New Zealand engineers found building safe before collapse inearthquake killed 18 people

By Associated Press, Published: November 30

WELLINGTON, New Zealand — Engineers inspected and declared a New Zealand office building safefive times in the months before it collapsed and killed 18 people in an earthquake earlier this year,according to testimony at a government probe.

Two engineers testified this week about theirinspections of the Pyne Gould building at anongoing probe into building failures during theFeb. 22 Christchurch earthquake, which killed182 people. The engineers acknowledged thatduring their inspections, they never looked atbuilding plans or a report that detailed thestructure’s vulnerability. 

( Mark Baker, File / Associated Press ) - FILE -In this Feb. 26, 2011 file photo, recoveryworkers inspect the earthquake-damaged PyneGould Corporation building in Christchurch, NewZealand. Two engineers this week testifiedabout their inspections of the Pyne Gouldbuilding at an ongoing government probe intobuilding failure during the Feb. 22 Christchurchearthquake, which killed 182 people.

The first inspection of the building was carriedout by city engineers after a strong September2010 quake. The engineers briefly examined the

building’s exterior and gave it a green tag, deeming it safe for occupation. 

 An October examination by The Associated Press detailed shortcomings in the process, which wasdeveloped in the U.S. and is used by governments worldwide to assess buildings after earthquakes.

The building owners then ordered four more inspections over the next five months in response to tenantcomplaints about widening cracks. Each time, the Holmes Consulting group concluded that the buildingremained safe for tenants.

 

Introduced as evidence in the probe was a 2007 memo written by another engineer at the same companyconcluding that the building’s unusual design was a “severe weakness” that made it vulnerable to “severefailure” in an earthquake. 

But engineers Mark Whiteside and Alistair Boys both testified that they did not see that report.

The engineers each said their role was not to examine the building’s overall structural strength or itsability to withstand future quakes, but instead was limited to assessing whether the building had sufferedany significant structural damage in the Sept. 4, 2010, earthquake, which had a magnitude of 7.0 but didnot cause any deaths.

The men testified that each of their four inspections lasted less than an hour and did not involve tearingback walls, examining building plans or pulling previous reports.

“So you’re not looking at whether a building is structurally good or bad, you are just saying it is less goodor bad than before?” asked Marcus Elliott, a lawyer representing the victims and their families.

“That’s correct,” Whiteside responded. 

Elliott questioned whether that made their assessments “a bit meaningless.” 

But both engineers testified that they had followed procedures and wou ldn’t have done anythingdifferently in retrospect.

“The cracks that I saw, I didn’t deem to have significantly diminished the capacity of the building,”Whiteside said.

The government probe, called a Royal Commission of Inquiry, is scheduled to continue next week.Evidence about the most deadly building collapse in the magnitude-6.1 February quake —  theCanterbury Television building, which killed 115 people — is scheduled for March 2012.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten orredistributed.