Author Archives: Melissa Dewey Brumback

ConsensusDocs v. AIA: a useful chart (Tue Tip)

Posted on by
one large and one small strawberry

Which strawberry (er, form contract) will YOU choose?

In advance of the ConsensusDocs training, thought you might like to see a handy comparison chart  of the common ConsensusDocs forms to their standard AIA counterparts.

The chart is produced by the folks at ConsensusDocs, so I’m sure any ambiguities were interpreted in their favor.  That being said, if you are considering using a different standard form contract for your next project, you might want to check it out!

Have you taken the plunge into the ConsensusDocs?  Prefer to stick by the tried and true AIA documents?  Are you an EJCDC maverick instead?  Drop me a line to tell me why you use the contract you do.

——————-

Photo (c) This is Chris via Creative Commons License.

S.Korea strengthens Building Code after Quake

Posted on by

Korea

 

As an update to my post on the Japanese earthquake, there is news from South Korea that the government there is already working to strengthen quake-resistant capacity. 

“We are seeking to revise a construction law to strengthen quake-resistant capacity for two-story and smaller buildings,” the land and transportation ministry said. “The government will complete its final plan for that by next week.”

Under current Korean law, only large buildings with more than two stories and floor space of more than 1,000 square meters are required to be built according to quake-resistant guidelines, and the ministry is looking to expand the quake-resistent guidelines to smaller buildings.  Currently,  smaller structures are not subject to the requirement, even though they make up 84% of the total construction.  

The U.S. is unlikely to adopt new standards in such a lightening fashion.

Comments? Questions?  Drop me a line, or follow me on Twitter @melissabrumback

Japan Earthquake: Engineering that saved lives

Posted on by
globe showing earthquake activity
Photo: NASA. Cumulative Earthquake Activity (1960-1995).

 

The earthquake that hit Japan one week ago today, which had a reported  magnitude of 8.9, ranks as the 7th largest earthquake ever recorded, and the death toll continues to rise from the trifecta of earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear power issues.    The death toll could have been even worse, however, without the strict Japanese Building Codes which doubtless saved thousands of lives.

According to the New York Times, such features as extra steel bracing, giant rubber pads and embedded hydraulic shock absorbers in high buildings make modern Japanese buildings among the sturdiest in the world during a major earthquake.   Japan has such strict building codes because it is located in the “Ring of Fire,” where over 90% of the world’s total earthquakes occur.

John Wilson of Swinburne University (Melbourne) Centre for Sustainable Infrastructure says Japan’s “stringent” building regulations make the country well-prepared for earthquakes and tsunamis.  “[Building codes] were tightened up a lot in the 1980s – most of the buildings built over the last 30 years in Japan will be subject to very tight seismic regulations,” he said.  “They are designed for quite a high lateral force, to allow for the forces that get generated from such earthquakes… but also in many buildings they add additional features such as additional damping in the buildings to absorb some of the energy.”

During the earthquake, despite being hundreds of miles from the epicenter, Tokyo’s tall buildings literally swayed like trees as the quake shook the ground.  According to structural engineer Bill Faschan:  “The basic idea, particularly (for) a tall building, is it’s supposed to act like a tree. A tree in the wind, it sways back and forth. And in a seismic event, it’s very similar. Obviously, the ground (is) shaking as opposed to the building being moved back and forth by the wind, but (it’s) the same idea. It’s supposed to move. It’s supposed to give.”

Is the U.S. ready for a big earthquake?

Not according to some experts.  Even in the more earthquake-prone areas such as California, they say, the U.S. is far behind Japan in the building technology.  As Donald R. Prothero with the L.A. Times pointed out:

Although California building codes are among the most stringent in the United States (thanks to what the 1933 Long Beach quake, which destroyed nearly all of our unreinforced masonry buildings), they don’t begin to match the standards demanded in Japan. Just consider the high overpasses where the 5 and 14 Freeways meet — which fell in the 1971 Sylmar quake; their replacements fell in the 1994 Northridge quake — and you begin to realize just how vulnerable our infrastructure is. And those quakes were only 6.6 and 6.7 in magnitude.

What comes next for the Building Codes?

Will U.S. jurisdictions create more stringent Building Codes after seeing the Japanese earthquake’s damage?  Although California does take  the likelihood of earthquakes into account its Code, will it now tighten them further?

Drop me a line in the comments to discuss this or any other Construction law topic.  And don’t forget to sign up for email delivery of blog posts directly to your mailbox. 

Friday Extra:  Check out this Blog Post for a simple to understand explanation of the science behind Japan’s earthquake.

Are there Enough Incentives for Green Building? (guest post)

Posted on by

For today’s Tuesday Tip we have a guest post by Drake MacDonald. 

According to Drake, his brief experience in construction introduced him to the profession’s many shortcomings, and as an editor and writer for ConstructionManagement.net, he works to promote construction management education in the hopes of raising industry standards of organization, communication, and sustainability.

Today, many construction projects are aimed toward going green. Not only does green construction benefit the environment, it also helps people save money on energy bills. To someone who doesn’t know anything about construction management, green construction may seem daunting. Many associate going green with spending more money on construction. However that isn’t always the case. [Editor’s note: As previously discussed, sometimes costs are too high.]  Some government incentives actually help people save money on green construction projects. Yet, oftentimes these incentives don’t go far enough. Here is a look at some of the incentives owners get for green buildings and what the government can do to improve them.

The biggest government incentives for going green are the tax breaks, which apply to both individuals and corporations. Individuals can enjoy a number of tax credits for going green. For instance, the Residential Energy Efficiency Tax Credit provides people with a tax credit for making everything from their windows to furnaces more energy efficient. The Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credit goes even further, by offering an even larger tax break to homeowners who build or remodel their homes to take advantage of solar or wind energy. Likewise, businesses can receive tax credits for showing a commitment to renewable energy as well as investing in new energy.

Beyond tax breaks, there are rebates, exemptions, grants and loans geared toward helping people with green construction projects. There are rewards for energy performance as well. There are also state incentives, including rebates for using renewable energy, which allow homeowners to further capitalize on building a green home.

Essentially, almost any green improvement an owner makes to his building will allow him to take advantage of at least one of these incentives. These grants and loans can help curb the financial stress that comes with a green construction project. Additionally, energy incentives save the owner money over the long-term, and that should be factored in to cost considerations.

keep my money GREEN sign

While the government does an exceptional job of providing people with plenty of incentives to go green, it can do more to promote them. Many owners are not even aware that these incentives exist. In order to better advertise these incentives, the government should set up a universal Web site where those interested in green building can discover all available incentives for which they qualify. The government should also consider sending out mailings, as well as television advertising to promote its green building incentives.

The government should also focus on gearing more incentives to individuals. While several incentives for homeowners do exist, the majority of green building incentives are designed to benefit corporations. Furthermore, the government should remove all expiration dates on existing incentives. Many incentives have already expired or will expire in the coming months. Owners should be rewarded no matter when they make green improvements, and the elimination of incentives is likely to only deter green building from continuing.

Clearly the government has started a great incentive program for going green; however, it needs to continue, through both advertising and through making green incentives permanent.  If the government is truly dedicated to promoting green building, it needs to make an effort to grow the program instead of phasing out incentives.

Melissa again:  Do you agree or disagree with Drake?  Drop Drake and me a line in the comment section below.

————————————

Photo by smiteme via Creative Commons license.

Micropiles for bad soil: a Tar Heel victory

Posted on by

Kenan constructionDespite foundation challenges, construction is almost complete on the expansion at University of North Carolina’s Kenan stadium.  The project started with a deep foundation system from design-build contractor GeoStructures.  Known as the Carolina Student-Athlete Center for Excellence, the addition was built on a parcel with a knotty mix of fill soils, subsurface boulders and varying depths to rock.   To achieve uniform foundation support, GeoStructures designed a Micropile system (also known as a Mini pile system) which could be drilled into the variable ground conditions.

After an pre-production load testing program that provided an optimized design, GeoStructures proceeded with installation of 265 micropiles ranging in capacity from 80 tons (160 kips) to 175 tons (350 kips) each. Although most were designed for compression loading only, designs in some areas called for tension resistance due to lateral loading. All of the micropiles were cased to rock with internal reinforcement and socketed into hard bedrock present at the site.

For a video peek into the various construction phases, check out UNC’s  “Hard Hat Hits”.

Do you have experience wiht micropile systems?  Foundation or soil tales of woe?  Just love the Tarheels?  Drop me a note in the comments section, below.

——————————————

Photo (c) GeoStructures