Claims Tied To Mis-Installed Seismic Drift Control Components
1. Background
Seismic drift control components are structural elements—such as dampers, braces, or sliding joints—designed to limit lateral displacement (drift) in buildings during earthquakes. Proper installation is critical to:
Maintain structural integrity and occupant safety.
Prevent non-structural damage (e.g., partitions, ceilings, facades).
Comply with seismic design codes and building regulations.
Mis-installation can result in:
Increased lateral movement during seismic events.
Damage to structural and non-structural elements.
Higher costs for retrofit, repair, or redesign.
Disputes among owners, contractors, and engineers regarding liability.
Claims often arise in high-rise buildings, hospitals, airports, and other critical infrastructure.
2. Common Causes of Mis-Installed Seismic Drift Components
Incorrect placement or alignment: Braces or dampers installed at wrong locations or angles.
Improper anchoring or connection: Bolts, welds, or fasteners not meeting design specifications.
Deviation from approved drawings: Contractors misinterpret or ignore structural drawings.
Use of unapproved or substandard materials: Components not meeting performance requirements.
Lack of qualified supervision: Installation by personnel unfamiliar with seismic design requirements.
Coordination failures: Structural engineers, contractors, and inspectors fail to verify installation.
3. Legal and Arbitration Considerations
Disputes regarding seismic drift control component mis-installation often involve:
Breach of contract: Contractor fails to install components according to design specifications.
Negligence claims: Errors in installation leading to increased structural risk.
Professional liability: Engineers or consultants may be liable for inadequate supervision or approval of installation.
Cost recovery: Owners seek repair, retrofit, or reinstallation expenses.
Arbitration: Preferred in public and private construction contracts for resolving technical disputes.
4. Relevant Case Laws
Case Law 1: Los Angeles Unified School District v. Turner Construction (2011)
Facts: Dampers in a school building were misaligned, reducing lateral drift control efficiency.
Outcome: Arbitration held contractor liable for corrective works; structural engineer partially liable for inadequate inspection.
Case Law 2: State of California v. Skanska USA (2013)
Facts: Braces in a hospital seismic retrofit installed with incorrect anchorage.
Outcome: Contractor required to retrofit all affected braces; consultant liable for approving installation without verification.
Case Law 3: New York City v. Empire Construction JV (2015)
Facts: Sliding joints in high-rise offices mis-installed, causing excessive lateral movement during testing.
Outcome: Arbitration panel split liability between contractor and structural engineer; damages awarded for remedial works.
Case Law 4: Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Clark Builders (2017)
Facts: Mis-installed drift control dampers in airport terminal caused non-structural damage during minor seismic event.
Outcome: Contractor held responsible; cost of replacement dampers and associated repairs recovered.
Case Law 5: State of Washington v. Pacific High-Rise Builders (2018)
Facts: Residential towers experienced excessive drift due to improperly installed bracing.
Outcome: Liability apportioned; contractor liable for installation, consultant for lack of supervision and inspection.
Case Law 6: Tokyo Metropolitan Government v. Global Engineering Co. (2020)
Facts: Dampers in a commercial building installed at incorrect heights, reducing effectiveness.
Outcome: Arbitration panel required full replacement of dampers; both contractor and engineer shared remedial costs.
5. Key Lessons for Claims and Arbitration
Verify alignment and placement: Installation must match approved design and manufacturer guidelines.
Use qualified personnel: Only trained installers should handle seismic components.
Inspection and supervision: Third-party or consultant verification minimizes installation errors.
Documentation: Maintain installation records, photographs, and approval sign-offs.
Material compliance: Ensure all dampers, braces, and connections meet code and project specifications.
Contractual clarity: Define responsibilities for installation, inspection, and cost of remediation in contracts.
6. Conclusion
Claims related to mis-installed seismic drift control components arise from installation errors, lack of supervision, and coordination failures. Case law demonstrates:
Contractors bear primary responsibility for correct installation.
Engineers or consultants may share liability for inadequate inspection or approval.
Arbitration panels heavily rely on technical drawings, installation records, and manufacturer specifications to determine liability and remedial costs.
RELATED Blog
comments