another deck failure

[cda]

What do you consider to be a reasonable number of corrections before the inspection stops?Many times I have been accused of picking on a contractor because of the large number of corrections. It is usually over twenty. The office managers and their supervisors have told me that I should stop at twelve. They say that getting past twelve makes it look like I am piling on. The preferred course of action is to give them the "not ready" correction and then hammer them again at the next inspection. Now that really riles them up. They don't know what's coming because, .....well they just don't know.

I have done that a few times. You know that I take pictures. I can write twelve during the inspection and get another ten from the pictures. So I show up at the next inspection with the correction list already made out. Now they are wondering why I didn't give them the list at the first inspection. I tell them that I am following procedure and when you hit twelve I'm done. So here's ten, let's find another two so I can get to the next inspection. And while I'm here I need to take some pictures.

My procedure is no mater who it is I write corrections until I run out of corrections to write.

As far as explaining all of it....I do have a limit. People with a bad attitude might be on their own.

I love baseball

So if I see three strikes of the same items, correction is check them all

In writing

 

[ICE]

I love baseballSo if I see three strikes of the same items, correction is check them all

In writing

I get solar companies calling for two to four inspections on one day. I have been known to write a handful of corrections at the first address and tell them to do the same corrections at the rest of them. I do like to be efficient with my time.

So write it once and expect them to apply it throughout the building. That is pretty straightforward. More than once I have written a correction for protecting plumbing or electrical only to find out that they did it only in the location we were in when I wrote the correction. Yes they can be that lame. I still write it just once and hope for the best.

For that matter you would think that if I write a correction for a company I wouldn't have to write it in the future on other jobs. Think again. They tell me Oh we forgot....we didn't know that you would be the inspector....

After a third failed inspection I had a home owner tell me that he wanted me to tie a red ribbon at each spot where the swimming pool shell steel was too close to the dirt. He is an engineer. He designs the interiors of airliners. He was on the speaker phone of the city manager's office. The city manager told him that perhaps he would like to take over the inspection duties and just call us for a final inspection. The owner declined and we didn't hear from him again.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

I'll just leave the lumber here and you can build it the way you want.

Call me when you pass your inspection

Brent.

 

[conarb]

So Tiger, let's suppose you were the Berkeley inspector assigned to the building on point, what could you have done to stop the problem? I've asked here and apparently ventilation in the joists is not a requirement, apparently Bituthene with cap nails was approved for use as the membrane, what could you have done to have prevented this deck collapse?

 

[JBI]

Codes are, at their core, a collection of things that have gone wrong. Often horribly wrong. As a species we tend to take off running with new ideas, new methods, new things. (keep in mind I'm a flip phone kind of guy...) Disasters like this are the source of our codes. The forensics will tell in time what the exact issues were - was it the membrane? or the way it was installed? Was the balcony back pitched? At time of construction? or as a result of other building issues? Were all components installed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions and applicable listings or approvals? Was it simply (gasp!) a bad design?

 

[ICE]

Well Dick, for starters I would not allow Bituthene with cap nails. I require an approved assembly. In the time frame that this was built it might have been an ICBO ESR. I stated that in post #35. Mtlogcabin challenged me on that and asked for a code section which I don't have. Well there might be a code section but I'm not going to look for it and nobody else stepped up or agreed with me.

It has come up less than a dozen times in my experience. I seldom have a job with an actual architect. It is usually a draftsman, engineer and contractor. All sorts of ideas are floated on how to build a balcony. Everything from marine plywood and paint to built-up roofing. Plan checkers aren't good at catching this.

I give them a correction to find a method and material that is approved by ICC with an ES report so that we know how to put it all together. I am not aware of any that have leaked but then I probably wouldn't be told if one did leak. I do know that the various Jerry rigged BS that people wanted to try would have failed. It is not cheap to do it right.

As far as ventilation goes, Brent is most likely correct that unless there is a way to get air moving not much is accomplished. I always require vent but perhaps not enough.

Before people start with the give me a code section replies let me say that the alternative to doing what I do is to do nothing. That results in failures like what has happened here. Yes I know that in this case there was an architect that designed it. My answer to that is can the architect give his design an ICBO ESR?

 

[conarb]

Another factor is that this project was fast tracked, 1999 to permit issuance in 2005, most of that time is spent in Design Review and Planning Commission, these balconies were added at the end. Cities give preference to mixed use and affordable housing, getting taxes and housing the poor, it may be that not enough time was spent on construction documentation. I read in one of the articles that LP²A out of Sacramento did the plan checking, in 1998 I was trying to get a home through LP²A in Pleasanton, they were rough, rejecting everything the structural engineer provided, I'd get that cleared up then they'd reject everything the architect provided, silly things like the title block being off place by a ¼" on the plans, requiring another month of back and forth, when I finally got them through the City of Walnut Creek proceeded to tear apart what LP²A had done, in talking to one of the city plan checkers they were deliberately finding fault with LP²A's work because they didn't want to loose the work in house. Shortly after this LP²A was bought out by Bureau Veratas, that may have something to do with it too, but so far I've read nothing about Bureau Veritas in the press.

Let's face it, if Design Review had not required the balconies be added this tragedy would have never happened, not even considering the fact of life that when the city adds an architectural requirement that money has to come from somewhere in the budget, and corners are usually cut since the construction budget is set in stone when the financial commitments are made. BlackRock made the takeout financing, I assume they made the commitment long before to get the construction financing, if the developer went to BlackRock and said: "The city is making us add balconies, we need $50,000 more.", what are the chances BlackRock is going to say: "Gee what pretty balconies, we will go to our investors and get the extra money for you."?

 

[ICE]

It's a shame that when Segue Construction lost it's second lawsuit for failed balconies somebody didn't think, "We should look into every balcony that this company has built". The same can be said for the architects involved.

 

[Mark K]

If they had not had the balconies there would still likely have been problems with waterproofing and flashing which would have lead to rot.

When the code does not provide specific requirements all the inspector can do is require that the building be built in accordance with the approved construction documents. Neither the code, the building department, nor the inspector can solve all problems. The deaths are not acceptable but then we as a society accept many more deaths each year.

When an inspector requires something not required by the code he is acting illegally and the owner would be within his rights to tell him to pound sand. It is regrettable that this doe not happen more often but most owners find it more convenient to pay the extortion.

 

[conarb]

It's a shame that when Segue Construction lost it's second lawsuit for failed balconies somebody didn't think, "We should look into every balcony that this company has built". The same can be said for the architects involved.

Balconies have always been prone to leakage, this proclivity was vastly increased in 1978 with the elimination of lead on solder. In 1982 I was building a home with a large balcony over a ballroom, the sheetmetal man was soldering the deck to wall flashing and the roofer was no his way to hot mop the balcony, I started at one end of the balcony and started pulling on the solder joints and a few came apart, after some argument with him he called his boss and the sheetmetal contractor came over and started screaming at me for pulling his joints apart, a was maintaining that if I could pull them apart that they would eventually come apart and I'd have leaks into the ballroom below, to fix the leaks would cost lots of money removing deck stone and attempting patches in the hot mopping. I went down to SMACNA's local offices complaining about the ability of sheetmetal workers to solder anymore, he explained that the problem was twofold, 1) The EPA had made them remove the lead from solder, and 2) because of the emergence of sealants sheetmetal men had lost the ability to solder, especially on vertical joints. I've never completely solved the problem no matter how hard I try, the last house I built I specified stainless steel flashings, stainless should really be welded and not soldered but welding stainless in the field is difficult. The best I can do is keep the weep screed up as high as is aesthetically acceptable, when the roofer hot mops have him turn up as high as possible, test everything and then pray. Bad (read cheap) contractors don't even solder, they use that sealant that if it works at all dries out in an average of 7 years. In that last house I did have a leak during the second rain season on an outside corner where a deck to wall flashing wrapped aound the corner, I did have to remove and replace flamed limestone but it was over a basement below so there was no damage below.

Maybe the Developer, architect, and Segue left balconies off the project because they didn't want the liability of attempting to waterproof with today's products/skills, so maybe the real fault lies with the city's Design Review Commission that forced them to add balconies on low cost housing?

 

[pete_t]

Grace's 2007 instructions required Bituthene to be self-adhered don't know about earlier.

View attachment 1202

Bituthene 2000 spec.pdf

Bituthene 2000 spec.pdf

 

[conarb]

Interesting that Bituthene's installation instructions require flood testing, I've never installed Bituthene on a horizontal surface so I didn't know that, now the question is is that also in the ES Report? I cannot copy and past the information since the PDF is secured, but under "Flood Testing" it calls for 2" of water for 24 hours.

I guess Tiger could require flood testing on those decks, did the city require an ES Report or Installation instructions on the Bituthene membrane? If they didn't there could be some malfeasance here and the city could be liable for a share of the damages. I provide the field inspector a 3" ring binder with all applicable ES Reports, manufacturers' installation instructions, and special inspection reports.

 

[Wayne]

another deck failure

I'm a WR Grace approved inspector and I've inspected miles of it here at McCarran Airport. If you want Grace to warranty it you'll need it inspected by them or an approved third party and yes flood testing is required for horizontal surfaces although the detail doesn't look like the Grace approved one that I remember.

Grace System

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=V1mJVbbvF8eqNvuThOgM&url=https://grace.com/construction/en-us/Documents/BIT-450D-Deck%2520Sys.pdf&ved=0CB4QFjAB&usg=AFQjCNHn-VxnWDJTI1vIG38vCYhyN_EXRw&sig2=YEgQXUwoxi_VNC0LsAIChQ

.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Mtlogcabin challenged me on that and asked for a code section which I don't have. Well there might be a code section but I'm not going to look for it and nobody else stepped up or agreed with me.

I will start by using the IBC 2012 since that is the current and easiest to access

2304.11.5 Supporting member for permanent appurtenances.

Naturally durable or preservative-treated wood shall be utilized for those portions of wood members that form the structural supports of buildings, balconies, porches or similar permanent building appurtenances where such members are exposed to the weather without adequate protection from a roof, eave, overhang or other covering to prevent moisture or water accumulation on the surface or at joints between members.

So non pressure treated supporting members need protection from the elements

ROOF ASSEMBLY (For application to Chapter 15 only). A system designed to provide weather protection and resistance to design loads. The system consists of a roof covering and roof deck or a single component serving as both the roof covering and the roof deck. A roof assembly includes the roof deck, vapor retarder, substrate or thermal barrier, insulation, vapor retarder and roof covering.

LOADS. Forces or other actions that result from the weight of building materials, occupants and their possessions, environmental effects, differential movement and restrained dimensional changes. Permanent loads are those loads in which variations over time are rare or of small magnitude, such as dead loads. All other loads are variable loads (see also “Nominal loads”).

Yes the code can be applied to require a roof assembly to protect non-pressure treat wood balconies.

ICE

Sometimes in our gut we know we are correct and having to back it up with a code section seems ridiculous when it is so obvious to us the installation is wrong.

 

[conarb]

......shall be utilized for those portions of wood members that form the structural supports of buildings, balconies, porches or similar permanent building appurtenances where such members are exposed to the weather without adequate protection.......

Mountain Man:

I don't see your interpretation, those members were covered and not "exposed to the weather".

 

[ICE]

If they had not had the balconies there would still likely have been problems with waterproofing and flashing which would have lead to rot.When the code does not provide specific requirements all the inspector can do is require that the building be built in accordance with the approved construction documents. Neither the code, the building department, nor the inspector can solve all problems. The deaths are not acceptable but then we as a society accept many more deaths each year.

When an inspector requires something not required by the code he is acting illegally and the owner would be within his rights to tell him to pound sand. It is regrettable that this doe not happen more often but most owners find it more convenient to pay the extortion.

For some reason I thought that you were an architect but Shirley you must be an engineer.

You spout off about the big bad inspectors so often that you appear to have a vendetta. You don't understand the limits of what an inspector can do. You are even further in the dark with your pronouncements on what an inspector can't do.

We aren't playing Chinese checkers and here are the rules. We are engaged in the imperfect enterprise of construction. If I see something that my mind tells me is wrong, suspect, or just a little off I will ask questions. If I am not convinced at some point that it is not a problem, well then you have a problem.

I have said that I would require a listed assembly for a deck surface. You consider that to be extortion and would tell me to go pound sand. Well check it out, if that were your building it would have vacancies.

An inspector is the last person with veto power that sees construction before it is covered up and occupied. There's no room for you to get your nose out of joint because an inspector looked at your best effort and said, "Wait a minute, tell me about this....."

I have written this not for you Mark K. It is for all of the inspectors out there. Don't fall for the naysayers that want to put you in a box and slap your fingers every time you start to crawl out.

The way I see it, it comes with the job. Had I been the inspector on the Library Gardens apartments there would have been different notes in the file and the balcony would not have turned into a rotten scab.

Somewhere in all of this a lawyer said that the entire SF Bay Area has lousy inspections. Segue Construction has lost several lawsuits over crap construction. There were inspectors there too. What did they not do? Why didn't they stop this dead in it's tracks? Did they think, "It's right there on the approved plans, Bituthene" "Slap it down and stick it with a fork 'cause it's done".

When I looked at the installation instructions for Bituthene my first thought was, "Wow, they're gonna need drawings to go with this". And it's not the one that they have. Depending on who I was dealing with, I might have required a deputy inspector. Well you inspectors, ask yourself if you would do that. Could you do that?

Don't ask anyone but yourself. You really are out there all alone. There's nobody that will have your back. Get used to it.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Mountain Man:I don't see your interpretation, those members were covered and not "exposed to the weather".

Where they covered with a code compliant material and installed accordingly (ESR report) is the question. I believe an inspector could have asked for a "roof assembly" system for the balcony. This balcony did not have a system designed to provide weather protection or it was installed incorrectly. Is it a design flaw, Architects error or in installation incorrectly, Contractor error. That is how I would look at it as a member of the jury

 

[mark handler]

Early renderings show that the 5th story balcony wasn't part of the original plans and only one on the fourth floor, the fourth floor balcony indicates the balcony was meant to be functional, showing a large group of people standing on the deck. The 5th story balcony is the one that failed

Was it built as a canopy and altered during construction?

View attachment 1203

View attachment 1203

/monthly_2015_06/20150619_105635_IMG_0231.jpg.964494c39d9f0ca2e9c5f75bbee770d8.jpg

 

[Mark K]

mtlogcabin

Yes the code requires that the wood be protected but it does not say what material can be used, how it must be detailed, and how it can be installed. So what is the basis for the inspector to reject anything based only on the code unless there is nothing that could be claimed to provide the protection. The inspector could reject something that did not agree with the construction documents but if the construction documents were vague or incomplete the inspector cannot invent requirements to "fix" the problem.

Assuming that the drawings are perfect and the problem is only with the installation, which is not likely, what building department provides the continuous inspection that would be necessary to address all the field problems? It is easy in retrospect for an individual to say that he would have caught a problem but let us be real.

Yes there are problems but the building code does not address all the issues and the inspector is not in a position to prevent all problems. An inspector needs to know a lot of facts to do his job but there is no way that an inspector, or anyone, to be an expert with respect to all aspects of all of the systems that must be inspected.

 

[steveray]

Here is walls, I am sure I can find similar for floors.....

1403.2 Weather protection. Exterior walls shall provide the building with a weather-resistant exterior wall envelope. The exterior wall envelope shall include flashing, as described in Section 1405.4. The exterior wall envelope shall be designed and constructed in such a manner as to prevent the accumulation of water within the wall assembly by providing a water-resistive barrier behind the exterior veneer, as described in Section 1404.2, and a means for draining water that enters the assembly to the exterior. Protection against condensation in the exterior wall assembly shall be provided in accordance with Section 1405.3.

SECTION 1503 WEATHER PROTECTION

1503.1 General. Roof decks shall be covered with approved roof coverings secured to the building or structure in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Roof coverings shall be designed and installed in accordance with this code and the approved manufacturer's instructions such that the roof covering shall serve to protect the building or structure.

1503.2 Flashing. Flashing shall be installed in such a manner so as to prevent moisture entering the wall and roof through joints in copings, through moisture-permeable materials and at intersections with parapet walls and other penetrations through the roof plane

 

[mark handler]

The Exterior wall nor the wall envelope failed. The balcony is an appendage to the wall.

 

[conarb]

Where they covered with a code compliant material and installed accordingly (ESR report) is the question. I believe an inspector could have asked for a "roof assembly" system for the balcony. This balcony did not have a system designed to provide weather protection or it was installed incorrectly. Is it a design flaw, Architects error or in installation incorrectly, Contractor error. That is how I would look at it as a member of the jury

Mountain Man:

Were I the contractor on this job and saw that detail I would have issued a RFI to the architect copying the owner and lender stating that I have never used Bituthene as the waterproofing membrane under Gypcrete and questioned it's appropriateness. I would request the latest Bituthene ICBO Report as of the date the plans were stamped as received showing Bituthene with the cap nails (and flood test if that report included it). If the architect then supplied that ICBO Report I would have then issued another letter with an Informed Consent letter with a Hold Harmless and Indemnification Agreement attached requesting that all parties sign it. If they complied I would include the Hold Harmless and Indemnification along with the ICBO Report in my 3" ring binder and show the field inspector. As a matter of fact I have never had to go that far, when I issue the RFI the architect usually calls me wanting to know what I recommend, I would inform him that I preferred a 4 ply hot mopped membrane of better a copper pan and give an extra quote for each alternative, the architect would probably have approved the cheaper alternative, the hot mopped membrane, and signed my extra order. Of course I've been known to drive architects nuts with my RFIs and paperwork, they know I'm throwing the liability for their choices back at them, by the same token building inspectors like me because of all the paperwork I supply, I just tell them to stick in in their file, it's there to protect all of us.

All of this assumes the deck is leaking, from interviews with tenants who said the building was leaking through the walls and windows there is a strong possibility that the exterior finish system is leaking all over that building, if that's the case water could be coming down behind the flashing and into that deck area, or maybe both conditions are leaking, the real problem is giving preferential treatment to mixed use and affordable housing.

 

[ICE]

The inspector could reject something that did not agree with the construction documents but if the construction documents were vague or incomplete the inspector cannot invent requirements to "fix" the problem.

Think about that for a moment. If there are vague or incomplete documents, that's all we can ask for? If it is there on a piece of paper we can't question that?

 

[steveray]

The Exterior wall nor the wall envelope failed. The balcony is an appendage to the wall.

BUILDING. Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy.

The building weatherproof envelope failed. Or was improperly designed and/or installed....