S.Korea strengthens Building Code after Quake

Posted on by

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

Photo: NASA. Cumulative Earthquake Activity (1960-1995).

The earthquake that hit Japan one week ago today [note: this article was originally published on March 18, 2011], 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.

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.

Wind Power: It’s in the air!

Posted on by

[note: this article was originally published on March 10, 2011]

Wind Power. It’s been defined as green, clean, sustainable, and even affordable. In an effort to be more “green,” save or even generate money, and reduce waste, several companies are turning to the wind turbine.

In Indiana, Purdue University and its commercial partner Performance Services have planned and designed a $200 million wind farm scheduled to begin generating electric power by late 2012. Earlier this week, the University gave approval to proceed with the project, which will involve obtaining regulatory approval. If the project is approved, the team hopes to generate 100 megawatts, which could power up to 25,000 homes.

In Canada, Greengate Power Corp. just this week has received provincial approval from the Alberta Utilities Commission to build Canada’s largest wind farm in southern Alberta. The project is expected to be Canada’s largest operating wind energy project with a total generating capacity of 300 megawatts when it is completed.

Also this week, in a town outside of Boston, the local Conservation Commission has approved a wind turbine project, despite objections from the local golf club.

Closer to home, Iberdrola Renewables earlier this year filed an application with the North Carolina Utilities Commission to build what would be the state’s first commercial wind farm in Pasquotank and Perquimans counties. If approved, the project would occupy approximately 20,000 acres of private land near Elizabeth City, and could potentially provide electricity for 55,000 to 70,000 North Carolina homes. Construction of the structure, if approved, is slated to begin by the end of this year and could create about 400 jobs.

Share your thoughts:

What is your opinion of wind turbines? Do they make sense? Is the return on investment worth the additional upfront costs? Do you just plain think they are ugly and not want them in your backyard, or do you see them as modern art and things of beauty? Drop me a comment!

——————————-

Photo: FreeFoto.com

Engineering flaws cited in Oil Spill Report

Posted on by

The Chief Counsel’s Report on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling has been released. Following on the heals of the January National Commission report to the President, the Chief Counsel’s report “provides damning evidence that preventable engineering and management mistakes—rather than mechanical failings—were the primary cause of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion last spring,” notes ENR’s Pam Hunter.

Among the Technical Findings, the Report states that the root cause of the failure was that the cement that BP and Halliburton pumped to the bottom of the well did not seal off hydrocarbons in the formation. The report acknowledges several factors which may have increased the risk of cement failure, including:

drilling complications forced engineers to plan a finesse cement job that called for, among other things, a low overall volume of cement.
the cement slurry itself was poorly designed—some of Halliburton‘s own internal tests showed that the design was unstable, and subsequent testing by the Chief Counsel‘s team raised further concerns.
BP‘s temporary abandonment procedures—finalized only at the last minute—called for rig personnel to severely underbalance the well before installing any additional barriers to back up the cement job.

Among the Management Findings, the Report states:

BP did not adequately identify or address risks created by last-minute changes to well design and procedures. BP changed its plans repeatedly and up to the very last minute, sometimes causing confusion and frustration among BP employees and rig personnel.
Halliburton appears to have done little to supervise the work of its key cementing personnel and does not appear to have meaningfully reviewed data that should have prompted it to redesign the Macondo cement slurry.
Transocean did not adequately train its employees in emergency procedures and kick detection, and did not inform them of crucial lessons learned from a similar and recent near-miss drilling incident.

Legal Status? The lawsuits that will be flowing (pardon the pun) from this disaster will be extreme. Expect to see possible class action certifications requested for some of those that were suffered damages. In any lawsuit related to the spill, the report by the Chief Counsel will, undoubtedly, be Exhibit A.

——————————–

Photo credit: Richard Sullivan, via Wikimedia/Creative Commons license.

Construction Law in North Carolina

The original blog for architects, engineers, designers, & other construction professionals

Tag Archives: construction

S.Korea strengthens Building Code after Quake

Japan Earthquake: Engineering that saved lives

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

Wind Power: It’s in the air!

Engineering flaws cited in Oil Spill Report