Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Lateral decision

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
A suggestion on how to look at partial retrofits.

When we look at retrofits/rehabs of any significant extent on a building we
always insist that the building be brought up to code in its entirety. It
is for the reason that buildings that do not meet the code should just be
allowed to go the course and finally be demolished, not just have cosmetic
repairs or patches to cover up real problems and extend their lives way
beyond their limits.

Buildings that have major rehabs to extend their economic or practical life
spans should always be seen as being re-constructed for a new use and level
of safety equal to a new building. In other words, if repairs are made to
make a building last another 50 years, the entire building should be
brought up to the level of safety of a new building designed to last 50 years.

I haven't followed the thread on partial-rehab-of-total-building versus
total-rehab-of-part closely enough to tell if the rehab of first floor is
intended to extend the life of the whole building, economic or otherwise. I
just wanted to suggest that I might not look kindly on fixing just one part
of the building and leaving the rest unsafe.

Ted Partrick, PE
Plan Review Manager, City of Greensboro, NC 

At 10:22 PM 2/5/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Just a question for the group (not a suggestion)... Would a partial retrofit
>of the entire building be better than a full retrofit of the first floor?
>For example, install some missing collectors to existing shear walls but
>don't add ply even though the walls are overstressed?  Maybe some holdowns
>at locations of large uplift, and some anchorage of the sill plates to the
>exising foundations?  At least you'd be getting the load where it needs to
>go, regardless of whether or not those elements have the required capacity,
>limit deflections, or at the very least tie everything together and get a
>little redundancy for life safety.  Or is it a waste of money?
>
>Paul McEntee
>