Substantial Structural Damage Definition in Reference to Fire Damaged 1970's Diner

[Alias]

Okay, we had a fire in an old Jerry's restaurant 3/20/12. There are no building records or plans for this structure. County had the jurisdiction at the time but, I have no permit records (nor do they) pre-1981. Restaurant dates from the 1970's, standard design for the type of restaurant. Walls are CMU, reinforcing, fill, etc. unknown (walls looked like they were on fire per fire personnel). Seismic Zone 3 when I came on board at the city in 1997, zone changed to D under current codes. I've tagged it as dangerous due to the fact that he majority of the fire damage is in the attic space between the roof and ceiling. Several of the rafters are burned through, the ceiling has collapsed in 50% of the restaurant, and at the rear of the restaurant the facia boards are burned completely through. Fire started in the rear of the restaurant, probable cause a crate of oily rags. I am posting a picture from the front door. This is where the majority of the damage is visible on the interior.I have been posed a question by a Forensic Consultant, M.S. P.E. (Probably hired by insurance company) which is: "Is this considered "Substantial Structural Damage" or would you consider it "Dangerous Conditions"?" under the 2010 CBC (IBEC) Sections 3402A.1 Definitions and 3041.1, Definitions.Consultant is arguing as the damage appears to be horizontal and that it is not substantial, just dangerous. He wants direction from me and, as I am not an engineer (nor do I play one on tv), I am requesting assistance from the best brains in the business. What would be your response?Thanks in advanceView attachment 1299View attachment 1300View attachment 1301

View attachment 1679

View attachment 1680

View attachment 1681

View attachment 1679

View attachment 1680

View attachment 1681

/monthly_2012_04/572953e5ba7e9_449N.Main-dinerfire022.jpg.d06384975ffe5a004d8b5f86236cee8f.jpg

/monthly_2012_04/572953e5bca6d_449N.Main-dinerfire006.jpg.e62ab05194d32cd8ba66b8edafb7f724.jpg

/monthly_2012_04/572953e5bf5af_449N.Main-dinerfire024.jpg.4fa7f2c0aef5c6b5dc2b1a1f6867c909.jpg

 

[gbhammer]

You have already posted it as a dangerous structure leave it at that until the engineered repairs are made. Once demolition occurs more damage may be found.

 

[Builder Bob]

Okay, we had a fire in an old Jerry's restaurant 3/20/12. There are no building records or plans for this structure. County had the jurisdiction at the time but, I have no permit records (nor do they) pre-1981. Restaurant dates from the 1970's, standard design for the type of restaurant. Walls are CMU, reinforcing, fill, etc. unknown (walls looked like they were on fire per fire personnel). Seismic Zone 3 when I came on board at the city in 1997, zone changed to D under current codes.

I've tagged it as dangerous due to the fact that he majority of the fire damage is in the attic space between the roof and ceiling. Several of the rafters are burned through, the ceiling has collapsed in 50% of the restaurant, and at the rear of the restaurant the facia boards are burned completely through. Fire started in the rear of the restaurant, probable cause a crate of oily rags. I am posting a picture from the front door. This is where the majority of the damage is visible on the interior.

I have been posed a question by a Forensic Consultant, M.S. P.E. (Probably hired by insurance company) which is:

"Is this considered "Substantial Structural Damage" or would you consider it "Dangerous Conditions"?" under the 2010 CBC (IBEC) Sections 3402A.1 Definitions and 3041.1, Definitions.

Consultant is arguing as the damage appears to be horizontal and that it is not substantial, just dangerous. He wants direction from me and, as I am not an engineer (nor do I play one on tv), I am requesting assistance from the best brains in the business. What would be your response?

Thanks in advance

View attachment 1299View attachment 1300View attachment 1301

Reply" The building has been declared unsafe and uninhabitable at this time. A third party private structural engineer will be required to perform an analysis of the strucutral intergrity of the building to see to what extent the structural components will need to be repaired, replaced, or modified to make structurally sound if they decide to rebuild."

Cite section 106.1 for requirements for construction documents to allow repairs to be made.

Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized to require additionalconstruction documents to be prepared by a registered

design professional.

 

[Mark K]

When requiring an engineering report refer to a civil engineer or professional engineer but not a structural engineer. This is an artifact of state licensing law since with the exceptions of public schools and hospitals a civil engineer can design any building in California and according to the board for professional engineers it is illegal for a jurisdiction to require a structural engineer when a civil engineer can do the work. All California structural engineers are civil engineers.

Reference to Section 3402A.1 is improper since that section only applies to hospitals. Proper reference is to section 3402.1. The reference to Section 3041.1 does not make sense

You are correct to defer classification until an engineering report addressing that question is provided. The report needs to address both the lateral force resisting system and the gravity load carrying components per CBC Sections 3405.2 and 3405.3.

I believe the nature of the concern by the insurance company is that if the damage is substantial, part or all of the building will need to be brought into compliance with the current code. The cost of a code upgrade may not be covered by the fire insurance.

 

[fatboy]

I concur with GBH and BB, (don't know about CA law) that's how I would handle it. JMHO

 

[Alias]

Here is the question and related information that has been posited to me in reference to what my jurisdiction would consider substantial structural damage and what would be considered dangerous conditions. This is where I am in a quandry. I am not a structural engineer so, there is really no way for me to determine the severity of the damage. I have tagged the building as dangerous, with the standard ICC placard. I understand the insurance company's PE's logic, I'm just slightly stumped as to what to call this situation. Call me cautious, call me an idiot, or maybe I'm just over thinking the situation. I have never had this type of situation occur here before and I am looking towards your collective wisdom. What say you?

QUOTE:

"I have a building code-related question for you:



You mentioned previously that Alturas adopts the 2010 CBC, which references both the 2009 IBC and 2009 IEBC (Int’l Existing Building Code).



In the 2009 IEBC, Chapter 2, the following is stated regarding “Substantial Structural Damage”:



Definition of “Substantial Structural Damage”: The capacity of any vertical gravity load-carrying component, or any group of such components, that supports more than 30 percent of the total area of the structure’s floor(s) and roof(s) has been reduced more than 20 percent from its pre-damaged condition and the remaining capacity of such affected elements, with respect to all dead and live loads, is less than 75 percent of that required by the International Building Code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose and location.



By “vertical” gravity load-carrying component, I would interpret this to mean a column, post, wall, etc, i.e. an element that supports load and is vertical. I would not interpret this to include horizontal framing, such as joists, beams, etc.



In the case of the fire-damaged diner at 449 North Main Street, damage appears to be limited to horizontal elements (roof joists, beams, etc), but not vertical elements (posts, walls, etc). Therefore, I would interpret the paragraph from the 2009 IEBC above as saying that the building has not sustained “Substantial Structural Damage”. Is this your interpretation as well? Since the City of Alturas is the code official and ultimately governs the interpretation of the code for this building, I wanted to check with you to see if you agreed or not. Defining the building as having “Substantial Structural Damage” or not will dictate how appropriate repairs/replacements, etc are performed.



Even if the building has not sustained what the code designates as “Substantial Structural Damage”, it still falls under other categories, such as “Dangerous Conditions” (section 304.1.1), which per the IEBC the Code Official has the authority to determine."

 

[Alias]

You have already posted it as a dangerous structure leave it at that until the engineered repairs are made. Once demolition occurs more damage may be found.

I'm fairly certain that I am dealing with an engineer that has been hired by the insurance company to provide them with a hard dollar amount, hence the question.

Owner (landlord) wants to demo it, doesn't care to rehab it. Three failed restaurants in as many years, all under different owners. Owner could use additional parking space for his other rental properties on the same block or the motel across the street a potential tenant.

 

[GBrackins]

he could always sit down with this insurance company and work out a settlement if he is not wanting to rebuild. of course he could hire his own engineer to perform the analysis and if his engineer's determination is different that the insurance company's engineer then it's off to litigation.

 

[Paul Sweet]

A lot of of the best brains in the business will probably disagree with me, but here's my 2 bits worth (thats 2 cents adjusted for inflation).

I would interpret "vertical gravity load-carrying component" as carrying a load that is applied in a vertical direction, not necessarily the direction of the member.

From the photos, it looks like the roof structure is trusses with wood top & bottom chords and steel pipe web members. The bottom chords appear to be charred. I would consider their load-carrying capacity to be zero unless somebody could prove otherwise.

Judging from the photos, I would consider it as "Substantial Structural Damage" as well as "Dangerous Conditions". If the consultant questions this, ask him if he would want to stand below the roof after a snowstorm.

 

[brudgers]

My advice: Go with the engineer's opinion.

In other words "How are you going to classify it?"

There's nothing wrong with putting the ball back in his court.

You're ultimately going to be relying on his professional judgement anyway.

And the goal should be to get the building back in service (safely of course).

The classification the classification which facilitates that most is the one to use.

 

[Alias]

A lot of of the best brains in the business will probably disagree with me, but here's my 2 bits worth (thats 2 cents adjusted for inflation).I would interpret "vertical gravity load-carrying component" as carrying a load that is applied in a vertical direction, not necessarily the direction of the member.

From the photos, it looks like the roof structure is trusses with wood top & bottom chords and steel pipe web members. The bottom chords appear to be charred. I would consider their load-carrying capacity to be zero unless somebody could prove otherwise.

Judging from the photos, I would consider it as "Substantial Structural Damage" as well as "Dangerous Conditions". If the consultant questions this, ask him if he would want to stand below the roof after a snowstorm.

Paul -

Thanks. My sentiments exactly. Several of the trusses actually are burned completely through. These are at the front of the structure. I did not venture to the rear of the building which has been determined to be where the fire started. So, what we have is a fire that spread rapidly through the restaurant above the dropped ceiling.

BTW, you mentioned snow and, the day that this incident occurred, it snowed about 4" and we have had more snow since then.

 

[Alias]

My advice: Go with the engineer's opinion. In other words "How are you going to classify it?"

There's nothing wrong with putting the ball back in his court.

You're ultimately going to be relying on his professional judgement anyway.

And the goal should be to get the building back in service (safely of course).

The classification the classification which facilitates that most is the one to use.

brudgers -

Good idea, I'll see what he says. I'm pretty sure it will be the lesser of the two. I'll hit him with the first option that I agree with Paul Sweet on - it is substantial damage.

 

[brudgers]

Missed the pictures the first time.

Tagged as dangerous, and nothing in the photos could really justify changing it to trump an engineer's opinion.

Why open a can of worms?

 

[brudgers]

A lot of of the best brains in the business will probably disagree with me, but here's my 2 bits worth (thats 2 cents adjusted for inflation). I would interpret "vertical gravity load-carrying component" as carrying a load that is applied in a vertical direction, not necessarily the direction of the member. From the photos, it looks like the roof structure is trusses with wood top & bottom chords and steel pipe web members. The bottom chords appear to be charred. I would consider their load-carrying capacity to be zero unless somebody could prove otherwise. Judging from the photos, I would consider it as "Substantial Structural Damage" as well as "Dangerous Conditions". If the consultant questions this, ask him if he would want to stand below the roof after a snowstorm.

What is the advantage of changing the designation? I can't see one.

The trusses get replaced either way.

Just because you can rationalize your opinion, doesn't make your opinion worthy of prevailing.

Some things are trifling.

It's the big picture which is important.

 

[Mark K]

I support the position that the roof framing is a vertical gravity load-carrying component.

I would go with the Chapter 34 definition. I believe you will find that the CBC references the CEBC and not the IEBC. There is a world of difference. The IEBC is not listed in Chapter 35 of the CBC. Also any references to the IBC should be considered as referring to the CBC.

Even though it may appear obvious I would hold off making the determination until you receive the report. Do it by the numbers. While the damage may be primarily to the gravity system when a full investigation is made there may be enough damage to the upper portions of the shear walls to also trigger Section 3405.2. This could expand the amount of work that needs being done.

You are not concerned about the insurance companies interpretation. You need to have the owner provide you with the engineering report. If he passes along the insurance company report that is fine but he may want to have his own engineer to produce the report.

Once the engineering report is provided you can make the determination if it is obvious. If you are not comfortable evaluating the report you can hire a consultant, likely your normal outside plan checker, to review it and advise you. Of coarse the fees should be sufficient to cover your time and expenses.

If the Owner wants to apply for a demolition permit this would appear to make the need for an engineers report moot. Why would you even need to make a determination whether or not there is substantial damage?