|
|
Utah State Panel Balks At a Tougher Earthquake Code
"Salt Lake Valley segment of the Wasatch fault would rival Turkey's
(earthquake) catastrophe" ... but heads were turned away
Salt Lake City, and most of the Utah population sit right on top of the Wasatch fault which has been determined to be "overdue" for a major slip with a 7.5 magnitude earthquake ... the same kind that has devasted Turkey last week.
Nevertheless, Utah, City, and LDS Church officials balk at any action to prevent loss of lives even as cleanup ensues for the Turkey disaster! A quake along the Wasatch fault is particularly devastating because (1) the fault angles so it's epicenter would be directly under downtown Salt Lake City and many other cities. (2) The sedimentary type sand and gravel upon which these cities are built, magnify the motion of earth movement making any quake that does occur particularly life threatening. (3) The Wasatch fault is now overdue for a major quake.
Under these circumstances, a building no higher than two stories should constructed along or near this fault line. Already, the LDS Church has constructed the tallest high rise building in Salt Lake City and now is building right over an inferred fault, their new "LDS Assembly Hall." This will be the largest assembly hall of it's type in the world! Also, the largest convention center in the city, the Salt Palace, is also built over an inferred fault. Building regulations were ignored and geologic maps altered in order to build these structures.
The following articles were selected from the Salt Lake Tribune to show some of the irresponsibility by State and City officials regarding the dangers of a very serious hazard to the population along the Wasatch front in Utah.
.
The Salt Lake Tribune --
State Panel Balks At a Tougher Code
Saturday, August 21, 1999
BY LEE SIEGEL @1999, THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
Devastation and thousands of deaths from Turkey's major earthquake could be repeated in Utah unless weak old buildings are strengthened, the state building code panel was told Friday.
"We may very well be looking at our future if we don't take steps to minimize our exposure," said structural engineer Jim Bailey, a member of Utah's Seismic Safety Commission.
Bailey and Walter Arabasz, the seismic commission's chairman, on Friday asked Utah's Uniform Building Code Commission (UBCC) to adopt a code that would require unreinforced masonry buildings to be strengthened when they are remodeled so they will not collapse during big quakes.
The UBCC declined to take immediate action, citing potential costs in the billions of dollars, the prospect of "influence peddlers" lobbying the governor to rescind the move and the need to build widespread political support.
Instead, UBCC members unanimously voted to announce their intent to consider adoption of the code and encourage officials, developers, building owners and others to speak out on the issue.
"You need to build that base out there to make this thing work," said UBCC Chairman Ron Ivie, Park City's building official.
During the meeting, Arabasz -- director of the University of Utah Seismograph Stations -- waved newspaper reports of the devastation in Turkey. Bailey, of Allen & Bailey Engineers, said the toll from a magnitude-7.5 quake on the Salt Lake Valley segment of the Wasatch fault would rival Turkey's catastrophe.
"The Utah Geological Survey has predicted up to 7,600 deaths, 44,000 injuries and $12 billion in damage from a major seismic event along the Wasatch Front," he said.
"Most experts feel we are overdue. The recent earthquake in Turkey has casualties of this order of magnitude."
Utah's UBCC is responsible for adopting building codes, most written by the International Conference of Building Code Officials.
Arabasz, Bailey and the Seismic Safety Commission want the UBCC to adopt a relatively modest code improvement known as the Uniform Code for Building Conservation 2000. Adoption of that code has also gained support from the Structural Engineers Association of Utah.
"We've got 80 percent of our population and economy sitting on top of the five central portions of the Wasatch fault," Arabasz said. "We've got to intervene."
The new code would not improve the safety of many unreinforced brick and other masonry block buildings, which constitute roughly one-third of all homes and buildings in the Salt Lake Valley, most built before 1970.
Instead, it would require partial seismic reinforcement -- enough to prevent building collapse and loss of life -- when such buildings are remodeled, Bailey said. Salt Lake City already uses a 1997 version of the code.
"It's a bare minimum code," he said. "It's collapse prevention so people can get out and not be squashed. . . . It's just criminal to not make them [building owners] fix that building so it's seismically safe."
Ivie said he supports seismic upgrading, but argued the new code is unnecessary because dangerous buildings can be condemned under the existing Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. It is just a matter of enforcing the code, he said.
Bailey replied that thousands of seismically unsafe buildings are still in use in Utah, including the state Capitol. He said it is unrealistic to condemn them all, but financially feasible to require upgrades during remodeling.
Anne vonWeller, Murray's building official, said the abatement code does not clearly apply to seismically unsafe buildings.
Utah law requires that when pre-1975 unreinforced masonry buildings are reroofed, the roof must be strengthened and tied to the walls. Parapet walls, cornices, spires, towers, statuary and tanks also must be reinforced.
Bailey said not all local governments enforce the law; others do not require building permits for reroofing and have no way to know if the law is being obeyed.
Eric Kankainen, UBCC vice chairman, said the Uniform Building Code now requires that when a building's occupancy changes, it must be brought up to the same seismic standards as new buildings.
So owners either upgrade, tear down old buildings or ignore the code. The new code is a realistic way to restore old buildings and prevent collapse during quakes, he said.
UBCC member Dave McKay, of the state Division of Facilities Construction and Management, said the new code should not be adopted now. He said the cost of seismically upgrading the Capitol and the Union Pacific and Rio Grande railroad depots "might approach a half-billion dollars alone."
If the UBCC adopted the new code now, "all the influence peddlers" will knock on the governor's door to get the action reversed, he added.
Support first must be enlisted from Gov. Mike Leavitt, other officials, developers, building owners and the public, McKay said.
"With Turkey and the tornado [that ripped through Salt Lake City last week] what better focus could you have?" he said. "Everybody is tweaked to [believe that], `We can't let it happen here.' "
UBCC member Steve Richins said it would be logical to study the matter first "without adopting the code." Bailey replied: "The code has been studied" by the seismic commission and structural engineers group.
Arabasz was philosophical about the UBCC's decision.
"This is step one," he said. "We knew this commission wasn't going to immediately buy off on adopting this code."
Barry Welliver, of the structural engineers' group, added: "It's a definite endorsement of the direction that needs to be taken to deal with the existing building situation in Utah."
-----------------------------
Other Articles ...
The Salt Lake Tribune -- Quake Safety of Remodeled Buildings Questioned Saturday, April 10, 1999
Quake Safety of Remodeled Buildings Questioned S.L. Gateway renovations don't assure seismic upgrades
BY LEE SIEGEL THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
Vulnerable old buildings in downtown Salt Lake City and the nearby Gateway urban renewal area are being remodeled into condominiums, offices and restaurants with no assurance they are upgraded to resist earthquakes, a Utah Seismic Safety Commission member said Friday.
"As there is no specific requirement, the owner and/or developer may have the option in some cases to specify that no seismic upgrade be done on his building," said Jim Bailey, who also is president of Allen & Bailey Engineers.
"As there are no disclosure requirements, the people who later occupy or purchase these buildings are usually unaware of the seismic hazard posed by an improperly or non-retrofitted building" made of old concrete or unreinforced brick or other masonry blocks, he added.
Bailey represents the Structural Engineers Association of Utah on the commission and recently was named Engineer of the Year by the Utah Engineers Council.
Roger Evans, Salt Lake City's building services director, attended Friday's commission meeting but declined comment on Bailey's allegations. He said later the Uniform Building Code in Utah requires seismic retrofitting when a building's occupancy is changed -- from warehouse to condo, for example. The code calls for strengthening connections between the roof and walls, but various methods can be used and they are not well-defined, Evans said.
Bailey said an engineer "is often required to exercise his own judgment as to the degree of seismic retrofit to perform and methodologies to use. An engineer's judgment can be quite subjective, and the actual amount and effectiveness of retrofit work can vary greatly."
Utah's Uniform Building Code Commission passed a rule years ago requiring that when unreinforced masonry buildings are reroofed, the roof must be anchored to the walls and parapets must be braced. The rule "has not been enforced," Bailey said.
He said that other than a change in occupancy, "Salt Lake City has no specific requirements, laws or triggers in place . . . for the seismic upgrade of these buildings." Bailey suggested Salt Lake City and other local governments adopt ordinances specifying what is required for seismic upgrades of remodeled buildings.
Evans said Utah law mandates such changes must be made by the Uniform Building Code Commission, not local governments.
Seismic Safety Commission Chairman Walter Arabasz urged Bailey to form a subcommittee to study the issue and report to the commission's July 9 meeting.
Arabasz also wants to review the state of earthquake safety in Utah, where 80 percent of the growing population lives "smack on top" of the Wasatch fault.
"My feeling is we have plateaued" in efforts to improve seismic safety, said Arabasz, who also directs the University of Utah Seismograph Stations.
To spur its efforts, the commission received a pep talk Friday from Ronald Lynn, chairman of the Nevada Earthquake Safety Council and assistant director of the building department in Clark County, Nev.
Lynn urged commissioners to "hustle" money from private business and other groups to finance quake-safety projects. He also said seismic commissioners should avoid talking like academicians and engineers and tell the public how quake-safety issues affect their lives.
In other business:
-- The Seismic Safety Commission has a new Internet web site -- www.ussc.state.ut.us <http://www.ussc.state.ut.us> -- to provide information to the public.
-- Commission member and State Geologist Lee Allison said his agency, the Utah Geological Survey, attempted to get legislative funding to hire a geologist to review new school construction sites for geologic hazards. While the funding was approved, the agency suffered other cuts. So the new geologist will not be hired and "we'll be lucky if we can maintain existing staff," Allison said.
-- Arabasz said President Clinton's fiscal year 2000 budget includes $1.6 million to start "real-time earthquake monitoring" pilot projects in San Francisco, Seattle and the Ogden-Salt Lake City-Provo area. If approved, $400,000 of that money would be for the Utah project, he said.
A full-scale, real-time quake monitoring project would set off pagers carried by scientists, emergency officials and others within 10 seconds after an earthquake, letting them know the size and location of the jolt so they can respond where help is needed. Such a system for the Wasatch Front would cost more than $10 million, but the pilot project would be a start, Arabasz said.
------------------------
The Salt Lake Tribune -- Salt Palace May Not Be Safe From Earthquakes Thursday, August 5, 1999
Salt Palace May Not Be Safe From Earthquakes
BY LEE SIEGEL 1999, THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
Salt Lake City on Wednesday lifted the last roadblock that could have halted the $47.5 million expansion of the Salt Palace Convention Center after consultants said bracing the new building's foundation should protect it from major earthquakes.
But the consultants expressed new worries about seismic safety of the main Salt Palace, which was completed in 1996 after an $85 million renovation.
"We are concerned about the structural integrity of the existing Salt Palace Convention Center," said a final report by geologist William Cotton and engineer Patrick Shires of Los Gatos, Calif.
"In our opinion, the risk is high that ground settlement and spreading of a few inches could adversely impact the existing structure," said the July 30 report, released Wednesday. "We recommend the project geotechnical and structural engineering consultants review this concern and provide the city with a report outlining their findings and recommendations."
Salt Lake County owns the Salt Palace in Salt Lake City.
"We have an obligation to review the report and determine what steps could be taken realistically to address that problem," said county Commissioner Brent Overson. "We've suspected as a result of the work on the expansion that the renovation we completed in 1996 probably didn't address some of those [seismic] issues. It's a question of what we can do, what are the risks, and what are the costs to address those."
Nevertheless, the structure "was built to code, and then some," said Julie Peck, county director of community and support services. "If you're in the Wasatch Front when the quake hits, you would be more safe in the Salt Palace than in a lot of buildings."
Former Salt Lake County Geologist Craig Nelson said less than 4 inches of ground movement could cause repairable cracks, more than 4 inches "could rupture through a foundation," but "you don't worry about collapse until you see 2 feet of settlement."
Cotton, Shires & Associates' final report accepts the conclusion of county consultant Kleinfelder Inc. that future quake-related liquefaction -- when ground behaves like quicksand -- would cause no more than a few inches of ground movement beneath the Salt Palace and the 200,000-square-foot expansion.
Cotton, Shires' earlier doubts prompted the city to issue a conditional building permit for the expansion June 8, and construction soon began. With doubts resolved, Roger Evans, city building services director, made the permit unconditional Wednesday.
Debate over seismic safety of the Salt Palace began in 1997 when The Tribune reported that the convention center was rebuilt without a legally required study to look for faulting.
As a result, the county arranged for David Simon of Bountiful-based Simon-Bymaster Inc. to study the expansion site. Last December, he found signs of ancient liquefaction and a series of shallow faults along which ground dropped downward as much as 6 feet during prehistoric quakes. Simon later concluded the faulting likely represented a southern extension of the Warm Springs branch of the Wasatch fault.
The county then hired Kleinfelder for a second opinion. Kleinfelder and Les Youd, civil-engineering chairman at Brigham Young University, concluded the shallow faults had not broken underlying sediments and thus were not quake-causing faults.
They said the shallow faults formed when the ground liquefied, spread apart and sank during two prehistoric quakes on a nearby fault 6,500 to 11,000 years ago. They said future quakes would cause only a few inches of ground movement because the water table now is lower and sediments more compact.
The county accepted Kleinfelder's and Youd's recommendation to strengthen the new building's foundation by tying footings together with horizontal beams. That will cost $257,762.
The city hired Cotton, Shires to review the conflicting Simon and Kleinfelder reports. In May, the city withheld the building permit after Cotton, Shires sharply questioned Kleinfelder's conclusions that a quake fault was not present and future liquefaction would be mild.
Based on more studies by Kleinfelder, Cotton, Shires agreed in late May that there was no quake fault, but still questioned Kleinfelder's stand on liquefaction. City ordinance only prohibits building on an active fault, so the conditional building permit was issued.
Cotton, Shires' final report concluded Kleinfelder and Youd were right that future liquefaction-induced ground motion will not exceed 3 inches, which the expansion's reinforced foundation can withstand, but questioned the vulnerability of the existing Salt Palace.
Kleinfelder's recent studies found 2-foot undulations in sediments beneath the shallow liquefaction-induced faults. It concluded they were caused not by faulting, but by settling of sediments and stream-erosion of now-buried ancient ground surfaces. Cotton, Shires called those explanations "speculative" and "without evidential support," but also concluded they were "not improbable" or "not impossible."
But Overson said Cotton, Shires accepted Kleinfelder's conclusions on faulting and liquefaction.
The Kleinfelder, Simon and Cotton, Shires studies will cost the county about $390,000.
County officials hope to finish the expansion's parking garage and exhibit hall -- but not the ballroom -- in time for the 23,000-person Outdoor Retailers Market in August 2000.
Page Modified August 22, 1999