Revolutionize structural engineering with AI-powered analysis and design. Transform blueprints into intelligent solutions in minutes. (Get started for free)
Key Changes in NYC's 2020 Building Code 7 Critical Updates for Structural Engineers
Key Changes in NYC's 2020 Building Code 7 Critical Updates for Structural Engineers - New Site Safety Plan Requirements for Projects Over 7 Stories
As of December 11, 2024, New York City's construction landscape will see a major shift with the expanded reach of site safety plan requirements. Previously, only projects taller than ten stories were subject to these plans. Now, any construction project reaching seven stories or 75 feet in height will require a comprehensive site safety plan. This broader mandate will undoubtedly affect a significantly larger number of projects, encompassing a wider range of building types and sizes.
These new safety plans are not just formalities; they necessitate a detailed assessment of the project's environment, including site conditions, surrounding utilities, and potential hazards to both pedestrians and traffic. Moreover, each project needing a site safety plan is required to designate a primary construction superintendent, and the plans must be approved by the Department of Buildings. It is reasonable to expect that this change will increase the demand for qualified professionals in site safety management roles.
Ultimately, the goal is clear—to elevate safety standards on construction sites and minimize accidents. By requiring more detailed safety plans and enhancing oversight, the city hopes to provide a more secure environment for construction workers and the general public around job sites. While the new rules are intended to improve outcomes, the actual impact on safety will only become clear in time. It remains to be seen if the changes genuinely reduce risks and whether the required documentation and oversight effectively address the challenges of a complex construction environment.
As of December 11th, 2024, New York City has redefined what constitutes a "major building" in the context of construction safety. This adjustment extends the requirement for site safety plans to any project reaching seven stories or 75 feet in height, impacting a considerably larger number of projects than previously covered. Before this revision, only buildings exceeding ten stories were subject to these plans.
This change signifies a significant expansion of the city's reach in construction safety, essentially lowering the threshold where a detailed safety plan becomes mandatory. These plans now need to meticulously address a range of site-specific conditions including existing utilities, surrounding properties, anticipated traffic, and pedestrian safety considerations.
Furthermore, a key aspect of the new requirements is the designation of a primary construction superintendent for all projects requiring a safety plan. These plans are also subject to approval by the Department of Buildings (DOB). It's anticipated that the expanded reach of the safety plan requirements will generate a rise in the need for professionals with expertise in site safety management, which could potentially stimulate job growth in this field.
It's also worth noting that this regulatory shift does not affect the safety measures already in place for façade work. Those protocols remain focused on buildings 14 stories or 200 feet and higher. The overall goal of this change in policy is clear: enhancing worker and public safety around construction projects, reducing the risk of construction-related injuries through proactive safety measures.
The DOB, in preparation for this update, has made available guidelines and its DOB NOW platform for submitting site safety plan approvals. This pre-approval process offers project teams the opportunity to receive a preliminary assessment of their plan before construction gets underway. It seems the city is emphasizing a collaborative approach to safety, urging developers and construction managers to engage with the DOB throughout the planning and execution phases of their projects.
Key Changes in NYC's 2020 Building Code 7 Critical Updates for Structural Engineers - Updated Load Requirements for Mass Timber Construction
The 2020 NYC Building Code introduced updated load requirements specifically for mass timber construction, signaling a shift towards wider acceptance of this innovative material. Previously limited in application, mass timber, particularly cross-laminated timber (CLT), is now permitted for structural use in buildings up to 85 feet tall, roughly six or seven stories. This change, largely influenced by similar updates in the International Building Code, gives designers greater flexibility while keeping NYC in line with modern building standards.
The new regulations also provide clear definitions for mass timber products like CLT and structural composite lumber, which helps clarify their use and structural capabilities. Further, a focus on energy efficiency is integrated into these new rules, aiming to encourage the development of both structurally sound and environmentally responsible buildings. While the updates provide a pathway for broader use of mass timber, implementing these changes effectively within NYC's existing building framework will be crucial. It will be interesting to see how the industry adapts and innovates with these changes, and whether this new allowance truly spurs adoption and contributes to sustainable, resilient urban construction. There is some potential for unforeseen consequences and implementation challenges.
The NYC Department of Buildings has embraced the use of mass timber, particularly cross-laminated timber (CLT), as a structural material in buildings, marking a shift in the city's construction landscape. This update aligns NYC's building codes with the International Building Code (IBC), reflecting a wider acceptance of mass timber in the construction industry. Initially, the code allowed for CLT structures up to 85 feet, or roughly six to seven stories. However, it's now up to 18 stories, a major jump. This expansion, while exciting, raises questions about the long-term behavior of such tall timber structures.
The updated code also introduces clearer definitions for various mass timber materials, including CLT and structural composite lumber (SCL). This helps clarify design standards and ensures a shared understanding of the properties and limitations of these materials among engineers and contractors. One key aspect of the new regulations is a focus on fire resistance. The new rules require mass timber assemblies to meet a minimum two-hour fire rating in specific instances, which is perhaps a counterpoint to the notion that timber doesn't perform well in fire.
The updated code pays greater attention to the need for lateral stability in mass timber buildings. Structures now require innovative bracing systems designed to withstand seismic forces. This is a noticeable change, and it challenges the conventional notion that timber might not be as strong as steel or concrete for resisting lateral forces in high winds or earthquakes. Moreover, the code's revisions now explicitly address moisture control, which is a fundamental factor in the long-term performance of timber structures. The changes underscore the necessity of careful detailing to prevent dimensional changes in timber components that might lead to problems.
An interesting development in the code updates is the promotion of hybrid structural systems in mass timber buildings. This approach allows for the integration of mass timber with steel or concrete. The potential advantage of combining materials might allow designers to leverage the strengths of various materials to handle specific load conditions. The rationale behind this change seems to be recognizing that diversity in materials within a structural system can be a useful design strategy.
Further, the updated requirements provide more comprehensive guidance on how timber connections behave. Now, there is a greater emphasis on connection testing, particularly for tension and shear loads. This is a welcome development, as it highlights the importance of properly designed connections, a critical aspect of any timber structure. The new codes also contain stricter detailing requirements for adhesive-based connections, reflecting a deeper understanding of material interaction under load, especially in larger timber projects.
There's also an emphasis on dynamic loads in the new code provisions. Dynamic loads—from wind or equipment operation, for example—have traditionally received less attention in timber construction. The new code stresses the need to conduct detailed load calculations and ensure connections can handle the anticipated dynamic forces. In addition to more stringent dynamic load considerations, the new regulations surprisingly also permit greater live loads in mass timber structures. This potentially opens the door for architects and engineers to explore building designs with a higher occupancy or usage intensity, a trend we see gaining momentum in other parts of the world.
Finally, the documentation needed to demonstrate compliance with these updated load requirements is more extensive than before. The city now requires engineers to submit detailed load calculations and justifications. This aspect enhances the responsibility engineers face during the design process, and likely puts more scrutiny on structural analysis in mass timber construction. While this change may seem overly burdensome to some, it ultimately promotes careful analysis and potentially can improve safety outcomes, particularly as new approaches and materials are used more broadly.
Key Changes in NYC's 2020 Building Code 7 Critical Updates for Structural Engineers - Additional Safety Training Certification for Suspended Scaffold Work
The 2020 NYC Building Code has brought about new requirements for suspended scaffold work, with a particular focus on safety and training. Anyone overseeing the setup or use of suspended scaffolds now needs to complete a 32-hour training course specifically designed for suspended scaffold supervisors. This expanded training covers critical safety protocols, relevant regulations, and methods for managing the inherent hazards of operating these elevated work platforms.
Furthermore, the code requires all individuals who will be working on or using suspended scaffolds to complete a 16-hour training program focused on the specific safety issues of scaffold usage. These new training mandates signal an increased emphasis on ensuring workers are properly educated and prepared to work safely on suspended scaffolds.
The city has also updated the permitting process for suspended scaffold work, requiring that all applications be submitted through the DOB NOW Build system, effective November 15. This centralized system aims to streamline the permitting process and potentially improve oversight and enforcement of safety standards.
While the city's goal of improving worker safety is clear, whether these new measures will significantly reduce accidents on construction sites remains to be seen. The long-term effectiveness of these new regulations and the changes in practice they trigger will ultimately be reflected in future safety data.
In NYC's updated 2020 Building Code, a notable change revolves around the mandatory training for individuals involved in suspended scaffold work. Now, supervisors overseeing the setup or use of these platforms are required to complete a 32-hour course focused on safety protocols and regulations. This intensified emphasis on training likely reflects a growing awareness of the heightened risks associated with working on suspended scaffolds at significant heights. It's intriguing to consider if this new training approach will result in fewer injuries, though the impact on safety statistics will require ongoing monitoring.
It's interesting that the city mandates separate training for scaffold users, requiring a 16-hour course. This suggests that the city recognizes that simply knowing about the equipment's proper use isn't sufficient, and that workers also need to understand the specific hazards associated with suspended scaffolds. It seems this approach might aim to reduce potential accidents by building a deeper level of risk awareness among everyone involved. However, it's not clear whether a 16-hour course is really sufficient for developing the level of risk awareness necessary to safely operate on these platforms.
Another noteworthy aspect is that permit applications for suspended scaffolds must now be submitted via DOB NOW Build. This centralized online system could streamline the permitting process, but it remains to be seen whether it leads to more efficient or even more complex approval workflows. The impact of the new system on both builders and the DOB is hard to assess at this point.
It appears that the new code also establishes a "Suspended Scaffold SC Work Type" to simplify permit submissions for projects involving suspended scaffolds in taller buildings. This standardization may reduce ambiguity and help to ensure compliance with the code. Whether or not this change improves efficiency and oversight remains to be seen.
The city's safety focus extends to the curriculum of the 32-hour Supervisor course, which covers hazard identification and mitigation. These topics are central to preventing accidents, and they underscore the importance of a proactive approach to safety. Hopefully, the training helps improve hazard anticipation on the job site and prepares supervisors to manage and reduce risks more effectively.
One could argue that the revised code is simply bringing NYC into alignment with international best practices. We know that OSHA regulations and proper equipment inspections are also elements of the training, and these topics have likely been a focus of safety training courses for quite some time. In some ways, this specific part of the 2020 update merely formalizes practices that have already been employed within the construction sector. The true test of the effectiveness of this change will ultimately be the actual outcomes, specifically in injury and accident rates on projects using suspended scaffolds.
The city's approach to promoting safety through training reflects a clear goal: minimizing construction accidents, particularly those related to falls from suspended scaffolding. However, it's also important to remember that training programs, while crucial, are only one part of the larger safety equation. They are necessary but not sufficient for mitigating the risks involved in scaffold work. How the design, inspection, and use of scaffolding practices adapt in response to these changes will undoubtedly play an important role in whether the training is effective in reducing injury rates in the long term.
Key Changes in NYC's 2020 Building Code 7 Critical Updates for Structural Engineers - Modified Wind Load Design Standards for High Rise Buildings
The 2020 update to NYC's building code introduces changes to wind load design standards, with a particular focus on high-rise structures. These modifications, largely stemming from adjustments to the ASCE 7 standards, are notable for shifting towards a performance-based approach to wind design. This means engineers must consider wind impacts in a more nuanced way, often involving complex calculations beyond traditional methods. Furthermore, the updated code features reduced wind speed values for certain building types and locations, prompting a recalculation of wind loads across projects.
This new emphasis on performance-based design calls for a more in-depth understanding of wind effects on tall buildings. Engineers must now account for complex phenomena like acrosswind vibrations, which are particularly relevant to very tall structures. Advanced methods, such as quasi-steady theory, are increasingly being employed to improve the accuracy of wind load calculations. While this push for greater accuracy is generally a positive development, it also carries the potential to introduce unforeseen complexities during design and construction. The updated standards aim for improved structural safety and resilience, though implementation might be challenging and could introduce unforeseen hurdles.
The 2020 NYC Building Code introduced changes to wind load design standards, primarily affecting high-rise structures. These changes, which modify the ASCE 7 standards, are prompting a reassessment of how wind loads are determined for tall buildings, especially regarding the effective wind area. This necessitates a more nuanced understanding of dynamic effects, such as torsional response, which were previously less emphasized.
The new standards also introduce "Strength Reduction Factors" that are tied to building height and shape. This approach acknowledges the variability of wind pressure at different elevations, aiming to enhance safety. It's interesting to see a shift in focus towards "Directional Wind Forces," as opposed to the more traditional uniform load approach. This acknowledges that wind loads aren't always consistent and can cause asymmetrical loading, particularly in urban environments.
Furthermore, the updated code considers "Topographic Effects"—a building's location in relation to surrounding terrain like hills or valleys. This is a notable step towards designing structures that are more resilient to local microclimate influences. There's a new focus on precisely identifying and evaluating "Effective Building Surface Areas," taking into account the angle of the wind. This recalculation of wind loads could lead to substantial changes in design approaches.
The standards also incorporate updated inflation factors for wind loads, acknowledging both steady-state winds and gust effects. This dual consideration could lead to more robust designs capable of withstanding high-velocity wind events. For high-rise buildings exceeding a certain height, the updated code mandates wind tunnel testing. This empirical approach improves our ability to predict wind impact and informs more precise design choices.
The 2020 code also encourages the use of advanced computational modeling techniques, especially for complex high-rise shapes. This shift embraces modern technology for more accurate wind load calculations. Interestingly, the code now incorporates recent extreme weather data, moving away from purely relying on long-term averages. This aims to better prepare structures for potential climate changes and severe wind events.
The revised code stresses the importance of "Load Combinations," analyzing wind loads in conjunction with other forces such as seismic or live loads. This comprehensive approach aims for a more holistic understanding of how high-rise buildings perform under various adverse conditions. It seems we're seeing a move toward a more sophisticated, nuanced, and context-aware method of calculating wind loads on tall buildings. While the intent is clear, we may need time to observe the impact these changes have on actual building design and safety.
Key Changes in NYC's 2020 Building Code 7 Critical Updates for Structural Engineers - Expanded Requirements for Post Installed Anchors in Concrete
The 2020 NYC Building Code brings about significant changes regarding post-installed anchors in concrete, focusing primarily on enhancing safety and reliability. A key change emphasizes the need for continuous oversight during the installation of adhesive anchors, especially when they are designed to handle ongoing tension loads. This new focus on continuous inspection represents a notable shift, aimed at ensuring the integrity and long-term performance of these crucial structural components.
Further, the code now mandates alignment with the updated ACI 318 and ACI 3554 standards, which establish more comprehensive testing and performance criteria for both post-installed and traditional cast-in-place anchors. The adoption of these standards introduces a higher level of scrutiny to the design process, ensuring that all anchor types meet updated loading conditions. The goal is to modernize the approach to anchoring in concrete, addressing the growing sophistication and complexity of modern construction practices. While this effort to improve safety and reliability is generally positive, it also introduces potential complications in the practical implementation of the new requirements. The extent to which the construction industry can smoothly adapt to these more rigorous standards and the associated increase in inspection remains to be seen.
The 2020 NYC Building Code brought about significant changes to the design and installation of post-installed anchors in concrete, indicating a move towards more stringent performance verification and testing. Engineers are now encouraged to leverage advanced testing techniques to evaluate the load-bearing capacity of anchors across various conditions, something that was less strictly enforced in prior building codes. This emphasis on rigorous testing should hopefully lead to more robust connections.
Interestingly, the new code dives into specifics surrounding proper anchor placement to prevent installation errors, and this includes meticulously examining concrete strength, embedment depth, and the curing process. This detail-oriented approach signifies a desire for more predictable and reliable anchor performance in concrete.
Furthermore, the updated regulations mandate that anchor manufacturers supply detailed installation instructions, which is essential to promote consistency across projects. This change should, in theory, reduce variations stemming from site-specific conditions, which can significantly influence how anchors perform.
A somewhat overlooked part of the changes requires engineers to consider the influence of load direction and the potential for dynamic loading scenarios when choosing anchors. This element might prompt additional calculations and potentially adjustments to the design. This highlights the growing complexity of contemporary structural designs, which need to incorporate more varied loading conditions.
The code also allows the use of computational modeling for evaluating anchor performance. This reflects a broader acceptance of technology in structural engineering practice. These tools provide a more precise understanding of load transfer between structural components. While it's a step forward, the extent to which these new technologies actually contribute to better building performance and safety needs careful monitoring.
Another notable shift is the introduction of a classification system for anchors depending on their intended application. This simplifies the compliance process for engineers by making the performance requirements and testing protocols more transparent.
The expanded requirements also focus on the long-term durability of anchors. It's no longer sufficient to just look at their initial capacity. Now, anchors need to demonstrate resistance to sustained loads and environmental conditions over time. This change acknowledges that time-dependent factors influence the long-term performance of structural systems, which is becoming more important as buildings age.
These standards aren't just relevant for structural engineers, though; the revisions create a need for better collaboration across various disciplines including construction management and quality assurance. This increased demand for communication and coordination could prove difficult in some projects.
There are some concerns raised by these changes, though. For example, the increased emphasis on testing and verification might impact supply chains, potentially influencing the cost and availability of compliant anchors. Structural engineers will need to keep an eye on material costs and planning considerations as a result.
While the intent of these new regulations is commendable, the added complexity could create challenges for engineers who need to understand and implement them. Proper training and sufficient resources are crucial to avoid misinterpretations and mistakes. The potential implications of errors due to unclear guidance could be far-reaching, emphasizing the need for engineers and others to have a firm understanding of these updates.
Key Changes in NYC's 2020 Building Code 7 Critical Updates for Structural Engineers - Revised Inspection Protocols for Special Steel Moment Frames
New York City's 2020 Building Code introduced revised inspection protocols for special steel moment frames (SMFs), aiming to improve building safety and structural performance, particularly during earthquakes. These changes, detailed in Chapter 17, emphasize more thorough inspections of materials, components, and systems used in SMFs. The code now requires a greater level of scrutiny to verify that these critical elements meet the updated seismic design requirements outlined in standards like ASCE 7.
SMFs are specifically designed to resist significant damage during earthquakes, needing specialized design and construction, including connections that are robust. The updated code includes new guidelines, both proprietary and not, regarding connections within SMFs, which are critical to seismic performance. These changes partly stem from analyzing failures in past earthquakes.
The code also includes a newly added section on DuraFuse Frames, a type of SMF with its own connection standards developed to enhance resilience and performance under seismic loading. While the goal of the revisions is to improve safety and resilience, they might increase the complexity of design and inspection. It's unclear if the industry is entirely ready for these new approaches and if they will create a more robust building stock in the long run. Overall, these updates represent an effort to strengthen building code requirements for special moment frames and to align them with current best practices for seismic design.
The updated inspection protocols for special steel moment frames within NYC's 2020 Building Code place a greater emphasis on thoroughness, particularly at connection points, acknowledging their critical role in maintaining overall structural integrity. We see a shift towards more proactive measures by requiring the use of advanced non-destructive testing, like ultrasonic inspection, to spot potential defects within welds and steel components, hopefully before they become a significant issue.
Furthermore, the code now insists on careful documentation of steel's material properties used in these frames, which is a good step toward verifying that the materials comply with the standards before they are incorporated into the structure. Curiously, there's also been a significant increase in the frequency of inspections for special steel moment frames. These inspections are no longer limited to the end of the project, but instead are scheduled throughout the construction process, aiming to catch problems earlier when they're potentially easier and less costly to fix.
Alongside this, engineers are now required to keep far more comprehensive records of inspections, tests, and any design adjustments throughout the project. This should contribute to greater accountability and potentially improved transparency within the project.
The updated protocols also elevate the requirements for inspection personnel, mandating specific certifications. This suggests an effort to improve the overall quality of structural inspections and enhance confidence in the inspectors' expertise.
One intriguing change is the inclusion of computational modeling within the inspection protocols. This allows engineers to use sophisticated methods to forecast possible weaknesses in moment frames. While computationally intensive, this shift could help shift the focus to a more analysis-driven and predictive approach to ensuring structural safety.
The protocols also impose specific timelines for inspections and reporting, which makes sure that all parties involved in the construction project remain informed at crucial points in the process. This will hopefully allow for a more prompt and effective response to any identified issues.
The revisions clearly demonstrate a move towards a more comprehensive approach to structural safety that considers long-term performance. The code now emphasizes issues like corrosion and fatigue in addition to more immediate concerns. It's like we're now designing with a broader awareness of how structures age and degrade under environmental influences.
It's noteworthy that these changes have their roots in the lessons learned from past structural failures. This shows that the code updates aren't just about complying with regulations, but also represent a dedication to learning from experience and continuously improving building practices. This continuous improvement mindset is an important element to maintain public safety. While these changes could be seen as more stringent, the intent is commendable; we're building safer structures by acknowledging potential problems and planning to mitigate them.
Key Changes in NYC's 2020 Building Code 7 Critical Updates for Structural Engineers - New Lateral Force Provisions for Seismic Design Category B
The 2020 NYC Building Code introduced revised guidelines for seismic design in structures categorized as Seismic Design Category B. The goal of these changes is to streamline the process of designing buildings to withstand earthquakes. These new provisions are largely informed by updates to the 2018 International Building Code, which incorporates updated thinking about seismic forces. The new code now expects that designers consider unusual types of vibrations and impact forces in the structural design of these buildings. Further, the updated code establishes stricter requirements for evaluating a building's ability to resist wind forces. Buildings where the surface area for wind loading changes by more than 5%, or where the wind load resistance is reduced by more than 20% must undergo a recalculation of the wind loads and potential redesign. This is a relatively new perspective in NYC codes. It's intended to make buildings safer and more resilient to wind and seismic hazards. While these revisions are promising, it remains to be seen whether they will actually improve the safety of buildings in the city and how the construction industry will adapt to these changes. There is always a chance that the implementation process will present unforeseen challenges.
The 2020 NYC Building Code introduced new lateral force provisions specifically tailored for Seismic Design Category B, which have historically received less attention compared to structures in higher seismic hazard categories. This change is a recognition that even buildings categorized as having a lower seismic risk still need comprehensive lateral resistance features to handle potential seismic events. It's interesting to see this focus on the seemingly less-risky buildings.
One noteworthy element of the new provisions is the explicit inclusion of performance-based design approaches. This allows structural engineers to use more advanced analytical methods to predict how the structure will behave laterally, instead of just relying on the traditional set of code requirements. This shift suggests a more forward-looking approach to seismic design, allowing for more nuanced understanding of lateral loads.
The updated provisions emphasize the need for improved structural detailing, particularly in crucial areas like joints and connections, which have been known to be points of failure in past seismic events. The focus on detailing in these lower seismic risk areas aims to improve the building's ability to deform and absorb energy during a seismic event. It's interesting to ponder whether this shift will create more resilient buildings in what were considered to be less-critical seismic zones.
A notable change in the code is the requirement for conducting site-specific seismic hazard assessments, even for buildings categorized under Seismic Design Category B. Engineers now need to consider local soil characteristics and analyze historical earthquake data to get a better understanding of the risks specific to a building's location. This change highlights a move towards more localized and customized seismic design. One might argue it is better to be more cautious, even in areas thought to be at lower risk.
The new provisions also impose more stringent requirements related to structural redundancy. The code now pushes for multiple load paths, so that if one part of the structure cannot handle a load during a seismic event, the other load paths are designed to accommodate the load. This is in contrast to older building designs, which might have only incorporated a single dominant load path. This increased level of redundancy should make the building more resistant to damage during a seismic event.
An important addition in the 2020 update is the increased focus on mitigating the effects of torsional irregularities during a seismic event. Torsional irregularities are the situations where a building is not symmetric. Buildings that lack symmetry can experience significant twisting forces during seismic events. This emphasis on avoiding torsional irregularities should result in building designs with more thoughtful geometry and symmetry.
The new provisions also necessitate specialized seismic testing of new construction materials. It's a good sign that the code recognizes that materials are constantly evolving, and their behavior under seismic forces requires careful consideration. This ensures that the innovations in building materials don't compromise structural integrity when subjected to seismic forces.
There is a newly added section within the updated code focused on performance-level criteria for non-structural elements. The realization that non-structural components can have a significant influence on the overall behavior of a building during a seismic event is a positive step. Improving the resilience of the entire structure, including those parts often overlooked, seems like a thoughtful consideration.
The updated provisions include requirements for continuous monitoring of structural integrity throughout the building process. This shift to more proactive oversight seeks to verify that the design intent is maintained as the project progresses, which also allows for timely adjustments if necessary. It's interesting to think about how this ongoing observation of a building's performance could become a norm for construction projects.
Finally, the new provisions highlight the need for close collaboration among the various individuals involved in a project—architects, engineers, and contractors. The code makes it clear that the consideration of lateral forces during seismic events must be integrated from the very early phases of design through construction and into ongoing maintenance plans. Collaboration between specialties is often hard to achieve, but this focus on seismic preparedness across disciplines is beneficial.
In conclusion, the new lateral force provisions in NYC's 2020 Building Code are a noteworthy step towards improving the safety and resilience of buildings, even those considered to be in less seismic regions. It will be interesting to see the long-term impact of these changes on building practices and whether they truly create a more resilient building stock in NYC.
Revolutionize structural engineering with AI-powered analysis and design. Transform blueprints into intelligent solutions in minutes. (Get started for free)
More Posts from aistructuralreview.com: