Earthquake Issues for Commercial Buildings

[gavinc]

Thanks Davo - ok I understand that the NBS is different for different building use and areas - BUT I still do not get what lets say the 33% refers to what.
Yes I know 33% of the NBS but is it related to the magnitude of the earthquake?

[eri]

33% of current new code requirements?

and those keep changing....

[Davo36]

Thanks Davo - ok I understand that the NBS is different for different building use and areas - BUT I still do not get what lets say the 33% refers to what.
Yes I know 33% of the NBS but is it related to the magnitude of the earthquake?

I don't know. I don't think that question makes sense.

Because how can it if NBS is different for differing buildings and areas?

[Maccachic]

The Guys here went to a Property Council presentation yesterday and were told by an engineer that 40,000 people have been killed on the roads and 185 after the ChCh quakes he said the risk needs to be put in perspective.

[gavinc]

The Guys here went to a Property Council presentation yesterday and were told by an engineer that 40,000 people have been killed on the roads and 185 after the ChCh quakes he said the risk needs to be put in perspective.

Maccachic I agree but I don't trust the councils and other bureaucrats to take a pragmatic risk management approach to this. Already it appears to be an exercise is "butt covering"

[gavinc]

<I don't know. I don't think that question makes sense.>
Sorry Davo - I will try again.
Lets say the NBS re earthquake standards has 99 items it it, things like type of windows, placement of windows, escape routes, signs, etc Then the building owner is required to meet 33% of NBS does he/she need to only meet 33 out of the 99 requirements OR as I said earlier does it only need to be able to withstand an earthquake of a lower magnitude?

[Davo36]

Maccachic I agree but I don't trust the councils and other bureaucrats to take a pragmatic risk management approach to this. Already it appears to be an exercise is "butt covering"

gavinc, yep, exactly.

Which is what I tried to say here: http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/sh...196#post297196

Basically whenever safety comes up, the bureaucrats take a conservative approach, hence the nationwide 5 years to assess, 10 years to fix recommendations. They say they are open to consultation, but not really.

[Maccachic]

The other thing is they could quite quickly review the standards after you have upgraded your building too. Makes you wonder what is next for property owners weathertightness > earthquake strengthening >

[Maccachic]

This might help: http://www.prendos.co.nz/seismic-ass...-sean-marshall

[Davo36]

<I don't know. I don't think that question makes sense.>
Sorry Davo - I will try again.
Lets say the NBS re earthquake standards has 99 items it it, things like type of windows, placement of windows, escape routes, signs, etc Then the building owner is required to meet 33% of NBS does he/she need to only meet 33 out of the 99 requirements OR as I said earlier does it only need to be able to withstand an earthquake of a lower magnitude?

Umm, your mixing up seismic stuff with escape stuff now.

OK: For seismic performance, an engineer assessing a building would be looking at the strength of the building, and how it would perform under an earthquake.

So they take no notice of escape routes, windows etc. BUT as part of doing any earthquake strengthening, you may need a building consent. And so now some parts of the community are starting to say that if you upgrade a building for seismic performance you should also have to upgrade it for disabled access and fire safety - i.e. bring it up to the new code for both those things as well. Which is a huge thing for many buildings.

At the meeting at Auckland Council the other day, there was a lawyer (she is disabled and so was in a wheelchair) who piped up to say that under the United Nations article xyz, which NZ had signed up to, all buildings had to offer disabled access and so cost doesn't matter. Building owners cannot use a cost argument to deny disabled people their rights was her argument. There was a big disabled contingent in the crowd making similar noises. These people just have no understanding of money or business or how things work in the real world.

[Davo36]

This might help: http://www.prendos.co.nz/seismic-ass...-sean-marshall

Yep it's paydirt for engineers...

[Davo36]

Even the Editorial staff at the Herald reckon this earthquake stuff is getting a bit ridiculous:

Editorial: Earthquake 'cure' far worse than the disease



Is the aftermath of such an event really the best time to be deciding the fate of our built heritage? Photo / Brett Phibbs


The natural response to a natural disaster is to see that it cannot cause as much damage next time. But if the disaster is as rare as a major earthquake and the remedy would remove most or all of our older buildings, does the risk warrant it? That is the question we need to pose in response to proposals from the royal commission of inquiry into the Canterbury earthquakes and a review of the building code by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

The royal commission recommended that local bodies should be required to identify all earthquake-prone buildings in their jurisdiction within two years and that the owners be given seven years to either bring them up to the standard or demolish them. The ministry has suggested slightly longer periods - five years for the councils to identify the buildings and 10 years for the owners to strengthen or remove them. The later deadline is the one the Government has adopted for the purposes of an important public discussion.

It is time to think carefully about the costs - not just to building owners but to the community if heritage is lost - and to weigh the costs against the risk of damaging earthquakes.




The risk is very low. The building code in force since 1976 requires new buildings to be able to withstand a magnitude of earthquake likely to occur maybe once in 500 years.


The ground forces that hit Christchurch on February 22, 2011, were much greater than that, equivalent to an earthquake reckoned to occur once every 2500 years. Nobody has suggested we need build to that standard of resistance. Ultimately, there is no such thing as an "earthquake-proof" building. A shallow quake in unfavourable rock structure can generate much greater shaking than its magnitude normally causes.


That is what happened in Christchurch and the question should be asked: is the aftermath of such an event really the best time to be deciding the fate of our built heritage?



Rest of Article

Bolding mine. So if even the normally very conservative editorial staff are saying we need to be careful not to impose blanket regulations to upgrade buildings, then it starts to become a bit of a no brainer.

[Davo36]

And now the government have made their decisions around earthquake strengthening for buildings: See here: http://www.dbh.govt.nz/epb-policy-review

And here: http://www.interest.co.nz/property/6...originally-pro

Basically what they went on their roadshow with but with slightly longer timeframes. Everything has to eventually be brought up to 34% of the New Building Standards. Which seems reasonable.

Councils have 5 years to assess all the buildings in their areas and owners then have 15 years to strengthen or demolish. Heritage buildings have 10 years more than that.

So no real biggy in terms of what owners have to do really, 34% sounds fair. But what may dictate more is tenant demand, whether there are more earthquakes etc.

[kapitibeanman]

Even the Editorial staff at the Herald reckon this earthquake stuff is getting a bit ridiculous:

Editorial: Earthquake 'cure' far worse than the disease



Is the aftermath of such an event really the best time to be deciding the fate of our built heritage? Photo / Brett Phibbs


The natural response to a natural disaster is to see that it cannot cause as much damage next time. But if the disaster is as rare as a major earthquake and the remedy would remove most or all of our older buildings, does the risk warrant it? That is the question we need to pose in response to proposals from the royal commission of inquiry into the Canterbury earthquakes and a review of the building code by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

The royal commission recommended that local bodies should be required to identify all earthquake-prone buildings in their jurisdiction within two years and that the owners be given seven years to either bring them up to the standard or demolish them. The ministry has suggested slightly longer periods - five years for the councils to identify the buildings and 10 years for the owners to strengthen or remove them. The later deadline is the one the Government has adopted for the purposes of an important public discussion.

It is time to think carefully about the costs - not just to building owners but to the community if heritage is lost - and to weigh the costs against the risk of damaging earthquakes.




The risk is very low. The building code in force since 1976 requires new buildings to be able to withstand a magnitude of earthquake likely to occur maybe once in 500 years.


The ground forces that hit Christchurch on February 22, 2011, were much greater than that, equivalent to an earthquake reckoned to occur once every 2500 years. Nobody has suggested we need build to that standard of resistance. Ultimately, there is no such thing as an "earthquake-proof" building. A shallow quake in unfavourable rock structure can generate much greater shaking than its magnitude normally causes.


That is what happened in Christchurch and the question should be asked: is the aftermath of such an event really the best time to be deciding the fate of our built heritage?



Rest of Article

Thanks for those links Davo.

My off the cuff reaction to the Herald editorial comment, is they
must be on a different planet, but until I've had a chance to
study all the info. I'd better shut up.

What I do know though, we can't control earthquakes, but we can
influence building standards.

[King13]

Hi - is any owner dealing with an Earthquake prone building currently?

We own a building that is under 33% NBS mainly due to it's age. A lot of factors need to be thought out like time frame to carry out strengthening, costs involved, tenant lease and Council issues.

It will be good to hear from and talk to someone in a similar position.