I was motivated to write following the devastating earthquakes in eastern Turkey on February 6, 2023. As of February 21, 2023, more than 45,000 people have died, most unnecessarily. Unfortunately, tragedies occur all of the time, are observed and discussed for a news cycle or two, but then largely forgotten. That is unless the issue is your issue. Earthquake hazards, risk, and mitigation are my issues, so I want to continue the conversation to lend a different perspective to our readers and to motivate them to advocate for more action, hopefully.
When I was a young engineer in San Francisco, I knew of a somewhat larger-than-life structural engineer, Frank McClure, who was reported to start difficult conversations by saying, “Let’s put the skunk on the table.” So here goes.
The Building Code is the Absolute Minimum Standard
I raise this issue because in the field of hazards, as in most aspects of life, there is a spread of data. I suspect that most engineers spend their days diligently working on completing their projects on time and on budget. They view the building code as a singular, well-defined hurdle to be crossed. No special credit is awarded for easily crossing the hurdle in the various aspects of a complicated building design.
Let’s focus on earthquakes. The design spectra in the building code are an averaging and smoothing of many individual spectra for a certain location. And in the short period where most buildings live, the spectra are lopped off, or flattened, so the design accelerations are lower than what has been recorded. We employ an importance factor for special structures to move the spectra off the “average” to something larger, but it still isn’t the maximum possible or enough to prevent damage. Borrowing the saying by Qui-Gon Jinn in Stars Wars: The Phantom Menace, “there’s always a bigger fish.”
Takeaway: Understanding that you are likely dealing with minimums and the real possibility that your structure will be subjected to forces larger than are required, look for ways to improve the expected performance of your design. I am not advocating for the unthinking, conservative approach of just making everything more robust than it needs to be, but rather thinking about past failures and making sure, for what might be, at worst, a nominal cost, that it won’t happen again on your project. Think column hoops, punching shear reinforcement, and the size and number of bolts in connections. Think about what you would do if you had to live in or work in the building or if you owned it.
Some Buildings are Just Better than Others
I expect some pushback on this one since I suspect that building code writers believe that all permitted structural systems provide equivalent life safety. My rebuttal to that would be the widely accepted belief that light wood-framed structures generally perform better than all other building types in earthquakes. Obviously, the strength-to-mass (i.e., lateral force) ratio matters. In earthquake-prone areas, ductile systems should always be preferred over non-ductile ones since they are more resilient and prevent brittle failures. Heavy buildings will generally perform better in high wind areas than light ones, which is why disaster relief shelters are inevitably located in robust school auditoriums. Light buildings are generally worse in a flood.
For example, a new low-rise public school building is being constructed along the route I take in walking to the train. It is a steel building, which is a good start. And it has braced frames rather than moment frames, which is another plus because in my opinion there is less reliance on connection configuration and weld quality. But the designers selected ordinary concentric braced frames when buckling restrained braced frames could have been used.
Takeaway: Structural engineers ought to select and advocate for the best-performing structural system considering all risks that can be reasonably expected.
Initial Cost Isn’t Everything
People who aren’t spending their own money say this all the time. But when it comes to spending their own money, it is a different matter. So, I understand both sides since we have all been there. Our US Congress is a good example.
I could be off base in generalizing here, but I suspect that structural engineers are more cost-conscious and self-critical about the cost of what they design than other design professionals. Mechanical and electrical systems I see on projects always look impressive to me, with complicated control systems designed to save money for the owner in both the short and long term. Architects and landscape architects usually start out with potentially award-winning designs with top-of-the-line attributes and then back off a bit later if needed. Geotechnical engineers provide recommendations for the structural engineer that are time-tested and proven. Rarely do they take any risks. If the cost is high, that is a function of the site and not their problem.
And then there are structural engineers. If I had a dollar for every time I heard an engineer say, “This is expensive,” I could have a vacation home or two. What is expensive to one person may not be expensive at all to another. I would suggest that in preparing schematic designs, several alternatives be proposed even if the construction costs are different. Provide the owner with a list of benefits, particularly long-term ones, along with the expected performance in extreme events, for one system over another so the owner can decide. And start with more robust beam and column sizes than needed since it is always possible to make them smaller later, but not the other way around.
Takeaway: Avoid injecting your own cost-benefit values into design decisions. Inform the owner about the possibilities and then let them decide. The engineers know better than anyone what the most appropriate solution is.
Importance of Building Codes, Building Officials, and Code Enforcement
Let me explain. Structural engineers love to complain about building codes. They are either “too complicated”, or extensive, or intrusive in the engineer’s design prerogatives or “just plain stupid”. But they are critically important regardless. The primary function of the building code is to establish an appropriate level of life safety for the public. That includes the owner, users, and perhaps most importantly, future owners and users.
Before the advent of the modern regulatory state, the operative phrase was caveat emptor, “Let the buyer beware.” The world was less complicated then and if it looked too good to be true, it probably was. If the salesperson didn’t look trustworthy, the buyer declined and went elsewhere. I wasn’t alive 200 years ago, but I suspect that there were buildings of all types and qualities before modern building codes existed. Some are still with us, but most are not. However, in today’s hustle and bustle, we expect that products will work as they ought to and buildings to be safe to occupy without giving the decision to use or enter a second thought. What changed?
Two things. Life got too complicated for individuals to learn enough on their own to make good decisions, and society found it beneficial to regulate building construction to create efficiency in the market. This is where the importance of building codes and officials enter the picture. It is through the application and enforcement of the building code that society is assured that the users and buyers of buildings can feel safe and focus on what they do best, which probably isn’t evaluating the safety of buildings. Not all buildings are the same, and a buyer still needs to perform an appropriate amount of due diligence. Still, buyers have become confident that they can rely on the fact that buildings were built to the standard of their day and that the construction matches the drawings, assuming they are available. Users are at slightly more risk since not all buildings have been upgraded to what we as a society believe is currently appropriate. Building codes and building officials helped achieve that.
The devastation in the recent Turkey earthquakes is an example of my message. Building codes in Turkey are much like those used in the US today. You might be surprised to learn that this is the case in most parts of the world. But I read in the BBC News on February 9, 2023, that many of the collapsed buildings had been constructed in the last five years using the latest seismic standards. The reporter’s research uncovered advertisements by the builders that the structures were designed to the highest standards, with the best materials, and so on. I would be suspicious if the seller had to reassure me about safety since what is the alternative? And what does that say about all of those older buildings that might not have been designed to the highest standards, with the best materials, and so on?
Takeaway: Stop complaining about the building code and building officials. You probably don’t want to live in a country where they don’t play an important role.
Non-Permitted Work
I get worried when someone tells me they don’t want to get a building permit. This happens often, mainly in residential remodel projects. As I mentioned earlier about engineers worrying too much about the cost of something, I could add a bedroom to each of my vacation homes if I had another dollar for every time I heard, “I don’t want to get a permit for this.” I appreciate that hiring design professionals and honest contractors and applying for and obtaining building permits costs money. But it is unethical and a poor decision to do otherwise. Time to think about declining to get involved on such projects.
Let’s start with it being a poor business decision. The owner is basically putting their life in the hands of the general contractor and the sub-contractors. I find it hard to believe that someone who is paying top dollar for top-notch designers and construction crews finds that the cost of the permit is something they just can’t afford. I suspect that the opposite is the case more often than not. As an engineer, ask yourself if you want to be involved and put your E&O insurance on the table. The design review by the building official and site inspection by the building inspector should assure safety and peace of mind. Most building owners can’t judge good from bad.
Now for the ethics. Maybe the owner isn’t that concerned about their own safety, but they usually are. More likely, the owner really doesn’t expect to own the property for that long and intends to unload it on an unsuspecting buyer. Gypsum wallboard and concrete can cover up many sins.
Takeaway: Don’t participate in perpetuating the remodeling of potentially unsafe buildings.
In Conclusion
Structural engineers have an important role and responsibility for ensuring we can all live in a safe built environment without a concern that they might not wake up in the morning after an earthquake. I urge engineers to be active and vocal participants and to take leading roles in advocating for what we all know is best. Environmental issues are all the rage these days. But worldwide, there are far more critical issues for structural engineers to be worried about. Whether all of those collapsed buildings in Turkey had solar panels on their roofs really doesn’t matter today, does it? So now the skunk is on the table.