Explore the vast range of titles available.

The collapse or evacuation of residential buildings due to not withstanding gravitational loads has caused not only loss of human lives but also economic damages. They are also a significant detriment to the engineering profession’s reputation. Therefore, it is essential for the engineering community to analyze the causes of these failures and document each case to learn from mistakes and prevent them from happening again. In recent years, construction has increased considerably in developing countries such as Colombia. Reinforced concrete construction is often preferred due to faster material supply and availability of labor compared to steel structures. With this increase in construction, work control has not been adequate, and problems have been founded in some buildings in cities such as Medellin, Cartagena, Rionegro, among others. This paper summarizes the aspects that were taken into account for the study of pathology and vulnerability of a 19-story reinforced concrete building in the municipality of Rionegro, Antioquia, which, due to the findings, had to be subsequently demolished. The analyzes carried out along with field and laboratory studies are presented. Some of the aspects found were incorrect analysis and design criteria, poor quality of materials, and poor aspects of supervision. This paper also aims to make a reflection about some bad practices and common errors that are developed in structural engineering consulting firms, as well as in the construction practice.

The goal of re-examinination of seismic design codes is aimed at making their provisions as transparent as possible for users so that the design would be clear and enriching for structural engineers. This paper presents a transparency evaluation of the codes currently being used in the USA and Colombia for seismic design of buildings. It is demonstrated that the procedures used in most codes do not offer a clear view of buildings' seismic response assessment. The Colombian code should become as conceptually transparent as possible when defining strength modification factors and assessing maximum lateral displacement. In addition, at least two limit states (service and life safety) should be clearly defined, along with allowable story drift thereby better reflect expected structural performance. Otherwise, using current procedures could lead not only to interpretation errors but also inadequate estimation of seismic strength and deformation demands.