Do we know enough to change the building code and should those changes apply to all buildings, or just to tall buildings or buildings considered high profile targets? Weve got to reach a consensus on those questions, and we most certainly need further research on some of the key issues raised in this report. This is one comment Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E. -- who is the team leader for the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) study team -- made when the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) on June 23 released its draft of the Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers. (See NIST WTC reports make recommendations for safer buildings on page 11 for more details.)

The three-year study was called for by the ASCE/FEMA report titled, The World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations and Recommendations, which was published in May 2002 by a 25-person team led by Corley.

In addition to urging building code organizations and officials to improve the safety of tall buildings, their occupants, and first responders, the NIST report makes 30 unique recommendations, which are divided into eight groups. Of those eight categories, three (increased structural integrity, enhanced fire resistance of structures, and new methods for fire resistance design of structures) are targeted specifically at a buildings physical structure. The remaining five groups (active fire protection, improved building evacuation, improved emergency response, improved procedures and practices, and education and training) recommend changes or improvements, either directly or indirectly to the way structural engineers, among others, are trained and perform their jobs.

Jeremy Isenberg, Ph.D., P.E., president of ASCEs Structural Engineering Institute commented, The lessons learned from this tragedy can help improve the ability of buildings to resist more routine fires. Instead of revising building codes to address extreme events such as the impact of a large jet airliner, resources should be focused on improving fire resistance methods for the conditions more likely to affect the types of buildings where most of us live and work. For extreme situations, it is best to direct resources toward preventing the attack.

Now is the time for structural engineers to be proactive in crafting the appropriate provisions to be codified. Without a doubt, there will be much debate over what is appropriate, and we -- as a profession -- have much to contribute to the dialogue. Certainly, structural engineers can focus on and make significant strides concerning the technical improvements necessary, if we take the time to participate. But we can not affect big picture policy regarding prevention of extreme attacks. Or, can we?

Get involved in your profession. Contribute to the dialogue and help to determine the outcome of this critical debate on building safety. Furthermore, if we stand together with all other types of citizens, we could affect big picture policy regarding prevention of extreme attacks -- if we engage ourselves in the political process. P.S. Remember, the Best Firm To Work For Summit will be held on Sept. 15-16 in Baltimore. See www.bestfirmsummit.com for more information.

Jennifer Goupil, P.E.
editor@gostructural.com