max load on ramp

[GiGa]

I ask people who know a lot more about me in these things as a result of an accident in my condo. . .
My condo has two ramps of access to underground garages. Technically the ramps are of a owner who gave them in use to the condo.
in the premises adjacent to the garage a shop / wholesale of fruits and vegetables has been installed that, not being able to descend with the trucks, brings up and down the boxes of vegetables with a bedbed.
on the other day, the bed is broken into a whirlwind that opened in the ramp. trying to remove it worsened the situation as well as breaking the gas pipeline that serves mine and another building. for 5 days we did not have the possibility to use the gas (with consequent large discomfort).
now the owner of the ramp argues that the voragine (of 3 meters for 1.5 meters of depth) is to be attributed to the dissess of the subsoil, but it seems to be the property of the condo. so now asks for the restoration of the viability. also the store would like to ask for damages for interruption activity.
waiting for the lawyers to clarify the responsibilities, I wondered if a ramp of access to "civil" garages normally hides "dimensioned" to bear also the continuous passage of a bed that, even unloading, has its beautiful concentrated weight... in practice, that mule could pass or the "background" (I don't know the technical terms) should have been specifically dimensioned?

 

[gil]

Hi.
the idea that I can get from the short description is a little vague therefore I can not make absolute statements, but the lines of principle are the following.

1) a building building must be realized taking into account the boundary conditions. if the subsoil is yielding, the appropriate precautions must be taken in the construction. However, it is true that over many years, unpredictable events can occur to damage the work. but the manager remains the owner of the building. It is possible that lawyers can reduce these responsibilities, by adopting natural causes, but it is clear that the problem is the owner of the ramp and at most, partly mother nature.

2) is to check whether the ramp is designed for use that if or not done. It is true that a small, moderately loaded mule has a weight similar to that of a big car. How big was the bed, what weight did he carry? because if it exceeded the scope of the project, it is responsible the owner of the ramp that has employed it beyond the limits previewed. I don't know how much (it's lawyer stuff) maybe even the shop that didn't verify the compatibility of the ramp with its uses.

3) it is to be assessed if “the condo” owner of the land, in the contract of rent of the land was assumed some particular obligation. But in general I don't think there's any responsibility. and, however, possible to attribute the particular type of soil to losses in the water pipelines if there are in the vicinity. Also in this case understand the percentages of liability with the owner of the pipelines is lawyer stuff.

 

[Cristallo]

Well, I'll tell you my point of view. .
the bottom (calpestium) of a ramp is designed for a certain load when it is empty below and therefore must bear the load and its own weight.
When it's just a surface finish that's under it all the time, what's to calculate?
Have you ever heard of someone who designs the max flow of a road on the pavement?
if you just want to think that you just need an igloo plant 50x50cm with overhead 8cm insole with a poor network elected to guarantee a range of 1000kg/mq.. .

something different if under the floor a hidden voragine opens. what was before a finish (the ramp), now becomes a real loft that alone must support the applied load ( resulting in generation of moments, arrows etc.), something for which it was not really thought.

Now the problem remains because the whirlwind is generated. if (for example) there was a loss in an exhaust pipe, do you think it is responsible for the owner of the ramp or the owner of the pipeline?

 

[GiGa]

thank you for the snacks...
Frankly it is not clear to me how the property is divided, and from the mails that are coming from the administrator it seems not yet clear how to divide the responsibilities (as predictable). Of course, everyone dumps responsibility, and everyone threatens damages.
What makes me more strange, and that perhaps is more directly verifiable, is the fact if on a "civil" road we can pass an industrial mule and if its passage can, over time, have led to a deterioration so as to bring down the cover.
It is true that probably also mother nature put on us the paw (in rome the water is everywhere), but I am quite convinced that the continuous passage of goods did not do well to that ramp.

 

[Betoniera]

.... I wondered if a ramp access to "civili" garages normally hides "dimensioned" to bear also the continuous passage of a bed that, even unloading, has its beautiful concentrated weight... in practice, that mule could pass or the "background" (I don't know the technical terms) should have been specifically dimensioned?

Hi, giga.
the technical aspects must be clarified, then responsibility is assigned.
If the insole is sinked 1.5 m I think the original insole was empty under (as much as the gas tube passed).

in this hypothesis, why is the mule dirty?
1) first possible answer: because he gave the insole.
Well, if so, then how much do you have to bring the insole and how much was it caricvata? .
The insole is an access ramp to the box. the norm on construction is d.m. 14-01-2008.
in taboella 3.1.ii are indicated the overloads that the buildings must hold according to use.
the authorized load with vehicles up to 30 q.li (machine) is indicated at point f and prescribes:
- minimum distributed load 250 kg/m2
- concentrated loads 2 loads of 1000 kg placed at the distance of m 1,80 sun a footprint of cm 20x20.
Therefore, a tenx of confidence is necessary that, analyze the insole and make a static verification with the 2 conditions imposed by the legislation.
if the accounts do not return, then the insole was undersized (it was not normal). If the accounts return, then obviously the burden to which it was submitted was far greater than the insole could hold.
in this last case an improper use of the ramp was made.

2) possible answer: because he gave the land.
I think it is very unlikely that a sudden drop in the ground has occurred.
generally the failure of a foundation is progressive with the progressive appearance of obvious dissents with cracks, but without breaking.

Ultimately, before the lawyers, they serve the technicians to spy because the insole gave up. that regardless of the properties.
legal persons, possibly, come after to attribute any liability and, hopefully, to find an agreement on litigation.
Hi.