Help explaining US safety and securit...

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Matthew Corsover Junior Member Username: mcorsover Post Number: 2 Registered: 03-2018 Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2019 - 10:38 pm:    Here’s an interesting one. I have been asked by a Japanese company to prepare an overview of “overseas safety and security trends”. I believe this is prompted by the expected influx of foreign visitors for the 2020 Olympics, and the desire to meet the expectations of people used to the built environment of other countries. This is more about end-user interface, so things like handrails and slip-resistance come to mind. ADA Standards will be my first stop, but I thought the folks here might have some other suggestions. Any comments would be much appreciated. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 497 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Friday, June 14, 2019 - 12:58 am:    What an interesting assignment. If you decide to pass on it, please refer them to me. Are they interested in all forms of safety or primarily building and infrastructure related? 911 phones rights when dealing with police officers Street crossing elevator controls. exit stairs and signage smoke detectors lock-down seat belts blizzards circuit breakers hand washing Our buildings sway more in earthquakes - see recent NYTimes article. I bet US Dept of State or other federal agency has references. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS 1-818-219-4937 www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 895 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2019 - 02:31 pm:    The NYT article presents a distorted view. Much of the base isolation technology was developed in the US and we are able to use it in buildings. The difference is that in Japan many building owners are willing to pay for it The reference to swaying needs to be put into context. When you base isolate a building you create a flexible layer near the base that changes the first mode of vibration and results in less drift in upper levels. As a result there may be more overall swaying which is concentrated at the base. The lower levels of drift translate into less damage in an earthquake but not necessarily into safer buildings. Really tall buildings will not be base isolated for a number of reasons including the fact that the first mode of vibration is already low and that wind loads are much larger than the seismic forces. Large wind loads can cause difficulties when trying to isolate a tall building. If you base isolate a building you will need to provide room at the level of the isolators for the building to move. Thus you cannot build right next to the property line. Yes there are differences in the way seismic forces are dealt with in the US and Japan but they are the result of different cultural and economic influences. Engineers in both countries are aware of what the others are doing. Japanese engineers do not know more than US (California) engineers. I do not know what was inferred by the reference to federal agencies. While the Feds do pay for research and make efforts to promote the developments of standards building codes are a state and not a federal concern. ASCE 7 plays a major role in the development of our seismic codes. Much of the expertise in seismic design resides in the west coast and in particular in California. I suspect that seismic performance is not what the client is looking for. Individuals from the US will find that from a safety perspective that Japanese buildings are comparable to US buildings. The bigger issue has to do with people from a region where they are not concerned with earthquakes going to a region known for earthquakes. Such individuals may be anxious when they go to a place such as Japan or California. Maybe this is a good thing because there are arguably too many people already in California. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1783 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, June 17, 2019 - 02:57 pm:    I read the Times article, too, and what Mark says adds much clarity. There was one thing the article noted that I think is likely very true in the US - it may be true in Japan, too; I don't know. The article notes that many people don't realize that earthquake resistance is designed to save lives, but not necessarily buildings. They may be too damaged to use, or even repair, after a quake. Of course, this is also true of other code requirements, such as fire safety; designed to save lives, and sometimes property, but the focus is on saving lives. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 300 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Tuesday, June 18, 2019 - 08:59 am:    John, you make an excellent point! Whereas the property insurance industry's focus is on protecting physical assets which in turn can save lives, the building codes are in place primarily to protect and improve lives. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1784 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 18, 2019 - 03:15 pm:    Property insurance policies frequently have liability insurance as part of a package. This is true of the personal policy and the commercial policy that I own, and a commercial one that I'm responsible to purchase for another entity. Thus, if someone is injured or dies in a fire or other disaster, the insurer may have a liability for that, too. For this reason, I think the insurers' interest is in both property and life. It is true, however, that the early origins of fire codes were private efforts by insurers to protect commercial buildings from loss by fire. Later, life safety came into the fore, too. Much of that happened here in the Boston area. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 897 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, June 18, 2019 - 08:50 pm:    If a building owner wants to go beyond life safety their structural engineer would like to discuss options. In my experience when offered such an option most owners decline anything in excess of code. This is also related to the question of what is the role of codes and more generally the question of balancing individual rights and government regulation. We can reduce some of these risks but even then our ability to predict performance is somewhat of a guessing game. How much is the client willing to pay? Originally building regulations were intended to reduce the risk to the community and not necessarily to reduce economic risk to the owner.