“Unstable design, absent supervision, defective implementation”; Scientific narrative

According to RCO News Agency, Dr. Omid Bahar, Faculty of Institute of Structural Engineering Institute of International Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, at the scientific session “Another reflection on Metropol; The research story of the collapse of Abadan Metropolis Building “Abadan’s Metropolitan Building Describe the Causes of Abadan Metropolon Building and emphasized the need to establish an effective and responsible supervisory system in the construction industry.

Bahar described the scientific review of the story from a letter sent to the Research Institute on June 5, and said that the research was asked to examine the technical causes of metropolitan incident. Upon receiving this request, the research institute immediately dispatched a triple team consisting of Dr. Mousavi, Engineer Farshchi and Lukzadeh Engineer for field research. The mission was carried out in the first half of July, in the extreme heat of the area, during which related documents were examined and conversations were held with informed people. According to these data, the initial report was edited and published by the end of July of that year.

A member of the Institute for Structural Engineering in the International Institute of Seismology said the purpose of the report was to identify the defects, to recite them and to analyze the problems, not to determine the culprit or the accused, adding that the research does not consider itself authorized to enter the judiciary and appoint responsible.

He added: The report is set in two seasons. The first chapter includes the findings of the expedition group, including building technical information, design and supervision, remarks by eyewitnesses, former project professors and observers. At the end of this chapter there was a general summary and suggestions for a more complete evaluation; But this comprehensive evaluation never came into effect.

The researcher described the second chapter of this report as a topic of the subject of the four research institutes of the Institute of Seismology, Geotechnics, Structures and Risk Management, and noted: This section provides analytics in these areas. This section also includes suggestions for the start of the structural reform process in the structural monitoring and safety system in the country.

Bahar went on to refer to details of the findings of the research group and continued: Based on the first and most important factors, weak structural design was declared. There have been numerous evidence of successive changes in the design of the structure without re -analyzing or modifying maps. Also, the Side Freight System of the building was not necessary; The columns were constantly moving, and local buckling was constantly on the “John” sheets of the columns. Even in some cases, the components of bilateral slab were unilaterally implemented without the proper design and execution of the border beams.

He noted: There have been many problems in the field of execution. Many structural parts were made and installed in a piece of work, but at the site of construction. In the recorded images, the bars on the bottom of the slab were fully visible. Constructive members were reviewed, reinforced and welded. These reforms, especially in the parking ramp, were repeated many times. However, the repeated warnings of observers and visitors about the rise of beams and other objections were not considered.

Bahar also spoke about the lack of documentation of material testing, adding: “Either the materials have not been tested properly or the results have not been recorded in the files.” This can be a sign of regulatory weakness or the use of inferior materials.

He also pointed to the serious vacuum of the presence of specialist observers and said: “At many times, there is evidence of the absence of the observer.” Even during the periods when the official supervisor and designer were introduced, their protest letters to the executive director of the project have continued and the project continued despite the objections. This shows that observers did not have the power to close the project or reform defects and that the project control system has not fulfilled properly.

According to the faculty of seismology, during the project, a team was studying columns and removing defects daily, without any safety measures. At the time of the event, no scaffolding or backup system was installed.

Emphasizing the need to reform the legal and regulatory structure in the country’s construction industry, he made suggestions for starting a corrective path. These include the following: Building and implementation companies must be legally and with a specific responsibility. These companies must be evaluated by a third institution, such as the engineering system or the insurance company, and their performance in various projects. In the event of a design objection, the designer must take responsibility for correction and compensation.

He noted: “All masters must be professional and this competence will be valid until the end of the project.” The details and information of the consumer materials must be documented, recorded and publicly available. The executor must be responsible for any damage caused by inappropriate materials or executive error. The responsibility for safe construction must be responsible for the organs and systems related to the field of construction; Not real people.

He said: “If such events in the country are carefully and engineered and managed, we can design a coherent structure for the future of the country’s engineering community; A structure in which human lives will not sacrifice systematic weakness.

According to RCO News Agency, the 2 -storey metropolitan building; A commercial -manufactured project with widespread technical, architectural and surveillance violations collapsed at noon on June 2, 2008, killing four people.

The end of the message