L Ambiance Plaza Towers Case Study

The original hypothesis of the NBS about the lifting nut which slipped due to a major deformation of the shear-heads and the lifting angles was rejected in future investigations. It was discovered later that the collapse could not have begun with the failure of the column E4.8, since there is physical evidence that at this location the slab was already being supported on wedges, instead of on the lifting angles. Regarding the second option proposed by the NBS, the column E3.8, it is also not plausible. It is known by testimonies provided by the wedging crew that, at the moment of the collapse, the column E3.8 was just wedged and they were about to tack-weld the wedges. When the talk-welding is done, the load has already been transferred from
Rather all discussed deficiencies in the design and execution contributed to the quick collapse of the L’Ambiance Plaza towers. Especially the hypotheses of improper welds and unstable wedges are clearly linked. If one or the other would have happened, the other event would happen next (for example if the wedges would fail, the welds would fail next). It is impossible to point out one of the two as the clear case. The faulty design of the posttensioned slabs ultimately played a big role in the collapse, but there is not enough evidence pointing this hypothesis towards the trigger of the
What is defined in legal terms as mass tort litigation took place; it usually happens when there is a dispute between multiple victims and defendants. These processes end with a settlement by all the parties, prior to going to trial. The judges in charge decided that to avoid a situation economically untenable for the different parties, the settlement was to be made. Consequently, the investigations were left unfinished and the case prematurely ended without determining the exact cause of the collapse. Also, this solution prevented many years of trial, followed by litigations and appeals, and therefore large sums of money saved by all those