MayJun 2008: From the Editor – Take a leadership role

by Cory Sekine-Pettite

Cory Sekine-Pettite, editor To make comments or suggestions, send e-mail to cory@lionhrtpub.com.	Cory Sekine-Pettite, editor To make comments or suggestions, send e-mail to cory@lionhrtpub.com.
Cory Sekine-Pettite, editor To make comments or suggestions, send e-mail to cory@lionhrtpub.com.

The recent chain of earthquakes around the world – the large earthquakes in Japan and China, as well as the smaller temblors in Nevada and Indiana among other states – not only has scientists looking for clues, commonalities and links, but also it has state and federal officials taking a closer look at seismic codes and standards. Many in the general public wonder if our buildings (especially our older ones) will hold up during a large seismic event.

In Seattle, for example, city officials have stepped up efforts to mandate seismic retrofitting of up to 1,000 older buildings. Most of these buildings were constructed with unreinforced masonry and date back as far as the 1930s. If the new laws were enacted, Seattle would become the first U.S. city outside of California to require seismic retrofitting. Of course, the estimated cost to property owners could be as high as $431 million, assuming all the structures on the city’s list actually need seismic upgrades. (The initial survey of the buildings was just an exterior review, with no information obtained from owners about any structural upgrades that already may have been completed.) So, without some tax or loan incentives, this may be hard for owners to swallow.

If you are not aware, a fault line runs through the heart of Seattle. The last major earthquake there was in 2001, measuring 6.8 Mw. Fortunately, no one was killed, but people took notice of the crumbling walls of old buildings. What the general public and, likely, the city officials there don’t realize or understand is that seismic standards for remodeled buildings compared with rebuilt (or new construction) differ. Typically, remodeling standards are not as high or stringent. Plus, owners’ options are limited. It simply wouldn’t be plausible to lift an entire building off its foundation to construct a new foundation using isolator bearings or some other new technologies.

I’m not implying that older, unreinforced buildings cannot be made safer and sturdier with reinforcement technologies and methodologies, but I do think the public and our lawmakers should be made aware of the differences between seismic reinforcement standards and new construction standards. They should be educated on the different levels of expected performance, as well as to what level of seismic safety may be required for their state or region.

Who better to explain this to them – in a language they can understand – than the industry professionals who use the codes and standards? So ask yourself if you are doing enough to educate your community and to calm their fears. Try taking a leadership role on this matter; you’ll not only be helping your area, but also the differences you make could be beneficial to your firm and your long-term career goals.

If you’re looking for a good way to volunteer or for a professional association to join, try the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (www.eeri.org). The EERI is a national, non-profit technical society whose goal is to reduce earthquake risk through education, research and lobbying efforts. Chances are there is a chapter near you.

Save