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

14 story concrete shear wall building re

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Scott,

This is a very ambiguous section that will permit anyone to argue that a 
building is not dangerous even if the building violates all 18 criteria!

While on first blush, it appears that the 18 items each define a dangerous 
building, the first paragraph,

"For the purpose of this code, any building or structure which has any or all 
of the conditions or defects hereinafter described shall be deemed to be a 
dangerous building, ***provided that such conditions or defects exist to the 
extent that the life, health, property or safety of the public or its 
occupants are endangered.***" [emphasis added]

contradicts the rest of the section.

It seems that it boils down to the Building Official saying that a building 
violates one or more of the criteria and therefore it is a dangerous 
building, and the owner, if he/she doesn't want to correct the problem, says, 
no, the building has stood for so long and it is not endangering anyone.

This is wording that lawyers love!

A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
Tucson, Arizona

Scott Haan wrote:

. > The Municipality of Anchorage has historically interpreted the '1997 
. > Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings' (UCADB), Section 
. > 302.14 paragraph 14, to mean that the lateral force resisting system 
. > needs to have 66 % of the strength required by the current building code 
. > or it is been deemed dangerous and abatable, in addition to the 
. > requirements in paragraphs 4 and 7.  Two 14 story concrete shearwall 
. > sister buildings were built in Anchorage in 1951 + -. They barely made it 
. > through the 1964 Alaska earthquake and most earthquake textbooks show 
. > pictures of thier cracked spandrel beams,shearwalls and foundation. One 
. > of the sister buildings, 'McKay Building', has consequently been upgraded 
. > with boundary elements, strengthened spandrel beams, strengthened grade 
. > beams and post-tensioned overturning anchorage. 
 
. > The sister building was repaired originally after the earthquake.  A
. > 'Warning Letter of Abatable Nuisance', a portion of which calls for
. > structural strengthening of the building's lateral force resisting system,
. > was sent to the owner in December 2000.  The owner is appealing the 
. > seismic strengthing section of the Warning Letter of Abatable Nuisance.



. > How have other jurisdictions handled similar situations?

. > How have other jurisdictions interpreted '1997 Uniform Code for the
. > Abatement of Dangerous Buildings' (UCADB) Section 302.14?

* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org