Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Disaster dilema

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

     In addition to the other good comments posted, I think you need to also
     put some responsibilty on the resident or owner for their safety if
     they want to re-occupy the building.  They need to be told things like:

     1.  This building has had an initial inspection by an engineer and it
     is not felt to be a major hazard.

     2.  An inspection is not a guarantee.

     3.  After shocks could cause further damage.

     4.  Look at the damage now and let the officials know if it is
     changing, or is worse after an aftershock.

     5.  Stay away from things like chimneys or other falling hazards.

     In some cases re-occupying the building may be better than alternate
     housing or no housing.

     Ed Haninger
     (been there)

I would like to solicit some comments regarding re-occupying homes and
apartment buildings following a major earthquake.

Scenario:  It is anticipated that a major event in the bay area on either
the San Andreas or Hayward fault could result in approximately 154,000
displaced persons.  How do you house (short- and long-term) these people?

Proposed solution:  Some bay area government agencies propose that people
be allowed to re-occupy (full time) damaged homes and apartments as long as
they do not pose a collapse hazard or other life safety hazard.  This
occupancy would take place even if all utilities are turned off and
sanitation is out.

>From the safety assessment program standpoint is this a viable solution?
What about fire hazards?  Would this approach result in faster repairs of
damaged structures or slower repairs?  Any comments would be welcome>