The powerful earthquake that struck Hualien on Feb. 6 raises the question of whether the earthquake resistance of buildings is affected by the demolition of interior masonry walls in the course of interior renovations.
Article 77 of the Building Act (建築法) stipulates: “The ownership holder and the user of a building shall maintain the legal usage as well as the structure and equipment safety of the building.”
However, it is common, after large buildings are completed, for users or renovators to knock down interior masonry walls, columns or beams, or to remove floor slabs without authorization, thus damaging the original structural system and misusing it.
The Act stipulates that the use of a building cannot be altered without applying for a usage license.
However, Article 9, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the act defines “repair” as “repair or alteration by [more than] half of any of the foundation, beams and columns, bearing walls, floor slabs, roof truss or roof structures.”
The use of the phrase “[more than] half” in the wording of the act is problematic, as it can mislead unscrupulous renovators or other members of the public to think that if a building has plenty of columns or masonry walls, it does not matter if one, two or several of them are removed.
The National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering has issued a warning about buildings constructed more than 20 years ago that incorporate covered walkways that are only supported by columns, saying that the design regulations in force when they were built were not as rigorous as they are now.
The center said that if the buildings are close to seismic faults, their first stories might be too soft or weak to resist the force of an earthquake, and when interior renovations are done on such buildings, it is vital not to damage the existing weight-bearing masonry walls, beams and columns.
Crucially, it said that buildings up to five stories tall that were built before the 921 Earthquake of 1999 and contain many interior masonry walls were able to withstand the power of the earthquake when it struck, even though their structure was not specifically designed to be earthquake resistant.
Considering the role played by such interior walls, they should definitely not be demolished without making structural assessments.
Interior decoration and repairs must comply with the Regulations for the Management of Interior Decoration and Repair of Buildings (建築物室內裝修管理辦法), but the regulations contain a legal loophole, as they do not explicitly prohibit damage to architectural structures.
Article 23 of the regulations lists the forms, documents, plans and illustrations that need to be attached to any application for a review of proposed interior renovations.
However, there is no wording to the effect that internal masonry walls, beams and columns cannot be demolished without first conducting a structural analysis. Consequently, it is common for such structures to be knocked down during renovations without any assessment having been made. The regulations should be amended to remedy this flaw.
Article 26 of the regulations stipulates that the responsible local authority or reviewing department should review applications with regard to three items: whether there is a complete set of illustrations and documents, whether the renovation materials and interior wall structures comply with technical standards for construction and whether the proposed renovations would obstruct or damage fire prevention and escape equipment, firewalls and the main structure of the building.
However, these regulations omit the crucial point that weight-bearing walls, beams, columns and floor slabs must not be damaged. How can people judge what the main structure is, if it is not defined? It must be asked whether this legislative omission has caused buildings to be damaged in a way that impairs their original earthquake resistance.
Article 77-2 of the Building Act stipulates: “The central competent authority may authorize the architect association or other related professional technical organizations to perform examination.”
However, when money and time are limited, it is doubtful whether proposed alterations to interior masonry walls, beams and columns are properly reviewed.
In practice, regarding the item of “no encumbrance or damage to the main structure,” the relevant form-filling involves checking one out of two boxes marked “complies” and “no change, the same as originally approved.” It would be better to do categorized reviews on different categories of buildings.
In view of the recent spate of earthquakes, the Building Act and the Regulations for the Management of the Interior Decoration and Repairs of Buildings should be amended as soon as possible to deter people from making improper renovations that cause structural damage to buildings and make their lower stories too soft or weak.
Better safeguards would ensure that buildings continue to have the degree of earthquake resistance that they were originally planned to have.
Su Nan is a professor in National Yunlin University of Science and Technology’s civil and construction engineering department.
Translated by Julian Clegg
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS