Webinar: Why Treating Protective Buildings Like Commercial Construction Leads to Costly Failures

Designing and delivering industrial protective buildings is not the same as constructing a standard commercial facility. Yet one of the most common and costly mistakes project teams make is treating blast-resistant buildings like traditional commercial builds.

In a recent webinar hosted by FORTRESS Protective Buildings in collaboration with BakerRisk, industry experts broke down exactly why this approach fails — and how to avoid it.

Led by Brian Royo and Travis Holland, P.E., the session focused on the real-world reasons blast-resistant buildings underperform, even when the engineering is sound.

The takeaway was clear: most failures do not happen because the project is too complex or the engineering is flawed. They happen because critical details get lost along the way.

The Hidden Risk of “Telephone” in Protective Building Projects

The childhood game of telephone is harmless on the playground. A phrase like “your shoelace is on fire” turning into “the giraffe needs new tires” is funny — but in protective building construction, the consequences are anything but.

Industrial protective buildings involve multiple stakeholders: owners, EPCs, engineers, safety teams, fabricators, and installers. When information passes through too many hands without clarity or alignment, intent gets diluted. Design assumptions shift. Performance criteria blur. Critical details are interpreted instead of confirmed.

By the time the building is delivered, it may technically meet drawings — but not the operational or safety expectations it was meant to protect.

Why Commercial Construction Mindsets Do Not Translate

Traditional commercial construction often allows flexibility. Details can be finalized later. Minor changes may have limited consequences.

Protective buildings are different.

These structures are purpose-built to protect lives during high-risk events such as explosions, fires, or toxic releases. Their performance depends on precise alignment between hazard analysis, structural design, materials, fabrication, and installation.

In the webinar, Brian Royo and Travis Holland, P.E. emphasized that treating a blast-resistant building like a commercial office or warehouse introduces unnecessary risk, including:

• Misaligned design loads and performance criteria

• Incomplete or misunderstood blast assumptions

• Late-stage design changes that compromise safety

• Gaps between engineering intent and fabrication execution

• Costly rework, delays, or underperforming buildings

When teams assume they can “figure it out later,” they often do — at a much higher cost.

Most Failures Are Communication Failures

One of the most important insights shared during the webinar was this:
Most protective building failures are not engineering failures. They are communication failures.

When expectations are not clearly defined at the start, project teams are forced to make assumptions. Those assumptions compound as the project progresses, leading to:

• Conflicting interpretations of safety requirements

• Missed opportunities to optimize cost and performance

• Increased project risk and uncertainty

• Buildings that meet minimum requirements but fall short when it matters most

Clear, early communication is not optional when people’s lives are at stake.