Another major earthquake has occurred; this time in Pakistan, of magnitude 6.4, on about 29 October 2008. As with many reported earthquakes, it caused death and devastation to an impoverished region.
Death and suffering from these earthquakes have a direct social and psychological impact on survivors. Economic consequences follow as a result of direct losses and there are enormous costs of organising the rescue operations and additional unbudgeted expenditure for rehabilitation. These outcomes eventuate due to political and social norms overriding knowledge and technology in earthquake mitigation.
In most of these earthquakes such colossal loss of life and damage to property could have been minimised if structures were designed and constructed in a manner to withstand seismic loads. Similar conclusions have been drawn in reports on devastation caused by other major earthquakes around the world, including New Zealand from the 1931 Napier earthquake.
Sufficient information is currently available worldwide to be able to construct buildings to withstand earthquake forces. Professional engineers and scientists, even in most developing countries, possess the necessary expertise, knowledge and skills to design and construct earthquake–resistant structures. There are many highly skilled earthquake engineers in New Zealand, the US and Japan, and in other countries, yet people do not always benefit from this sea of knowledge.
It is possibly a little known fact that the Sixth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (WCEE) was hosted by India, and Indian delegations and speakers have actively participated in these conferences held every four years. In the Twelfth WCEE held in 2000 in Auckland, New Zealand, Prof. Anand S Arya contributed a paper titled “Non-engineered Construction in Developing Countries”.
“The safety of the non-engineered buildings from the fury of earthquakes is a subject of highest priority in view of the fact that in the moderate to severe seismic zones of the developing world more than 90 percent of the population is still living and working in such buildings, and that most losses of lives during earthquakes have occurred due to their collapse. ...
The present disaster management policies of the governments in the developing countries do not address the issue of preventive actions for the safety of such buildings toward seismic risk reduction… ... and the building by-laws of municipalities and corporations are silent about earthquake resistance in buildings. The Codes and Guidelines developed through the standard making bodies remain recommendatory documents of good engineering practices, and their implementation depends upon the decision of the Heads of Agencies, Departs (sic), Organisations, Institutions owning the buildings and structures in the public and private sectors. Private individuals have by and large remained uninformed” - Arya, 2000
Unfortunately, reports and recommendations of experts seem to have collected dust and got buried in the archives. Hence, the wealth of knowledge and experience available in most developing countries remains far from effective realisation for the benefit of the society.
Application of codes and standards is generally confined to the design of major industrial structures, bridges, power stations, water supply and wastewater disposal facilities, and other similar structures. These are mostly designed and supervised by private consultants or other specialist structural engineers having the required expertise and skills. However, the process of obtaining building permits and enforcement of codes and standards for design and construction of the majority of buildings in most developing countries is lax.
In smaller towns in India, for instance (characterised by Bhuj in Gujarat which was the worst affected area), seismic requirements are almost non-existent in building regulations for obtaining building permits.
In India and some other developing countries owners sometimes pay bribes to obtain building permits.
It appears that as time passes, people tend to forget the devastating effects of individual earthquakes. The value of good engineering practices also fades with time. Non-compliance of the building codes due to inadequate legislation continues to become a major factor in the construction of unsafe buildings.
It is common knowledge that Pakistan, India and many other developing countries are located in high seismically-active zones. It is also well known that New Zealand, like many other countries, falls in a high seismically active zone. The earthquake that hit Kobe (1995) in Japan and several earlier earthquakes in Japan show that the probability of damage to buildings and infrastructure on areas of reclaimed land due to a major earthquake can be devastating. It is far more alarming in densely populated cities. New Zealand’s seat of government, Wellington, is clearly a city that is situated in an extremely hazardous location and is at potential risk. The 1855 earthquake is an indication of the risk. Refer to http://www.gw.govt.nz/council-publications/pdfs/The_1855_Wairarapa_Earthquake_Symposium_Proceedings_Volume_Web_Version.pdf
It is a difficult task to enact legislation to deal with seismic design of buildings in developing countries and seismic evaluation of existing buildings and strengthening of buildings found to be unsafe. The recent earthquake in Pakistan and the major earthquakes of recent years such as in Gujarat, India and in Sichuan, China (2008), and other major earthquakes, have been far too tragic to be ignored. Lessons need to be learnt by the public, and particularly by the policy-makers (including engineers and scientists) and law-makers of all countries in seismic zones, as well as those of developing countries, who should act without delay.
Not only should the buildings of high importance factor be designed and constructed by competent engineers but seismic detailing should be provided in all types of structures including non-engineered buildings such as residential dwellings. There needs to be a sensible balance of responsibilities between those affected such as the central government, state governments, local authorities, individuals and businesses.
As an example of what is being done in New Zealand, visit these websites:
http://www.nzsee.org.nz/PUBS/2006AISBEGUIDELINES_Corr_06a.pdf
http://www.nzsee.org.nz/PUBS/ADE2007.pdf
Having experienced the aftermath of an earthquake and seen the terrible damage in human terms – the pain and suffering, the economics of lost livelihoods, bankrupt businesses and the fear and guilt – we must realise that the investment in enforcing seismic codes on a nation-wide basis and strengthening unsafe structures in risk areas is a smaller price to pay.
A worthwhile initiative is the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) http://www.globalquakemodel.org/
http://www.globalquakemodel.org/RossSteinsVisionSpeech.html
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Fire Safety in Buildings in Vietnam
Basic fire safety precautions in buildings are often lacking, however, some large commercial buildings have some form of smoke or heat detection systems. I experienced staying in six hotels in Vietnam. These ranged from single storey to eight storeys. Without exception they were characterised by a single means of egress, no alarm or early warning system of any type and poor smoke-stopping between rooms and egress stairs. A new five storey hotel building in Sapa was subject to frequent power cuts necessitating candles to be used as “emergency lighting” on each floor in the egress route.
There are internationally recognised standards for fire safety in buildings, and the information is freely available to building engineers in any country providing they and their respective political systems will allow the free interchange of intellectual information and ideas (Walls, 2001). This obviously does not happen in Vietnam. Despite this, there is clear evidence that most accommodation buildings in Vietnam are seriously lacking in safety features. Engineers are unlikely to be involved and if they were, would be likely to be under-educated and able to be “bought”.
The same problem applies to retail and commercial buildings where there are large occupant numbers. A sad example of this became known on 29 October 2002 when fire engulfed a six-storey commercial building in Ho Chi Minh City during the afternoon. In excess of 60 people died in that disaster.
Fire in buildings is taking too many lives. The major cause is that buildings often do not have the required fire safety features and adequate means of escape. There appear to be no clear requirements that any authorities are prepared to enforce. In such cases, current fire engineering knowledge and standards are being disregarded. This applies particularly to many Asian countries. It is certainly the case in Vietnam where a “lack of enforcement of building regulations flows from the chaotic construction and urban development associated with the Government’s desire to attract foreign investment by offering cheap labour” (Divjak, 2002).
While it is not for others to tell Vietnam or any other country how to do things, with globilisation comes a need to be cognisant of international standards and opinion. While the people in Vietnam are wonderful to be with and it is a fascinating country, travelling there has its risks. Being hit while crossing the roads is a high risk but the one to be feared most is probably the fire danger of most of their buildings.
Vietnam appears to face similar problems that are faced in many underdeveloped countries. The problems are similar to those faced in India and reported on in relation to the Gujarat earthquake of 2001.
Unfortunately, reports and recommendations of experts seem to have collected dust and got buried in the archives. Hence, the wealth of knowledge and experience available in India , as a different example, remains far from effective realisation for the benefit of the society (Walls & Mujoo, 2002).
However, the process of obtaining building permits and enforcement of codes and standards for design and construction of the majority of buildings is lax (in India), as I also experienced in Vietnam.
If Vietnam had the political will, engineers from developed countries could assist in all aspects of building and construction. There have been some assisting for a number of years. It seems, however, the best chance of success is by providing engineering and building education at all levels to local engineers and bureaucrats who are willing and able to enforce appropriate standards.
There are internationally recognised standards for fire safety in buildings, and the information is freely available to building engineers in any country providing they and their respective political systems will allow the free interchange of intellectual information and ideas (Walls, 2001). This obviously does not happen in Vietnam. Despite this, there is clear evidence that most accommodation buildings in Vietnam are seriously lacking in safety features. Engineers are unlikely to be involved and if they were, would be likely to be under-educated and able to be “bought”.
The same problem applies to retail and commercial buildings where there are large occupant numbers. A sad example of this became known on 29 October 2002 when fire engulfed a six-storey commercial building in Ho Chi Minh City during the afternoon. In excess of 60 people died in that disaster.
Fire in buildings is taking too many lives. The major cause is that buildings often do not have the required fire safety features and adequate means of escape. There appear to be no clear requirements that any authorities are prepared to enforce. In such cases, current fire engineering knowledge and standards are being disregarded. This applies particularly to many Asian countries. It is certainly the case in Vietnam where a “lack of enforcement of building regulations flows from the chaotic construction and urban development associated with the Government’s desire to attract foreign investment by offering cheap labour” (Divjak, 2002).
While it is not for others to tell Vietnam or any other country how to do things, with globilisation comes a need to be cognisant of international standards and opinion. While the people in Vietnam are wonderful to be with and it is a fascinating country, travelling there has its risks. Being hit while crossing the roads is a high risk but the one to be feared most is probably the fire danger of most of their buildings.
Vietnam appears to face similar problems that are faced in many underdeveloped countries. The problems are similar to those faced in India and reported on in relation to the Gujarat earthquake of 2001.
Unfortunately, reports and recommendations of experts seem to have collected dust and got buried in the archives. Hence, the wealth of knowledge and experience available in India , as a different example, remains far from effective realisation for the benefit of the society (Walls & Mujoo, 2002).
However, the process of obtaining building permits and enforcement of codes and standards for design and construction of the majority of buildings is lax (in India), as I also experienced in Vietnam.
If Vietnam had the political will, engineers from developed countries could assist in all aspects of building and construction. There have been some assisting for a number of years. It seems, however, the best chance of success is by providing engineering and building education at all levels to local engineers and bureaucrats who are willing and able to enforce appropriate standards.
Aircraft Cabin Air Quality
Based on anecdotal evidence suggesting that air quality in aircraft cabins is sometimes not to a reasonable standard, I make the following comments.
In order to better understand the issue in question, it would be useful to consider buildings, on which considerable investigation has been carried out relating to air quality. “Sick building syndrome” (SBS) has come to the fore since the 1970s with the advent of high rise commercial buildings of curtain-walling exterior cladding, which have no natural ventilation. The ventilation in these buildings relies on mechanical air conditioning.
The presence of fungi within buildings is significant. Often fungi, rather than bacteria, constitute the most significant viable and potentially pathogenic microorganisms in buildings.
Microorganisms may have adverse health effects in indoor environments by causing allergenic or hypersensitivity respiratory responses. Inhalation of spores, cell wall fragments, toxic metabolites or enzymes from these microorganisms can cause symptoms such as general malaise, fever, shortness of breath, runny nose, cough and aching limbs. The symptoms are not usually persistent; they disappear when one is absent from a building for a length of time. The symptoms return when one re-enters an affected building.
There are many legal implications depending on the jurisdictions in various countries.
The discussion of buildings is given to indicate some of the issues involved. Aircraft are similar to buildings insofar as they contain people in close proximity in an enclosed space and are ventilated with mechanical air conditioning systems. There has been previous research carried out relating to the potential effects on passengers due to fuel and hydraulic fluid volatile contamination in aircraft cabins. However, up until about 2001 it appears there had been no significant research on bioaerosol contamination of passengers in aircraft cabins. The Building Research Establishment (BRE) in the UK has carried out some research.
While there is considerable presumptive evidence that SBS is a real issue, and case law has been set based on that evidence, there is every indication that similar health effects would derive from aircraft cabins. It would be tempting to speculate even further and suppose that, assuming there is some bioaerosol contamination in aircraft cabins, then the synergistic effects of that combined with chemical contamination (from fuel and hydraulic fluids), and altitude, could lead to much greater adverse effects on passengers.
The typical anecdotal evidence from passengers on long-distance flights who believe that the aircraft cabin air quality has affected them is of their contracting influenza a short time after completing the flight. There are also isolated reports of some contracting tuberculosis. The air filtration system for aircraft is usually based upon the recommendations of the system manufacturer (such as Boeing), and there appear to be no universal standards for types and sizes of filters or for the rate of air change in the aircraft cabin. The air movement requires the use of fuel, and to economise on fuel use, then it would be possible to reduce the rate of air change inside the cabin.
Some of the smallest potentially harmful bioaerosols are viruses at about 0.02–0.3 microns in size. However, it appears that many filtration systems used may be between 0.3 and 0.65 microns. Based on this, it appears that many filters will not filter out some of the viruses in the cabin air. Most fungal spores are about 2–20 microns; they should therefore be effectively filtered out.
If aircraft manufacturers and airline operators are not carrying out air sampling inside aircraft cabins during long-distance flights, then I believe they should be.
The matter in question is a medical manifestation, insofar there is a cabin air quality problem it affects passengers’ health, but it is in fact a multi-disciplinary matter. The origin of any such problem would be as a result of the engineering of the aircraft. If passengers and/or flight staff are adversely affected, then that becomes a passenger/staff health problem as well.
The engineering issue can be further expanded so that the fuel use for each flight could be under question. Dirty filters use more fuel as the engines have to work harder to push the air through the filtration system. Therefore ensuring that filters are always clean results in a fuel saving, allowing less fuel to be carried with a corresponding increase in revenue-generating passengers or cargo which could be allowed for. This assumes that one of the potential issues here may be filters which need more frequent maintenance: however, that will not necessarily be an outcome of any research.
In my view there is sufficient anecdotal evidence of there being problems with the air quality of aircraft cabins. What progress has been made in that regard? Some related websites are:
http://projects.bre.co.uk/envdiv/cabinair/
http://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=231
http://www.aivc.org/medias/pdf/Air/air0309_web_ed.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/research/growth/aeronautics-days/pdf/session-e/perera.pdf
http://www.sae.org/aeromag/techupdate/11-2002/
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/stathAirbus.pdf
In order to better understand the issue in question, it would be useful to consider buildings, on which considerable investigation has been carried out relating to air quality. “Sick building syndrome” (SBS) has come to the fore since the 1970s with the advent of high rise commercial buildings of curtain-walling exterior cladding, which have no natural ventilation. The ventilation in these buildings relies on mechanical air conditioning.
The presence of fungi within buildings is significant. Often fungi, rather than bacteria, constitute the most significant viable and potentially pathogenic microorganisms in buildings.
Microorganisms may have adverse health effects in indoor environments by causing allergenic or hypersensitivity respiratory responses. Inhalation of spores, cell wall fragments, toxic metabolites or enzymes from these microorganisms can cause symptoms such as general malaise, fever, shortness of breath, runny nose, cough and aching limbs. The symptoms are not usually persistent; they disappear when one is absent from a building for a length of time. The symptoms return when one re-enters an affected building.
There are many legal implications depending on the jurisdictions in various countries.
The discussion of buildings is given to indicate some of the issues involved. Aircraft are similar to buildings insofar as they contain people in close proximity in an enclosed space and are ventilated with mechanical air conditioning systems. There has been previous research carried out relating to the potential effects on passengers due to fuel and hydraulic fluid volatile contamination in aircraft cabins. However, up until about 2001 it appears there had been no significant research on bioaerosol contamination of passengers in aircraft cabins. The Building Research Establishment (BRE) in the UK has carried out some research.
While there is considerable presumptive evidence that SBS is a real issue, and case law has been set based on that evidence, there is every indication that similar health effects would derive from aircraft cabins. It would be tempting to speculate even further and suppose that, assuming there is some bioaerosol contamination in aircraft cabins, then the synergistic effects of that combined with chemical contamination (from fuel and hydraulic fluids), and altitude, could lead to much greater adverse effects on passengers.
The typical anecdotal evidence from passengers on long-distance flights who believe that the aircraft cabin air quality has affected them is of their contracting influenza a short time after completing the flight. There are also isolated reports of some contracting tuberculosis. The air filtration system for aircraft is usually based upon the recommendations of the system manufacturer (such as Boeing), and there appear to be no universal standards for types and sizes of filters or for the rate of air change in the aircraft cabin. The air movement requires the use of fuel, and to economise on fuel use, then it would be possible to reduce the rate of air change inside the cabin.
Some of the smallest potentially harmful bioaerosols are viruses at about 0.02–0.3 microns in size. However, it appears that many filtration systems used may be between 0.3 and 0.65 microns. Based on this, it appears that many filters will not filter out some of the viruses in the cabin air. Most fungal spores are about 2–20 microns; they should therefore be effectively filtered out.
If aircraft manufacturers and airline operators are not carrying out air sampling inside aircraft cabins during long-distance flights, then I believe they should be.
The matter in question is a medical manifestation, insofar there is a cabin air quality problem it affects passengers’ health, but it is in fact a multi-disciplinary matter. The origin of any such problem would be as a result of the engineering of the aircraft. If passengers and/or flight staff are adversely affected, then that becomes a passenger/staff health problem as well.
The engineering issue can be further expanded so that the fuel use for each flight could be under question. Dirty filters use more fuel as the engines have to work harder to push the air through the filtration system. Therefore ensuring that filters are always clean results in a fuel saving, allowing less fuel to be carried with a corresponding increase in revenue-generating passengers or cargo which could be allowed for. This assumes that one of the potential issues here may be filters which need more frequent maintenance: however, that will not necessarily be an outcome of any research.
In my view there is sufficient anecdotal evidence of there being problems with the air quality of aircraft cabins. What progress has been made in that regard? Some related websites are:
http://projects.bre.co.uk/envdiv/cabinair/
http://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=231
http://www.aivc.org/medias/pdf/Air/air0309_web_ed.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/research/growth/aeronautics-days/pdf/session-e/perera.pdf
http://www.sae.org/aeromag/techupdate/11-2002/
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/stathAirbus.pdf
Intelligent Cladding of Tall Buildings
Following the World Trade Centre disaster of 11 September 2001 when two Boeing 767 aircraft were flown into the Twin Towers, and when one was flown into the Pentagon, many questions have been asked. The International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) the Council for Tall Buildings, and other interested groups have met to discuss strategies for the future.
This article briefly discusses ideas for a new intelligent cladding system that may be installed on buildings that will warn of an imminent approach of aircraft, and automatically alter their flight-path, thereby deflecting the plane from the building.
The CIB meetings and Task Group (TG 50) – Tall Buildings – from 2002 met to discuss what happened during the 11 September incident in order to develop strategies for coping with any future such disasters.
The discussions were comprehensive and it is likely that some worthwhile recommendations will result over a period of time. The meetings of CIB discussed areas including structural performance, evacuation issues, insurance/reinsurance perspectives, fire service access and operations, megacities/megastructures, city planning issues, regulatory considerations, risk perception and fire engineering.
These items fall within our present way of thinking, but it appears that there needs to be a paradigm shift in order for society to deal with threats that were previously beyond the imagination of most people.
My proposal is to use the concepts of three existing and separate technologies in combination to arrive at new building and aircraft defence strategies. These technologies are photovoltaic solar heating for buildings, radar and aircraft anti-collision devices.
Radar is an electromagnetic system for the detection and location of objects, and it has numerous uses. Since electromagnetic energy propagates at the speed of light it is compatible with combining with photovoltaic technology. Photovoltaic electricity generation for buildings has now developed to an advanced state whereby small solar cells that produce electric pulses from the sun’s ultraviolet rays are fitted in close proximity to each other allowing them to be fitted to a building as the external cladding system. Such cells can be fitted over any desired areas of buildings when used for solar heating purposes. Silicon cells are manufactured by reducing sand to metallurgical-grade silicon. After oxygen, silicon is the most abundant element in the earth’s crust.
Commercial passenger aircraft are presently fitted with anti-collision devices. These deflect aircraft from their flight path in the event of them being on a collision course with another aircraft. There have been many reported incidents of this sort over the years.
Based on these three main current applications of technology my concept is of Intelligent Cladding of Buildings (ICB) that needs to be developed.
In my view, ICB may be applied to any building. It will be a system applied at the choice of building owners who wish to have protection against their buildings becoming targets of aircraft being used as missiles.
Typical radar systems can detect objects the size of birds and insects. This means that ICB panels may be installed judiciously on buildings in relatively small areas to ensure that the whole building elevation is protected and to provide for the desired architectural appearance.
Using conventional terrain-following (TF) systems aircraft successfully change direction to avoid collisions with mountains. When ICB is fitted to a building, it will automatically cause the path of the approaching aircraft to be altered thereby avoiding a collision. Because this would then pose a potential danger to a neighbouring building it would be necessary in future to ensure that tall buildings are separated by a distance greater than the wing span of the design aircraft, plus an additional factor of safety.
If such an ICB intelligent cladding system has not been developed, then it seems to me to be a viable proposition. I would be interested to hear from anyone who is able to advise me of the state of the art in that regard.
This article briefly discusses ideas for a new intelligent cladding system that may be installed on buildings that will warn of an imminent approach of aircraft, and automatically alter their flight-path, thereby deflecting the plane from the building.
The CIB meetings and Task Group (TG 50) – Tall Buildings – from 2002 met to discuss what happened during the 11 September incident in order to develop strategies for coping with any future such disasters.
The discussions were comprehensive and it is likely that some worthwhile recommendations will result over a period of time. The meetings of CIB discussed areas including structural performance, evacuation issues, insurance/reinsurance perspectives, fire service access and operations, megacities/megastructures, city planning issues, regulatory considerations, risk perception and fire engineering.
These items fall within our present way of thinking, but it appears that there needs to be a paradigm shift in order for society to deal with threats that were previously beyond the imagination of most people.
My proposal is to use the concepts of three existing and separate technologies in combination to arrive at new building and aircraft defence strategies. These technologies are photovoltaic solar heating for buildings, radar and aircraft anti-collision devices.
Radar is an electromagnetic system for the detection and location of objects, and it has numerous uses. Since electromagnetic energy propagates at the speed of light it is compatible with combining with photovoltaic technology. Photovoltaic electricity generation for buildings has now developed to an advanced state whereby small solar cells that produce electric pulses from the sun’s ultraviolet rays are fitted in close proximity to each other allowing them to be fitted to a building as the external cladding system. Such cells can be fitted over any desired areas of buildings when used for solar heating purposes. Silicon cells are manufactured by reducing sand to metallurgical-grade silicon. After oxygen, silicon is the most abundant element in the earth’s crust.
Commercial passenger aircraft are presently fitted with anti-collision devices. These deflect aircraft from their flight path in the event of them being on a collision course with another aircraft. There have been many reported incidents of this sort over the years.
Based on these three main current applications of technology my concept is of Intelligent Cladding of Buildings (ICB) that needs to be developed.
In my view, ICB may be applied to any building. It will be a system applied at the choice of building owners who wish to have protection against their buildings becoming targets of aircraft being used as missiles.
Typical radar systems can detect objects the size of birds and insects. This means that ICB panels may be installed judiciously on buildings in relatively small areas to ensure that the whole building elevation is protected and to provide for the desired architectural appearance.
Using conventional terrain-following (TF) systems aircraft successfully change direction to avoid collisions with mountains. When ICB is fitted to a building, it will automatically cause the path of the approaching aircraft to be altered thereby avoiding a collision. Because this would then pose a potential danger to a neighbouring building it would be necessary in future to ensure that tall buildings are separated by a distance greater than the wing span of the design aircraft, plus an additional factor of safety.
If such an ICB intelligent cladding system has not been developed, then it seems to me to be a viable proposition. I would be interested to hear from anyone who is able to advise me of the state of the art in that regard.
Learning from the World Trade Centre Disaster
Buildings are designed to withstand forces imposed by wind and earthquake, as well as for standard fire conditions. Is it possible, or realistic, to design against the impact of a 767 passenger jetliner used as a missile?
Following the New York World Trade Centre disaster of 11 September 2001 when two jet aircraft were flown into the Twin Towers, and when one was flown into the Pentagon, these and many other questions have been asked. As part of the review an international summit meeting on tall buildings and a meeting of the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) Task Group TG 50 – Tall Buildings – were held in London in April 2002, Kuala Lumpur in 2003 and Ottawa in 2004. The objectives were to discuss what happened during the 11 September incident in order to develop strategies for coping with any future such disasters.
General areas of discussion included structural performance, evacuation issues, insurance/reinsurance perspectives, fire service access and operations, megacities/megastructures, city planning issues, regulatory considerations, risk perception and fire engineering.
While the WTC disaster was the catalyst for the meetings, they took the form of a forum to improve building design, egress and disaster planning in a general sense.
Building design is all about risk management, the likelihood of certain adverse effects and the likely consequences of them happening. In the past such design events have been encapsulated in standards and building codes. The UK Building Regulations were amended after the Ronan Point collapse in 1968 that was caused by a gas explosion. This caused the progressive collapse of the 22-storey building. The subsequent enquiry found that the risk was “foreseeable”, and the Regulations were amended to stipulate that a building is to be so constructed that in consequence of an accident the structure must not fail or collapse disproportionately to the cause of the damage. The requirement applies to buildings of five storeys or more. This may well be considered all that is necessary in terms of additional wording in the New Zealand Building Code and Codes in some other countries. If such a simplistic approach were taken who would decide on the type and degree of hazard to be designed for and how would consistency in that regard be attained?
The Twin Towers were designed in the 1960s for the largest aircraft of the time getting lost in fog, and at a relatively low speed hitting one of the buildings. They were arguably designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner, as they withstood the initial impacts in the September 11 event and allowed 99% of those below the points of impact to escape the buildings. They eventually failed, however, from the effects of the subsequent blast effect, fireball and intense fires. There are no current standard tests available to evaluate the consequences of a sudden pressure pulse as experienced at the WTC site. This will be an area of future research.
The defeated safety systems included:
Present engineering risk/statistical analysis techniques would put this disaster into an “acceptable” engineering risk paradigm. Society may, however, have greater expectations, and that is the challenge ahead.
The Future
The discussions were comprehensive and it is likely that some worthwhile recommendations will result from the conference and from the deliberations of TG 50 over its series of meetings.
The research agenda for the future is likely to include:
Following the New York World Trade Centre disaster of 11 September 2001 when two jet aircraft were flown into the Twin Towers, and when one was flown into the Pentagon, these and many other questions have been asked. As part of the review an international summit meeting on tall buildings and a meeting of the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) Task Group TG 50 – Tall Buildings – were held in London in April 2002, Kuala Lumpur in 2003 and Ottawa in 2004. The objectives were to discuss what happened during the 11 September incident in order to develop strategies for coping with any future such disasters.
General areas of discussion included structural performance, evacuation issues, insurance/reinsurance perspectives, fire service access and operations, megacities/megastructures, city planning issues, regulatory considerations, risk perception and fire engineering.
While the WTC disaster was the catalyst for the meetings, they took the form of a forum to improve building design, egress and disaster planning in a general sense.
Building design is all about risk management, the likelihood of certain adverse effects and the likely consequences of them happening. In the past such design events have been encapsulated in standards and building codes. The UK Building Regulations were amended after the Ronan Point collapse in 1968 that was caused by a gas explosion. This caused the progressive collapse of the 22-storey building. The subsequent enquiry found that the risk was “foreseeable”, and the Regulations were amended to stipulate that a building is to be so constructed that in consequence of an accident the structure must not fail or collapse disproportionately to the cause of the damage. The requirement applies to buildings of five storeys or more. This may well be considered all that is necessary in terms of additional wording in the New Zealand Building Code and Codes in some other countries. If such a simplistic approach were taken who would decide on the type and degree of hazard to be designed for and how would consistency in that regard be attained?
The Twin Towers were designed in the 1960s for the largest aircraft of the time getting lost in fog, and at a relatively low speed hitting one of the buildings. They were arguably designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner, as they withstood the initial impacts in the September 11 event and allowed 99% of those below the points of impact to escape the buildings. They eventually failed, however, from the effects of the subsequent blast effect, fireball and intense fires. There are no current standard tests available to evaluate the consequences of a sudden pressure pulse as experienced at the WTC site. This will be an area of future research.
The defeated safety systems included:
- fire proofing· sprinklers (with risers broken)
- compartmentalisation (a five-storey high hole in the side of the building)
- egress stairs (blocked above points of impact)
- pressurisation and lighting
- structural (with 40 columns destroyed)
Present engineering risk/statistical analysis techniques would put this disaster into an “acceptable” engineering risk paradigm. Society may, however, have greater expectations, and that is the challenge ahead.
The Future
The discussions were comprehensive and it is likely that some worthwhile recommendations will result from the conference and from the deliberations of TG 50 over its series of meetings.
The research agenda for the future is likely to include:
- Integration of building and infrastructure systems
- Effects of a sudden pressure pulse
- Redundancy of buildings and systems
- Egress
- Urban search and rescue
- Public education and education of insurers
- Performance based design standards
Diminishing Capital Value of Buildings and Infrastructure in New Zealand
Extralegal capital in many third world and former communist countries is prolific in the form of shanty towns, squatter developments and illegal buildings. Owing to them not being recorded on official registers and land ownership systems their capital value is grossly under-represented in valuation records. Furthermore, owing to their extralegal status they are tangible assets that often cannot be used as collateral for raising finance and as such their worth beyond providing shelter and/or other amenity is of little value.
New Zealand's position is at the other end of the spectrum where these is generally full capitalisation potential on all property assets. But is that sustainable under present prevailing conditions? This paper sets out to explore where some of New Zealand's capital assets may be under jeopardy so that they diminish in value.
Extralegal capital is capital in the form of officially unrecognised infrastructure where ownership cannot often be attributed to one person or group of persons and as a result has little or no capital value. Buildings are more than just ways in which occupants have shelter, comfort, safety and security from outside elements. They are a vehicle from which finance may be raised in order to increase one's capital.
Third world and former communist countries are generally poorer than those countries that are not in those categories (or at least poorer to Western standards). The people in those countries are not lazier than anyone else nor do they lack motivation. They innovate and usually make the most of their resources and use modern technology prolifically. "They can grasp and use modern technology. Otherwise, American businesses would not be struggling to control the unauthorized use of their patents abroad, nor would the US". (de Soto, 2000, p. 4)
These countries suffer from an inability to produce capital. While poor, they possess assets that would tend to make capitalism succeed, and they save. Compared with the West their resources are often in defective forms, such as:
In discussing what lack of progress there is in relation to better seismic protection of buildings, Paulay 2006 stated that there is "irrational adherence to outdated traditions, unconscious or deliberate ignorance of compliance with building regulations, and insufficient attention of governments to relevant needs of the society of poorer countries while condoning undiminished corruption". This highlights several impedients towards more robust capitalism in many countries under question.
Such impediments to capitalising of assets may not necessarily derive from ill-intent but more so from cultural facets of dense populations of people all trying to compete for limited resources and opportunities. A case in point may be that of guanxi in China which is institutionalised quid pro quo. "While guanxi may be organisational, at its heart it is a relationship between two people who are expected, more or less, to give as good as they get". "There are few rules in China that can't be broken, or at least bent, by people with the right guanxi". (Seligman, 1999).
The paper continues under the following headings which relate to what is happening in New Zealand:
http://www.ipenz.org.nz/ConventionCD/Documents/Kelvin-Wall.pdf
New Zealand's position is at the other end of the spectrum where these is generally full capitalisation potential on all property assets. But is that sustainable under present prevailing conditions? This paper sets out to explore where some of New Zealand's capital assets may be under jeopardy so that they diminish in value.
Extralegal capital is capital in the form of officially unrecognised infrastructure where ownership cannot often be attributed to one person or group of persons and as a result has little or no capital value. Buildings are more than just ways in which occupants have shelter, comfort, safety and security from outside elements. They are a vehicle from which finance may be raised in order to increase one's capital.
Third world and former communist countries are generally poorer than those countries that are not in those categories (or at least poorer to Western standards). The people in those countries are not lazier than anyone else nor do they lack motivation. They innovate and usually make the most of their resources and use modern technology prolifically. "They can grasp and use modern technology. Otherwise, American businesses would not be struggling to control the unauthorized use of their patents abroad, nor would the US". (de Soto, 2000, p. 4)
These countries suffer from an inability to produce capital. While poor, they possess assets that would tend to make capitalism succeed, and they save. Compared with the West their resources are often in defective forms, such as:
- Houses built on land with inadequately recorded ownership
- Lack of property rights
- Lack of enforceable transactions on property rights
- Unincorporated business with undefined liability (de Soto, 2000)
- Non-compliance of building with building codes
- Illegal buildings
In discussing what lack of progress there is in relation to better seismic protection of buildings, Paulay 2006 stated that there is "irrational adherence to outdated traditions, unconscious or deliberate ignorance of compliance with building regulations, and insufficient attention of governments to relevant needs of the society of poorer countries while condoning undiminished corruption". This highlights several impedients towards more robust capitalism in many countries under question.
Such impediments to capitalising of assets may not necessarily derive from ill-intent but more so from cultural facets of dense populations of people all trying to compete for limited resources and opportunities. A case in point may be that of guanxi in China which is institutionalised quid pro quo. "While guanxi may be organisational, at its heart it is a relationship between two people who are expected, more or less, to give as good as they get". "There are few rules in China that can't be broken, or at least bent, by people with the right guanxi". (Seligman, 1999).
The paper continues under the following headings which relate to what is happening in New Zealand:
- The New Zealand Situation
- Maori Land
- Earthquake-prone Buildings
- Stucco Plaster Clad Buildings and Code Compliance Certificates
- Unauthorised Building Work Pre-1992
- Unauthorised Building Work Post-1992
- Certificates of Acceptance
- Conclusions
- References
http://www.ipenz.org.nz/ConventionCD/Documents/Kelvin-Wall.pdf
Spare a thought for our Creators - Engineers
This is a newly-created site to disseminate news and views in relation to the building industry in New Zealand and worldwide and which will generally include wider concepts of infrastructure and the built environment. It is aimed to be of interest to all professionals in the building industry including architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, chartered surveyors, builders, and all others.
Since we all either live and work in buildings and many of us own or lease buildings this page will also be of interest to the wider public. As I am an engineer and chartered surveyor I propose to start by singing the praises of engineers.
Spare a thought for our Creators - Engineers
Every day most of us wake up with an alarm clock, turn on the tap and boil some water, cook some food, walk out to the pavement, drive a car, or take a bus, and head into an office or other place of work. These items are so much engrossed in our daily lives that we seldom consider how they originated. Society has developed over the ages, thanks to a dedicated, largely invisible, group of professional engineers and technologists. Professional engineers and technologists are the creators who designed and developed the alarm clock, designed and were responsible for the dam which supplied the electricity to boil the water and to cook the food, designed and were responsible for the construction of the pavement and road, designed the car and bus, supplied professional expertise to ensure that the office or place of work is strong enough to stand up against earthquake and wind forces, and to ensure an adequate supply of fresh indoor air.
There is no part of society in relation to our built environment which has not been created by engineers and technologists. They are trained and professionally qualified to adapt and modify the forces of nature so that our society is as comfortable and as suitable for us as we wish. In this way, it could be provocatively argued that they are society's primary health care providers, by providing such important requirements as clean drinking water, healthy nutritious food, secure and warm shelter and safe reliable transport.
Without professional engineering expertise our society would not have developed beyond the Stone Age.
Since we all either live and work in buildings and many of us own or lease buildings this page will also be of interest to the wider public. As I am an engineer and chartered surveyor I propose to start by singing the praises of engineers.
Spare a thought for our Creators - Engineers
Every day most of us wake up with an alarm clock, turn on the tap and boil some water, cook some food, walk out to the pavement, drive a car, or take a bus, and head into an office or other place of work. These items are so much engrossed in our daily lives that we seldom consider how they originated. Society has developed over the ages, thanks to a dedicated, largely invisible, group of professional engineers and technologists. Professional engineers and technologists are the creators who designed and developed the alarm clock, designed and were responsible for the dam which supplied the electricity to boil the water and to cook the food, designed and were responsible for the construction of the pavement and road, designed the car and bus, supplied professional expertise to ensure that the office or place of work is strong enough to stand up against earthquake and wind forces, and to ensure an adequate supply of fresh indoor air.
There is no part of society in relation to our built environment which has not been created by engineers and technologists. They are trained and professionally qualified to adapt and modify the forces of nature so that our society is as comfortable and as suitable for us as we wish. In this way, it could be provocatively argued that they are society's primary health care providers, by providing such important requirements as clean drinking water, healthy nutritious food, secure and warm shelter and safe reliable transport.
Without professional engineering expertise our society would not have developed beyond the Stone Age.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)