Tag Archives: damages

Japan’s Wind Power Still Working (Plus Tues Tip)

Posted on by


Japan wind farm

Recently I came across some good news out of Japan:  their wind farms are still working, despite the calamities that nation has faced in the past week.

As I previously noted, wind power is picking up speed as a viable green energy source.  The news out of Japan gives wind power another “feather in its cap”.

According to Yoshinori Ueda, leader of the International Committee of the Japan Wind Power Association & Japan Wind Energy Association, there has been no wind facility damage reported by any association members, from either the earthquake or the tsunami. Even the Kamisu semi-offshore wind farm, located about 300km from the epicenter of the quake, survived.

To read more about how the Japanese wind farms survived, read the full story from Kelly Rigg, HuffPost writer. 

Tuesday Tip: 

Ms. Riggs is also Executive Director of the Global Cool Cities Alliance (GCCA), which has a very interesting website  which explains the science behind  reducing Heat Island effects in cities through the use of light-colored, reflective roofs.  

——————–

 Photo:  A wind farm in Kuzumaki, Iwate, Japan via jasohill.

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.

Engineering flaws cited in Oil Spill Report

Posted on by

Horizon explosion

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.

A tale of 2 green roofs

Posted on by
green roof

Chicago City Hall’s Green Roof

Two commercial “green” roofs have been in the news this week.   One involves a collapse; one involves energy savings.

Green Roof Collapse

The green roof at the Aquascape, Inc. warehouse in Illinois collapsed over the weekend, likely due to melting snow and ice.   A 50 foot wide section of th 256,000-square-foot roof (allegedly the largest sloping green roof in North America) collapsed on Sunday, although no injuries were reported.  A team of structural engineers from the building’s design firm is investigating the cause.  As noted in a company press release, St. Charles, IL, where Aquascape Inc’s head office is located, had been recently hit with a major snow storm where 20.6 inches of snow had fallen in less than 24 hours, followed by above freezing temperatures causing a quick thaw.  An ice damn at the base is suspected to have backed the water up over the parking structure causing its collapse.

Solar Roof goes “live”

While Aquascape’s engineers are investigating their roof collapse, there is some good green roof news closer to home.  Raleigh-based marble company David Allen Company has recently “flipped the switch” on a photovoltaic solar energy facility that  it claims is one of the largest rooftop photovoltaic systems in the Triangle, with  700 solar modules covering 23,000 square feet of the rooftop of the company’s warehouse.  The company hopes to offset at least 35% of its current electrical costs, and sell energy to Progress Energy as well, according to Triangle Business Journal.

Legal Implications related to Roof Design?

Both of these roofs bring up legal issues.  Was the Aquascape green roof designed appropriately to accommodate loads in a winter climate?

With so many roof collapses this winter (including, of course,  the Minneapolis metrodome) , is there, or should there be, a duty on the building’s owner/maintenance crew to proactively remove snow accumulations?

For new solar roofs, such as at David Allen Company, who assumes the risk if the expected cost savings are not realized?

Based on the sheer number of roof collapses this winter, and the number of green projects growing steadily, there is sure to be some litigation addressing at least some of these issues in the near future.  Stay tuned.

———————————

Photo Courtsey Wikipedia/Creative Commons license 

Can a designer limit his liability to his fees for service?

Posted on by

Architects and engineers (and the owners/contractors with whom they contract) often wonder whether limiting liability language is enforceable.  The answer, as in much of construction law, is very much dependent on what state’s court will be interpreting the contract.  Some states allow such limiting language, and others do not.  Josh Glazov’s Construction Law Today blog recently tackled the enforceability of such provisions in the context of a recent Illinois case, in which the Illinois court found such limitations perfectly acceptable, so long as they (1) are not “unconscionable” and (2) do not violate public policy.

sign: proceed at own risk
 

North Carolina takes a very similar approach to such limitations of liability.  Here, so long as the limitation of liability is not also an agreement to be liable for the other party’s negligence (which is barred as against public policy), such a limitation of liability is enforceable.  A case discussing this issue from the engineering perspective is Blaylock Grading Co., LLP v. Smith et al, 189 N.C. App. 508, 658 S.E.2d 680 (2008).  In that case, a surveying engineer limited his liability, via contract, to $50,000.  The Court, citing an earlier state Supreme Court decision, ruled that the limitation was valid and enforceable:

People should be entitled to contract on their own terms without the indulgence of paternalism by courts in the alleviation of one side or another from the effects of a bad bargain.  Also, they should be permitted to enter into contracts that actually may be unreasonable or which may lead to hardship on one side.  It is only where it turns out that one side or the other is to be penalized by the enforcement of the terms of a contract so unconscionable that no decent, fairminded person would view the ensuing result without being possessed of a profound sense of injustice, that equity will deny the use of its good offices in the enforcement of such unconscionability.  Id. at 511, 658 S.E.2d at 682.

Is this rule absolute?  Clearly not, as the above quote indicates.  Unconscionable limitations will not be enforced.  Moreover, a third party, not subject to the contractual terms, is free to sue in negligence.  But as between the contracting parties, such a limitation on damages can be a powerful tool to minimize exposure to risk.

Questions about limitations on liability?  Comment below or drop me a line.  And be sure to sign up for email delivery of blog posts directly to your inbox.

 ————————

Photo:  “Proceed at own risk” by Dave Nicoll via Flickr/Creative Commons license