 Tonnes (1.5 times SWL, Safe Working Load) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bust Posted November 10 Report Share Posted November 10 Appears the slab didn't fail the road base (support) did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekong Posted November 10 Report Share Posted November 10 25 minutes ago, bust said: Appears the slab didn't fail the road base (support) did. If that is the case why is slab bent in the middle? would expect slab to be straight if it didn’t fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bust Posted November 10 Report Share Posted November 10 OK think of this way. Lay a piece of wood between 2 bricks and jump on it. It breaks. Lay that same piece of wood on a solid surface and nothing happens. Had the slab been supported equally and continuously or sufficiently that would never have happened. More of an engineering fail than the concrete. Also looking at it but couldn't be sure, it looks like 2 separate slabs. The fold appears to be a joint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekong Posted November 10 Report Share Posted November 10 But if the slab had of been on a solid surface there would still be a solid surface in place when slab removed. How would MEA be able to carry out underground work if a solid surface in the way? The article clearly states “Concrete Slab” singular if 2 Separate it would have said “SlabS” But then we are just hypothesising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coss Posted November 10 Author Report Share Posted November 10 pernicketing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coss Posted November 10 Author Report Share Posted November 10 I reckon that Somchai the road builder, probably signed someone else's signature on the clearance form for, "All work here carried out to spec." and has now run away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo_bill Posted November 10 Report Share Posted November 10 1 hour ago, Coss said: I reckon that Somchai the road builder, probably signed someone else's signature on the clearance form for, "All work here carried out to spec." and has now run away. Roadbuilder Somchai according various sources confirmed ." Salabb too stalong , no can break. Big car hab many pomplemm " 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bust Posted November 11 Report Share Posted November 11 14 hours ago, Mekong said: 'But if the slab had of been on a solid surface there would still be a solid surface in place when slab removed.' How would MEA be able to carry out underground work if a solid surface in the way? The article clearly states “Concrete Slab” singular if 2 Separate it would have said “SlabS” But then we are just hypothesising. Doesn't need to be a solid surface to be fit for purpose. Like I said more an engineering fail. As for the slab/slabs for it to fold in that way as a single slab it would indicate a lack of, or complete absence of any reinforcement, again an engineering fail. So again the point I am making is the concrete didn't fail the application did. Wonder who, if anyone signed off on the works 😊 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now