Seismic Evaluation (Code or Ethics?) 1

[chamokinawan]

I did a seismic evaluation, because the owner wanted to retrofit the building to upgrade it to current codes. We did it and gave him a plan on what to do to bring the building up to code (Industrial building, wood roof, reinf. brick walls). Plans were submitted, then he decided it was too expensive and did not want to go through with it. But as an engineer, we know that building is not safe after evaluation (diaphragm was not anchored to brick walls for out of plane). Are we obligated by code to proceed with the retrofit if the building is deemed dangerous? Or can we choose to ignore this fact making it mainly an ethical issue?

 

[EngineeringEric]

Are lives in danger if an Earthquake happens?

 

[Signious]

If you believe that human lives are in danger - notify the city / building authority. Then put your gloves on and get ready for the fight. I would send an identical report to the owner 1 week prior to notifying the city, with a letter explaining why you are notifying the city/ building authority.

You are opening yourself up to a potential lawsuit on privacy grounds - but as long as you can prove the building is unsafe, you have proven that you are doing your due diligence as an Engineer.

Good Luck!

 

[msquared48]

If the owner was not required to do an upgrade prior to your report and he I'd not remodeling the building to a degree that would trigger an upgrade, then he is not required to do one.

I would re emphasize the need to upgrade in writing and give him a proposed phased schedule of upgrades to perform tha could be gradually done, the most critical first. Don't turn this into a legal pissing match. There is no need.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[chamokinawan]

Well the project was split into 2 phases. Phase 1 we did openings in the existing brick walls, which we did and seismically retrofitted. This was in a portion of the building. Then phase 2 was to check the ENTIRE building for a seismic upgrade, which we then started adding anchorage to the walls, subdiaphragm anchorage, etc. So now he only wants to stick with phase 1, which would have been fine had we never had evaluated the entire building for phase 2. I would say that the building was designed properly per the code at the time it was built. But the building does not meet today's codes.

 

[msquared48]

Well, in that the owner did not have to make the upgrade he did do, is the building better off as a result of it or not?

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[chamokinawan]

The owner wasn't obligated to get the building evaluated. I think he figured that while he was making changes (adding openings), he might as well upgrade the entire building. There aren't any legality issues. I was just curious if it was written in the code that once an engineer does an evaluation and comes to a conclusion to retrofit, the building MUST be retrofitted. Or if it is just an ethics thing having an engineer knowing that that building might not be safe during an earthquake and not doing anything about it. Thanks for the replies.

 

[msquared48]

I wouldn't worry about it. You have done your job. I'm sure if you evaluated 50% of the current existing structures, few would comply with current code and you would have the same problem. No worries.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[chamokinawan]

Thanks.

 

[manstrom]

Dangerous and potentially unsafe are two different things.

If the building is 50 years old and in decent shape, but doesn't meet modern code - potentially unsafe. If it will most likely collapse in the event of a seismic event (but has somehow escaped that fate until now), it is dangerous.

CYA with a letter to the owner outlining your case. Use the words "life safety". If it is truly a dangerous condition (e.g. column undersized by a factor of 10), then it would be your duty to bring it up to the jurisdiction.

When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.

-R. Buckminster Fuller

 

[Sawbux]

I did some seismic upgrades in a paper plant a while back. They had spent $20 million for bleaching equipment upgrade & I brought up the fact that a good portion of this equipment was directly below tall URM walls.
We tied the tops of the walls to the roof framing to do a partial upgrade, through bolts in the masonry w/ plate washers - not to full code compliance, but much better than original.
About a year later we had the Nisqually quake and none of the walls came down, but there were new cracks at each wall attachment point. Result, no down time for the mill, no lost investment.
You may want to discuss with the ownerto at least partially reinforce the critical parts of the building as insurance for financial loss.

 

[jeffandmike]

Per the 2009 International Existing Building Code (

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/code/ibr/icc.iebc.2009.pdf)...

not that it is specifically applicable, in this instance, but it is at least a starting point for the discussion, since this wasn't previously discussed:

"Dangerous" - Any building, structure or portion thereof that meets any of the conditions described below shall be deemed dangerous:

1. The building or structure has collapsed, partially collapsed, moved off its foundation or lacks the support of ground necessary to support it.

2. There exists a significant risk of collapse, detachment or dislodgment of any portion, member, appurtenance or ornamentation of the building or structure under service loads.

However, completely agree with msquared48. There is generally no requirement to go around upgrading buildings to meet the current code (some exceptions exist, of course). Think of what a nightmare that would be if that were the case. Every so often owners everywhere would have to open their pocketbooks to upgrade their buildings to meet the latest requirements... only to go through the exercise again, possibly several years later.

If nothing was changed, generally no upgrade will be required. Also, are the portions you are concerned about largely the same as they were on the day they were constructed (i.e. no significant deterioration, corrosion, rot, excessive differential settlement, etc)?

If you're having trouble sleeping at night, I would ask the question... how long has the building been standing as is?

If you're really worried about it (particularly if this approximates a more crucial occupancy category, for example), draft a letter to the owner strongly recommending that the upgrades be made. Based on the information you've provided to this point, I don't necessarily believe the jurisdiction needs to be involved.