2025 Spring Meeting and 21st Global Congress on Process Safety
(146a) “What Has Gone Right (and Wrong) When Upgrading Buildings”
Authors
T1A38 Facility Siting Studies (FSS) – Specific Recommendations After a Study
Thomas H. Anderson, P.E.
BakerRisk
3330 Oakwell Court, Suite 100, San Antonio, Texas, 78218
Travis J. Holland, P.E.
BakerRisk
3330 Oakwell Court, Suite 100, San Antonio, Texas, 78218
Keywords: Building Upgrades, Construction Cost, Facility Siting, Mitigation Plan
Title: “What Has Gone Right (and Wrong) When Upgrading Buildings”
A common result of a facility siting study is the identification of a building that does not meet the owner’s risk criteria. One solution often considered is strengthening or modifying the building to improve the building’s blast, thermal, or toxic performance (i.e., hazard resistance). This mitigation approach can be advantageous compared to constructing a replacement building when the building in question is integral to the facility’s process (e.g., control room). On the other hand, the requirements to improve the hazard resistance of a building often require extensive and invasive upgrades that may limit the functionality of the building during construction and after project completion.
The date of construction of buildings within industrial facilities often predates consideration of significant blast, thermal, and toxic hazards. Older buildings may have low inherent hazard resistance due to the type of building materials utilized, dated construction practices, and degradation over the building’s life span. Some of these limiting characteristics may also contribute to the building not meeting modern design code requirements (e.g., wind loading). However, these buildings often house critical facility functions, and relocating these critical facility functions may be challenging due to the cost of rerouting critical equipment or the lack of suitable real estate within the plant boundary.
Strengthening or modifying (i.e., upgrading) an existing building can be a solution to improve the hazard resistance of an existing building when a function cannot be relocated. There are demonstrated methods to improve the hazard resistance of dated construction, such as improving the blast resistance of unreinforced masonry walls by in-place strengthening, enhancing thermal resistance through the addition of concrete barrier walls, and improving toxic resistance by constructing interior shelter-in-place rooms. These solutions can be implemented with minimal impact on the operations housed in the building. The success of these upgrade projects is contingent on the completion of feasibility level designs (that identify multiple upgrade solutions) that can be coordinated with project stakeholders to concentrate on an optimal upgrade solution that minimizes disruptions while achieving the desired risk reduction. Discussions that must take place during this feasibility exercise include consideration of potential occupancy reduction, hazard reduction through source mitigation, and multiple building upgrade methods to achieve an acceptable risk reduction. Feasibility designs should include estimates of the cost of upgrade implementation, including construction cost, impacts to personnel and operation, and any cost associated with relocation of process related equipment.
However, upgrading existing buildings that were not originally intended to protect from blast, thermal, or toxic events can be challenging. These challenges are amplified when the target risk reduction is significant and with increased building age. Identifying these challenges early in the feasibility process can lead to an early decision to select building replacement as the optimal solution. Some of these challenges include access to the building’s exterior surfaces, the requirement to reroute controls, the potential to break weather barriers to complete the upgrade, interference with in-place utilities, and interference with in-place information technology and/or communications equipment. Not accounting for these potential risks in early feasibility studies can lead to inaccurate project cost estimates and may remove the objectivity of considering other mitigation solutions.
This paper aims to provide a narrative of experience to help evaluate when a building upgrade is a viable option to reduce blast, thermal, and toxic hazards. Through consideration of previous project successes and challenges, an educated decision can be made on when to invest money to pursue an upgrade or when a building replacement should rather be considered.