I_Am_Weasel: Just as it would be unsafe building a house on chinese in Poland.
TuteTibiImperes: Other than being on top of a factory they don't look too much unlike the houses-on-stilts that are fairly common in beachfront areas along the Gulf Coast.
bdub77: Terrible design. Use dozens of strong steel poles. Bonus: after factory work is done invite all your labor (probably all women) over. Daytime factory. Nighttime strip club.
whatsYOURname: Holy shiat did you see that cannibal pedophile dungeon at the bottom of the page? WTF
Danger Avoid Death: whatsYOURname: Holy shiat did you see that cannibal pedophile dungeon at the bottom of the page? WTFIt's the Daily Fail. They have a whole section dedicated to cannibal pedophile dungeons.
whatsYOURname: Danger Avoid Death: whatsYOURname: Holy shiat did you see that cannibal pedophile dungeon at the bottom of the page? WTFIt's the Daily Fail. They have a whole section dedicated to cannibal pedophile dungeons.Like, how come nobody told me?!
EdNortonsTwin: Makes one wonder how safe this structure in China is, and what the human cost was.
Pribar: The problem is probably in the design of the factory, not the houses per se. The factory wasn't built to support anything of that mass or weight so the houses could induce structural failures in the factory and if it, as the de facto foundation for the houses fails.../his original, approved, design was probably more conservative or included reinforcing elements he didn't subsequently build//or the planning office official didn't stay bribed in the face of higher disapproval
Pointy Tail of Satan: That is pretty stupid. Crap tlke that would never be allowed in a western country. Oh wait.....[www.designbuild-network.com image 620x451]
Curious: EdNortonsTwin: Makes one wonder how safe this structure in China is, and what the human cost was.it is a prefab and looked like it had adequate bracing. according to one of the text panels it had been tested for earthquakes.
SpaceBison: It's not really any unsafer than any other typical dwellings in China.[i.telegraph.co.uk image 460x288]
Pointy Tail of Satan: That is pretty stupid. Crap tlke that would never be allowed in a western country. Oh wait.....
Target Builder: Pointy Tail of Satan: That is pretty stupid. Crap tlke that would never be allowed in a western country. Oh wait.....Lateral stability against wind and earthquake loads of that would be provided by the diagonal posts (presumably steel) working in tension and compression, which steel tubes are good at.The Chinese house has thin, vertical, concrete columns that would have to work purely in bending, which is less than ideal. The extension is also built on an existing structure that may or may not have capacity to carry the additional lateral loads. It's possible but I wouldn't bet on it.
lack of warmth: I also was thinking along those lines. The Chinese looked nice at first sight, but I cringed when it mentioned concrete pillars. Concrete can vary a lot by strength and no mention was made of what steel was used inside the pillars. Was it simple rebar or I-beams? As you pointed out, PToS's example has the all important engineered triangles, which if the concrete pillars had I-beams inside and angled would've added a lot or strength. Since the original plans were accepted, I would imagine the factory structure was deemed strong enough for the additional load. The game changer would be the steel inside those pillars. The original plans showed I-beams, the actual work used rebar to save money. Or the original plans showed a single floor and they built two floors.
If you like these links, you'll love
Come on, it's $5 a month, just do it.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Sep 22 2017 10:51:14
Runtime: 0.267 sec (267 ms)