Seismic Evaluation (Code or Ethics?)
Seismic Evaluation (Code or Ethics?)
(OP)
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?






RE: Seismic Evaluation (Code or Ethics?)
RE: Seismic Evaluation (Code or Ethics?)
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!
RE: Seismic Evaluation (Code or Ethics?)
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)
RE: Seismic Evaluation (Code or Ethics?)
RE: Seismic Evaluation (Code or Ethics?)
Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)
RE: Seismic Evaluation (Code or Ethics?)
RE: Seismic Evaluation (Code or Ethics?)
Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)
RE: Seismic Evaluation (Code or Ethics?)
RE: Seismic Evaluation (Code or Ethics?)
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
RE: Seismic Evaluation (Code or Ethics?)
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.
RE: Seismic Evaluation (Code or Ethics?)
"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.